Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), now formally a Union Territory since the reorganisation of the former state under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, has long occupied a place of intense emotional and strategic significance in India’s national imagination. Romanticised as the “crown jewel” of India, it has equally wrestled with the bloodied thorns of insurgency, separatism, and cross-border terrorism. Since the late 1980s, when organised militancy took root, the region has existed in a precarious balance — breathtaking Himalayan vistas serving as an ironic backdrop to brutal violence. This paradox challenges not only our national conscience but also the limits of our legal and administrative frameworks.
The recent trajectory of terror attacks from Pulwama to Reasi, culminating in the unspeakable massacre of Hindu tourists at Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam, in April 2025, sends a chilling and unmistakable signal: the theatre of violence is not static but evolving. Despite political, constitutional, and security interventions, terrorism has found new expressions, new targets, and tragically, new victims. This ongoing saga demands an urgent national introspection — not merely about the perpetrators and their sponsors, but about the resilience, or lack thereof, of our legal and administrative systems. More crucially, it demands action — immediate, real, and uncompromising — to ensure that J&K ceases to be the blood-stained canvas upon which terrorism paints its hatred.
Pulwama, Reasi, Pahalgam: Three Scenes of the Same Tragedy
A comparative analysis of three major attacks — Pulwama (2019), Reasi (2024), and Pahalgam (2025) — reveals that although the tactics and targets have varied, the ideological thrust and strategic objectives have remained alarmingly consistent. Each attack has left not just physical scars but profound psychological and ideological wounds.
Each of these atrocities symbolises more than a geographical tragedy; they mark the targeting of India’s civic and civilisational core. Pulwama attacked India’s armed institutions; Reasi targeted spiritual pilgrims, thereby attempting to disrupt the secular spirit of free movement and religious practice; Pahalgam’s assault on peaceful tourists attacked the very promise of normalcy and revival that Jammu and Kashmir strives to offer.
Terrorism in Kashmir has long transcended mere insurgency against security forces; it has mutated into an assault on religious freedom, cultural pride, economic stability, and democratic pluralism. It is no longer about “controlling territory” but about “controlling terror narratives” at both local and global levels.
The Legal Infrastructure: Is It Enough?
As a legal academic and constitutional observer, it becomes crucial to ask: Are our laws sufficiently strong? Or are they mere paper tigers in the face of evolving terror strategies?
The abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, undoubtedly altered the constitutional architecture of Jammu and Kashmir. It meant the full and unambiguous application of the Indian Constitution to the region, repealing its separate penal, procedural, and property codes. Over two hundred central laws were extended to J&K, elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions and District Development Councils (DDCs) were conducted, and efforts were made to usher in participatory governance. Contrary to alarmist predictions, there was no immediate descent into chaos post-2019. Law and order were, by and large, maintained. The political and constitutional reordering sought to mainstream J&K within the Union’s fabric. However, it also created new terror tactics wherein militants began targeting civilians — pilgrims, migrant workers, and tourists — to project continuing unrest.
Terrorism in Kashmir has long transcended mere insurgency against security forces; it has mutated into an assault on religious freedom, cultural pride, economic stability, and democratic pluralism
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), amended in 2019, became the primary legal weapon against terrorism. The amendments enabled authorities to designate not only organisations but also individuals as terrorists, empowered the state to seize properties linked to terror financing, and allowed preventive detention for up to 180 days. However, despite these robust provisions, the implementation leaves much to be desired. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, while the number of UAPA cases has risen, the conviction rate remains a dismal 18 percent, with an 89 percent pendency in trials. These statistics underline a critical flaw — laws, no matter how stringent, are ineffective without efficient investigation, diligent prosecution, and timely adjudication.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, created a central counter-terror agency with pan-India jurisdiction. After Pulwama, the role of the NIA expanded dramatically. However, the response often remains reactive. To pre-empt attacks, India must now consider establishing a dedicated Kashmir Counter-Terror Command Centre (KCTCC) — a fusion centre combining human intelligence, cyber-forensics, artificial intelligence surveillance, and real-time ground policing, much like Israel’s Shin Bet model.
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, which permits detention without trial for up to two years, has remained controversial. Post-2019, there have been discussions to expand similar preventive detention frameworks nationwide. Critics allege that the PSA has been misused against political dissidents. Yet, a balance must be struck: hardcore terrorists cynically exploit human rights arguments to delay justice. It is suggested that PSA detentions undergo mandatory judicial reviews every thirty days by special anti-terror tribunals to ensure both fairness and effectiveness.
From Policy to Praxis: Government Initiatives and Gaps
The Government of India adopted a “3D Doctrine” — Development, Demilitarisation, and De-radicalisation — after the constitutional changes in J&K. Each aspect deserves critical examination in the light of recent developments.
On the development front, the region has seen remarkable progress. Road networks have expanded; railway connectivity from Banihal to Baramulla is operational; Srinagar hosted G-20-related events, showcasing J&K on a global platform. Tourism, once in a slump, witnessed record footfalls. Yet the bloodbath at Pahalgam revealed a stark truth: infrastructure and economic development are necessary but not sufficient. Without foolproof security, progress remains vulnerable to a single act of terror.
Demilitarisation efforts have seen the Indian Army receding from internal policing, replaced by strengthened Village Defence Committees (VDCs) and the Jammu and Kashmir Police (JKP). While this civil policing model is ideal for democratic societies, recent attacks reveal that VDCs remain inadequately armed, trained, and coordinated. What is urgently needed is a new hybrid security structure that combines the grassroots reach of VDCs with the counterinsurgency expertise of units like the Rashtriya Rifles and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
The third pillar, de-radicalisation, is conspicuously underdeveloped. India lacks a formal, institutionalised de-radicalisation programme, unlike Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. Kashmiri youth, jobless and often exposed to online extremist propaganda, remain easy targets for radicalisation. To counter this, it is proposed that “Counter-Narrative Labs” be established in universities across J&K. These interdisciplinary hubs would see theologians, psychologists, legal scholars, and technology experts jointly crafting digital content that deconstructs jihadist ideologies using Islamic jurisprudence, constitutional values, and counterterror storytelling.
Additionally, given the prominent pilgrimage and tourist traffic to shrines like Amarnath and scenic locales like Pahalgam and Gulmarg, it is imperative to establish a dedicated Pilgrim and Tourist Safety Authority (PTSA), modelled along the lines of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF). This authority must be backed by a “Tourist Safety Bill, 2025,” mandating Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for pilgrim convoys, nature treks, and shrine visits. These SOPs must include emergency outposts, panic buttons, insurance-backed grievance redressal systems, and trained quick-response units.
Moving Beyond Rhetoric: A Realistic, Law-Driven Action Plan
Mere symbolism will not suffice; concrete steps are needed. A six-point plan is proposed:
First, establish a National Counter-Terror Law Commission, modelled after the Law Commission of India, mandated to conduct continuous audit of laws like UAPA, the NIA Act, and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), to plug loopholes, prevent misuse, and recommend modernisation.
Second, create a Kashmir-specific Witness Protection and Intelligence Reward Program to encourage local citizens to share actionable intelligence. Anonymity guarantees, financial incentives, and legal immunity must be ensured to build trust among civilians.
Third, expand Community Surveillance Units (CSUs), involving retired military personnel, local religious leaders, and former police officers, to monitor radicalisation trends at the mohalla (neighbourhood) level. This is community-driven proactive policing.
To counter this, it is proposed that “Counter-Narrative Labs” be established in universities across J&K. These interdisciplinary hubs would see theologians, psychologists, legal scholars, and technology experts jointly crafting digital content that deconstructs jihadist ideologies using Islamic jurisprudence, constitutional values, and counterterror storytelling
Fourth, mandate terror preparedness drills in tourism hubs. Every hotel, shrine, and tourist site must have quarterly hostage situation and evacuation drills, similar to fire drills, with strict compliance norms.
Fifth, establish dedicated Public Prosecutor Cadres trained specifically in international and national counterterrorism law, recruited from top law schools and trained to bridge the gap between academic rigour and ground-level judicial practice.
Sixth, revise and sharpen India’s diplomatic stance towards Pakistan. Beyond downgrading diplomatic ties, New Delhi must robustly use international forums like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to isolate Pakistan diplomatically whenever terror proxies like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) strike.
International Law and India’s Moral Offensive
Terrorism is no longer merely a national security issue; it constitutes a crime against humanity under international law. India must now more aggressively invoke instruments like United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1373 and 2178, which mandate member states to combat terror financing, prevent radicalisation, and secure borders against cross-border terrorism.
Furthermore, India should explore legal remedies at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by invoking bilateral treaties breached by Pakistan and through conventions like the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. India’s Kulbhushan Jadhav case victory at the ICJ illustrates India’s capacity to use international law effectively. It is also time to leverage customary international law principles under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter to mount an offensive against Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of terror.
The Road Ahead: Can Law Outrun Hate?
There are no illusions here: terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir will not vanish overnight. Yet history offers a crucial lesson — determined nations, when armed with resilient legal architectures, community engagement, international alliances, and unwavering political will, can dismantle even the most entrenched terror networks.
The Pahalgam massacre must not become another grim footnote in the blood-soaked annals of Kashmir’s history. It must be a turning point — the moment when law, justice, community, and the international order converged to say, “Enough.” Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, lived, and internalised.
Only then will the dream of a peaceful, thriving Jammu and Kashmir — the true “crown jewel” of India — finally be realised.
The writer holds a PhD in Law and currently serves as an Assistant Professor (Grade II) at Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
