Kashmir- Article 370

What was Article 370?

Article 370 in Part XXI of the Indian constitution grants a 

special status to Jammu and Kashmir. It is the only Indian 

state which has its own separate state constitution. Article 

370 came into force since November 17, 

1952.  To understand what is meant by the “special status” 

here 

are the key provisions of the Article 370:

1. Jammu & Kashmir; is an integral part of the Indian Union. But its area, name

and boundary can’t be altered without the consent of the state assembly.

2. According to this article, the central government has to get approval from the state government to implement all other laws except defence, foreign affairs and communication in the state.

3. Jammu and Kashmir has its own constitution because of article 370 and its administration is run accordingly not according to the Constitution of India.

4. J & K has 2 flags; One of Kashmir and another is India's Tricolour flag.

5. The citizens of other Indian states cannot buy any property or kind of any property in this state. It means, the fundamental right to property is still in force in this state.

6. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have two types of citizenship. One is Indian citizenship and another is Kashmiri citizenship. Worth to mention that no other Indian can have two citizenships simultaneously.

7. If a Kashmiri woman marries an Indian, then her Kashmiri citizenship terminates, but if she marries a Pakistani, it does not affect her citizenship status.

8. If a Pakistani boy marries a Kashmiri girl, he gets Indian citizenship too while

Indians don’t have this privilege.

9. Part 4 of the Indian Constitution (Directive Principal of State Policy) and Part 4A (Fundamental Duties) are not applicable in this State.

It means the citizens of Kashmir are not bound to save the cow, maintain the dignity of the women and respect the National Flag of India.

10. One of the most shocking right is that Insulting National Symbols of India (National Anthem, National Flag etc.) in J & K does not fall under the category of crime.

11. The President of India does not have power to declare financial emergency in the state.

12. Any amendment in the Constitution of India does not apply automatically to J & K unless a special order of President is not passed.

13. The Central government can impose National Emergency in the state in two conditions only; war and external invasion.

14. The President has no power to suspend the constitution of the state on the ground of failure to comply with the directions given by him.

15. If the national emergency is imposed in the country on the basis of internal disturbance; this emergency is not applicable in the Jammu and Kashmir until it is approved by the state government.

16. The Central Government cannot impose National Emergency in the state on the basis of internal disturbance in the state. The central government must take the permission of state government before doing so.

17. Only the resident of the Kashmir can take selection in the jobs of the state government.

Why did such an article come to existence?

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) also got Independence from the British rule. But then king of Jammu and Kashmir Raja Hari Singh, a Hindu ruler of a Muslim majority state, decided not to join the Indian union and wanted to keep his principality as independent state.

Kashmir was invaded by the Pakistan-backed Azad Kashmir Army on October 20, 1947 and confiscated a part of Kashmir region which is now known

as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).

In this situation, Maharaja Hari Singh, signed the "Instruments of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India" with then PM of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on October 26, 1947.

Under this agreement the state surrendered three subjects (defence, communication and external affairs) to the dominion of India.

The Article 306A was enshrined as Article 370 in the constitution as a “temporary provision”. Sheikh Abdullah did not want that temporary provision and insisted for guarantee of autonomy but India did not accept that.

What is article 35A?

In 1952 "Delhi Agreement" was signed between the then Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah and the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru. The agreement extended Indian citizenship to the 'State subjects' of Jammu and Kashmir. After the Delhi agitation of 1952, the

famous ’Article 35A' was added to the Constitution in 1954. The constitution of

Jammu and Kashmir was adopted on 17 November, 1956. According to this constitution, Permanent Resident (PR) of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a person who has a state subject on 14 May, 1954 or who has been a resident of the state for 10 years and has lawfully acquired immovable property in the state.

Article 35A of the constitution provide Jammu and Kashmir Legislature a carte blanche to decide who all are 'permanent residents' of the State and confer on them special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the State, scholarships and other public aid and welfare. It is mandatory according to the provision that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any law of the land.

The main provisions in Article 35A are:

1.   A person who is not a Permanent Resident of Jammu and Kashmir can't own property there.

2.   Resident of any other state of India cannot become a Permanent Resident of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore cannot cast vote there.

3.   It forbids Indian citizens from acquiring immovable properties and can't seek employment in the state.

4.   If a girl of Jammu and Kashmir marries to a person who does not hold a permanent resident certificate of J&K, then she would lose her property right and their children also become ineligible to claim the property of their mother.

Why is there a need scrap them?

In the backdrop of the Pulwama Attack, once again the justified rage of the public turns to the “special” status on the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Before proceeding to the crux of why this timid stop-gap has been deleterious for the country, it must be pointed out that radicalisation of Kashmiris is a disparate

issue, best dealt with through the Vajpayee doctrine of “Insaniyat”, combined

with no countenance of separatists.

However, the provision empowering the State with ‘special’ status has always been the elephant in the room. Jammu & Kashmir has, along with its sensitive topography, appears like a foreign policy issue, instead of a domestic one due to its status in our Constitution. There exists an unnecessary chasm between citizens of Kashmir and the rest of India. It borders on being trite, but nonetheless, sadly, must be reiterated – Article 370 and Article 35-A must go.

Article 370 details the relationship Kashmir will share with the rest of the country; Article 35-A grants permanent residents of Kashmir some special rights. From the get-go, the Constitutional relationship of India with this state has been adversely lopsided. India has already ensured the states with the Mizos and the Naga population with constitutional safeguards (special provisions) such as protecting their social practices India has an assortment of examples where it has performed positive discrimination for groups (Articles 15 and 16) and as mentioned – states.

The problem, to put it succinctly, is that with Kashmir the positive discrimination has tended to be insidious. Instead of taking a legislative route, Article 35-A was passed through a Presidential order. It subverted the law- making powers of the legislature, granted by the Constitution. They cannot amend the Constitution. Even an ordinance, which this was most decidedly not, has to be passed by Parliament. The order, passed in 1954 by the President, was due to fulfilling Article 370 (1) (d). Article 370 itself was supposed to be temporary; the first word of the Article is temporary. It still sits under Part XXI which is titled “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions “.

The state of J&K itself has done phenomenally well on its indicators as an Indian state should. It has grown by almost 7% last year, ensured a greater number of schools per household and even health and connectivity outcomes have outperformed expectations. A big reason is that it is also heavily subsidized by the Centre. A study showed that it has received, from 2000-2016, 10% of all Central funds despite having 1% of the population. It is an economic powerhouse waiting to be unleashed. Article 370, very obviously, however, is still an impediment in restricting private or global investment into the state.

If Indians (non-Kashmiris) cannot invest in land or property, how can manufacturing firms or multinational corporations? These might have provided jobs to the young people of Kashmir. It also stops public colleges such as medical colleges from adequately fulfilling vacancies. Professors cannot be hired from outside the state except in extremely low quotas. These and many more ensure that unemployment increases, which make the advent of radicalization, more viable. Hence, Article 370, the pernicious basis of Article 35-A must go.

Article 370 itself is gender neutral, but the way permanent residents are defined in the state constitution based on the notifications issued in April 1927 and June 1932 during the Maharaja’s rule — seems biased against women. The 1927 notification included an explanatory note which said: “The wife or a

widow of the state subject … shall acquire the status of her husband as state

subject of the same class as her husband, so long as she resides in the state and does not leave the state for permanent residence outside the state.” This was widely interpreted as also suggesting that a woman from the state who marries outside the state would lose her status as a state subject.

The only way to repeal Article 370 would be by the President through a notification but not without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. The Constituent Assembly, of course, disbanded in 1956 and almost all members are presumably dead. Before dissolution, the Constituent Assembly neither recommended abolishing Article 370 neither, did they advocate for it to be permanent. As for Article 370, 45 Presidential Orders have been used to extend components of India’s Constitution into J&K. Almost all Union List subjects are applicable, most of the Concurrent List ones, a handful of Schedules and 260 of 395 Articles. Article 370, via orders, has been modified so many times, it can be expelled from the Constitution as well without taking ‘concurrence’ of the now-defunct Constituent Assembly. The Constitution has been recognised as a living document, after all.

Valmikis (Dalits) were brought to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 1957 by the State Government. From that time, the present and future generations are compelled to become sweeper and that too only in the Municipality of Jammu. Valmikis are not given the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) and they are eligible only for the post of 'sweeper'. This leaves them with only one option that is to take the broom and clear the dirty streets of Jammu. The youth of this community in J&K may be qualified to become teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers yet they are eligible for the post of sweeper only. There are West Pakistan Refugees and Gorkhas, and the PRC is not conferred on them, as a result, they are not entitled to property rights; employment in state government; participation in Panchayat, municipalities and legislative assembly elections; admission to government-run technical education institutions; scholarships and other social benefits, voting rights, right to join central services. Women in J&K cannot choose her life partner outside the state. All of this is happening due to the implementation of Article 35A in the state of J&K. This article is unconstitutional, discriminatory and biased.

Removal of article 370 – the importance

As the matter of point, Article 370 should be removed from Constitution of India, as Jammu and Kashmir is also a part of our country. It also has many other cons as, because of Article 370, there are very less industries, which is directly related to employment. This means that because of this provision, people have to migrate to other states in search of jobs. Also, it has become a

terrorist prone region because of this Article. Due to Article 370, RTE, RTI, CAG and many Indian laws aren’t applicable in Kashmir which has a situation of corruption.

Some more reasons as to why the Article should be removed are:

1. The state, upon removal, will prosper economically and socially.

2. Social amalgamation will reduce the threat of militancy.

3. Kashmir could be one of the top tourist destinations after complete development.

4. It will also prove to be good diplomacy to deal with Pakistan over territorial disputes.

5. It will politically give chance to all parties to rule the state and allow its development.

There could be many other minor or major advantages of abolishing Article 370 and give full course to J&K to prosper.

What were the changes made in article 370?

Article 370 has not been removed from the constitution of India, which is becoming the general perception of people. Article 370 had 3 sub-sections:

Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(b)  the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to-
(i)  those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii)  such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d)  such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph

(i)  of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2)  If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3)  Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

After the abrogation of this article only its first section now exists.

How was article 370 abrogated?

Article 370(3) gives the President the power to modify or 

remove this article but only on the recommendation of the 

Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir. On 

November 17 1956 the constituent assembly of Jammu & 

Kashmir adopted and ratified Mir Qasim’s resolution to 

dissolve itself. According to that resolution the constituent 

assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist on 

January 26 1957. As the Constituent Assembly of J & K 

didn’t exist anymore, the President couldn’t exercise this power.

But the BJP led government brought a change in it 

through a constitutional order. 

Which meant that the instead of the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation

now the president required the permission of the Legislative Assembly.

As Jammu & Kashmir was already under Presidential 

Rule under Article 356 which also says that power of the 

Legislative Assembly transfers to Parliament. And 

therefore the current government was able to bring the 

current changes in Article 370.

Security Situation prior to the 370 fiasco

The security situation in the State witnessed an improvement in the first half of this year over the corresponding period of 2018. Net infiltration reduced by 43% and local recruitment declined by 40%. Terrorist initiated incidents declined by 28%. Actions initiated by the security forces witnessed an increase of 59% and resulted in 22% increase in neutralization of terrorists.

The security forces started to take proactive action against terrorists. Due to concerted and synergized efforts of security forces, 126 terrorists were neutralized in the state of Jammu and Kashmir since January, 2019 till 14th July, 2019. However, during these operations, 75 security forces personnel have been martyred that includes 40 security forces personnel martyred in Pulwama Attack.

Government took various measures, such as strengthening of security apparatus, strict enforcement of law against anti-national elements, intensified cordon and search operations to effectively deal with the challenges posed by the terrorist organizations. Forces keep a close watch on persons who attempt to provide support to terrorists and initiate action against them.

In preparation for this move, the state witnessed increased security deployment over the course of time while top political leaders were placed under house arrest that night and curfew was imposed on subsequent morning. Modi government's decision will have a big impact on the lives of Kashmir residents.

In order to bring about overall development for the benefit of people of Jammu and Kashmir and to bring the Kashmiri youth in the mainstream the Prime Minister announced a package of Rs. 80,068 crores. This package consisted of 63 major development projects in Road sector, Power generation and transmission, health infrastructure, establishment of 2 AIIMS, IITs,

IIMs and tourism related projects etc. Training and employment opportunities for the youth of Jammu and Kashmir are also provided under many schemes such as HIMAYAT and PMKVY. In order to mainstream the youth, special emphasis is being given to Watan Ko Jano program, student exchange program, sports as well as civic action program of CAPFs.

Internal Security

Prime Minister Modi’s recent decision to scrap Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status, has stirred controversy across the political spectrum. While supporters of the initiative emphasise that the move fulfils a campaign promise of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which was returned for a second term with an increased vote share of six per cent, critics see it as the prelude to a shift to majoritarianism. On

the external front, the move is being commended for taking advantage of Pakistan’s focus on its western flank and the end game in Afghanistan, and for changing the issue of Kashmir from being a dispute with Pakistan to an internal matter. To critics, however, the reduction of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to the status of a union territory – truncated by the slicing off of Ladakh – does not end the issue of Kashmir being the source of an international dispute and that it is only a matter of time before Pakistan makes its presence felt, possibly through renewed conflict, either directly or through proxies.

Pakistan which has underplayed the changes effected by India, will, over time, reactivate the proxy war and upset India’s calculation that its move will end the problem of Kashmir. Since this is a somewhat obvious conclusion, the sources of India’s action are not to be found in strategic calculus as much as in the current administration’s ideological underpinnings. The BJP’s strategy, informed as it is by Hindutva ideology, is not about restoring stability to

Kashmir as it claims, but to heighten the instability inherent in the situation, thereby inducing Pakistan into a proxy war. If that were to happen, it could pay an internal political dividend by allowing the BJP to reshape secular India into its aspirational Hindutva-based form and, externally, place Pakistan in a corner, forcing it, once again, to prosecute a war.

A Situational Update

Kashmir is in lockdown at this time, with around fifty thousand additional paramilitary troops deployed to the union territory to prevent unrest.

Communication networks have been disabled in order to mute anticipated adverse reactions of Kashmiris. The centrally-appointed authorities, in office since central rule began over a year ago, have correctly assessed that some Kashmiris are liable to revolt after being deprived of the limited autonomy they enjoyed until now. This is particularly the case as they were neither consulted on nor endorsed the political re-engineering

of their relationship with the rest of India. Sensibly, the authorities have taken around five hundred mainstream political leaders and separatists into preventive custody, including three former chief ministers, who are being held incommunicado and without charge.

that resulted in a further clamp-down during the Eid festival, with the traditional prayers at the historic Jamia Mosque in Srinagar being disallowed in favour of prayers at smaller, local mosques. While information is scarce, there are reports of dozens of people being injured by pellet guns fired to put down incidents after prayers on both days.

The state has had a public run-in with international media, initially disputing its reporting on such incidents, but admitting later to one that involved around two thousand protestors at Soura, Srinagar. In a video of the incident, automatic gunfire can be heard in the background, indicating ham-handed, if not high-handed, crowd control measures being enacted. The government correctly anticipated the delicate situation would last until the end of the week, with the independence days of Pakistan, which Islamabad is observing as one of solidarity with Kashmiris, and India being observed on 14 and 15 August, respectively.

The India-Pak strategic tryst

Pakistan has initiated diplomatic moves to counter India’s actions. It has written to the UN Secretary- General and drawn the attention of the Security Council to the events in Kashmir. It has downgraded its diplomatic ties to India, reduced bilateral trade and terminated train and bus services between the two countries. However, stowing away it’s tried and tested proxy war option now would be untimely.

Its Foreign Minister, returning from his trip to China, visited Pakistan- administered Kashmir, where he dampened expectations of any more vigorous Pakistani action, thereby hinting that the international environment was averse to harsher steps by Pakistan. Since Pakistan is compelled to be restrained in its reaction, it needs to divert the energy of anti-India proxy groups towards Kashmir. Pakistan cannot risk inaction, since the anger of the jihadi proxies, who are otherwise good terrorists, being anti-India, would likely be turned inwards. Pakistan would not like to reprise its operations against the “bad terrorists” since 2014. It would prefer to direct such energy outwards.

While Indian troops are on the alert for now, how this situation will play out will be known by the onset of the Northern winter.

Since the insurgency has been waning lately owing to India’s suppressive template, Pakistan would have to infuse it with both fighters and materiel soon if it is to be kept going. That may entail the creation of a crisis along the LoC,

under cover of which Pakistan could infiltrate reinforcements. That manner of infiltration will likely prove expensive, if not altogether disastrous, since Indian counter-infiltration measures have been strengthened. The paramilitary forces that have been re-located to Kashmir have likely removed the protective tasks that were imposed on the Indian military, enabling its own redeployment forward. Therefore, an attempt to cast a lifeline to the insurgency may be in the offing.

Such a crisis could likely be created after the annual face-off between the two countries at the UN General Assembly meeting, that this year is being

addressed by India’s Prime Minister. By then the financial action task force meeting would be behind it. Pakistan would also by then have the alibi of having tried the diplomatic route and found it wanting. In case the prospects of a return to peace in Afghanistan brighten, some of the jihadists released in anticipation of the return to peace could be redirected towards the worsening situation in Kashmir.

India’s Internal Security Challenge in Kashmir

The intervening period could well see outbreaks of unrest in Kashmir rival the period at the onset of the insurgency in the early 1990s. Such levels of disaffection were witnessed most recently in late 2016, when close to 100 rioters were killed. That figure was just short of the lower estimate reached in 2010, when Kashmiris agitated over the killings of three of their people by security forces at Machhil on the LoC. This time round the angst may be higher. The firmer the clamp-down by the state, the more anger would likely be visible on the street. The current curfews will have to be partially lifted some day and those held in preventive detention will have to be progressively released, whereupon it would be clearer as to whether India has bargained sensibly.

India has incentivised stability by promising a reversion to statehood in the future. The levels of distrust its action has generated will unlikely be placated by its promises of development and security. Although the Modi Administration was expected to trifurcate the state if it did anything at all in that regard, Kashmir has been yoked yet again with Jammu region, but without the autonomy it previously enjoyed. This has enabled the government to use the Jammu region and its Hindu majority to offset the political clout of the majority Kashmiris. The government is also looking to progress a delimitation of constituencies in order to rejig the assembly of the union territory in such a

manner as to whittle the political power of the Kashmiris that derives from their numerical majority.

Anticipating the political fallout brought about by the setback to their political clout, Kashmiris are unlikely to acquiesce to New Delhi’s moves and would use agitation and insurgency against it. India would be hard put to organise elections, as announced by the Prime Minister. The resulting assembly would be dominated by Hindus from Jammu, with Kashmiris likely boycotting the vote. It is difficult to visualise how such an outcome could be described as a

‘political solution’. In other words, the ‘permanent solution’ – as the Defence Minister described it – foisted by the Indian Government on the Kashmiri people will hardly gain traction, and any new local government would lack legitimacy. The assumption that, as a union territory, better governance could replace the will of the people is questionable.

Even so, the attractiveness of the move would depend on development being successful. An investor summit has been announced for October. India’s largest corporate house has stepped up, offering to invest in Kashmir. An increase in investment in Kashmir is envisaged now that the land ownership, previously restricted to state subjects, has been thrown open. This is yet again wishful thinking, since no investment is likely in an insecure setting. Besides, India’s economic climate is deteriorating. The unrest and insurgency would need to be tackled first. Absent meaningful political action, development is no substitute. What has transpired so far in Kashmir cannot constitute a political solution since it serves more to aggravate than assuage.

Conclusion and Way Forward

It’s not that the Kashmir issue is the only internal security concern of India. In the past, India has successfully neutralised the Khalistan movement and has also contained the Maoist rebellion to few regions.

These successes give us valuable insight into how internal security should be approached. An analysis of these movements reveals the state police plays a major leadership role in tackling such problems.

The Khalistan movement was crushed by the state police by neutralising armed separatists in the inner cordons during operations under the leadership of KPS Gill, the then deputy general of police, Punjab, while the Army and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) operated in the outer cordon.

The Andhra-Odisha border area is one of India’s worst-hit areas as far as

Maoism is concerned. But last five years’ data from the most-affected districts of this region show that Naxalism is at its lowest ebb.

There were 16 civilian killings in Malkangiri district of Odisha in 2015 that came down to six in 2018 and three in 2019 till June 30. Similarly, the number of police personnel killed in 2015 in Malkangiri was three which is reduced to zero in 2018. There have been zero fatalities this year till now.

In Vishakhapatnam, civilian killings in 2010 was 11 which reduced to two in 2018 and one in 2019 till June 30. In Odisha’s Koraput district, civilian killings have been reduced from nine in 2014 to zero in 2018. No such deaths have been registered this year, till now.

Simultaneously, in the last five years, 44 Maoists were neutralised in Malkangiri and 14 in Koraput. The above figures clearly show that the movement has been hit hard in its hotbed. These details also reveal how state police forces like Greyhounds of Andhra Pradesh and Special Operations Group (SOG) of Odisha have been successful in countering the Maoist menace, while Punjab police could do the same against the Khalistan movement.

An analysis of data of the last 10 years in the Andhra-Odisha border shows that 99% of successful encounters and arrests of Maoists have been done by the specialised units of state police forces like Grey Hounds, SOG or District Voluntary Force.

Central Paramilitary Forces conduct mostly area domination exercise and ground-holding activities. The same is true for Punjab where Khalistan Separatist movement was curbed mostly by Punjab Police, while the CAPF or Army operated in the outer cordon.

The second-best reason for success in curbing the Red rebellion in the area is the strategy adopted by the Andhra Pradesh and Odisha governments of putting young IPS officers in the frontline of combat. Most of them were appointed as officers on special duties and superintendents of police in the Maoist-affected areas.

The Jammu and Kashmir Police is one of the most professional combative police forces in the country that operates mostly in the inner cordon during anti- terrorism operations and most of the success stories of eliminating terrorists in the Valley may be attributable to their intelligence and valour. Now, with the repeal of Article 370 and creation of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the subject of police and public order falls exclusively within the domain of the Centre and this provides the Modi government with an opportunity to set up an administrative structure that gives prominent role

to the state police in tackling internal security/terrorism issues of the region which may be like this.

(i)           State police should play prominent role in managing the situation.

(ii)          Co-ordination among various security forces in the region should be done by the state police.

(iii)        It should be the lead agency in intelligence sharing.

(iv)        Further strengthening and modernising of Jammu and Kashmir Police.

(v)         Creation or upgrade of specialised trained units within Jammu and Kashmir Police on the lines of Greyhounds and SOG, though the former has its own SOG unit. These elite units would be better placed to deal tactically with terrorism.

(vi)        CAPF may be initially put in area domination and in support system to frontline state police forces so that specialised teams can sustain the operations for a longer period.

(vii)      In the long run, after their academy training, young IPS officers may be deputed in the frontline team of CAPF for two-three years as assistant commandants or deputy commandants and lead the operations. The success of state police forces in combat activities in Maoist areas are mainly attributable to the age profile of the state police personnel and young IPS officers of district police or specialised state forces.

(viii)     Capacity building of the state police personnel in social media monitoring via which young minds are radicalised and attracted towards ideology of terrorism. Every district should have a well-equipped and active social media cell under the supervision of District Superintendents of Police.

(ix)        State police should play pro-active role in educating people on the role played by the Union of India in combating terrorism and bring in good governance to the region. Further, the youth should be made aware of the atrocities committed by terrorists in the region and their modus operandi.

(x)         On the border front, the Army needs to enhance its dependence on technology-based solutions, finding the hotspots and working on them, fixing the pores wherever they are and work on innovative intelligence strategies like social media monitoring, wide CCTV coverage and penetration into their cadres.