Pixels of an Emerging Picture: Understanding Operation Sindoor (Part – 3)

 

A Dissection

 

The terrorist incident and India’s response, in time, will become statistics, like the previous ones. However, the objectives of the operation and the modus operandi adopted will become the subject of intense scrutiny by the militaries of the world. When two militaries come face to face, the optics of the hardware array and application strategy can be captivating. The social media, print and visual media are sizzling with conspiracy theories, propaganda in favour of one and against the other, depending on who is initiating it. But beyond the brute force, chest thumping, media carnage and the fleeting exuberance of public euphoria fanned by politicians, exists the reality of strategic victory. It is worthwhile to analyse the entire event to understand the long-term impact it has on each country.  

Pakistan's army has led Pakistan to comprehensive defeats against India in all the confrontations between the two countries. No country, however irrational, initiates an adverse action against another without political reasons. Therefore, it is logical to believe that the Pakistan army must have drawn up some objectives while strategising the attack. What could those have been? How successful were they in achieving them? While time will tell us the truth, we can make some intelligent assumptions, with as much objectivity as possible.

Pak Objectives and Evaluation of Success

Win or Lose – Regain Relevance.

Pakistan was created using the Two-Nation theory, which identifies, differentiates, and discriminates against human beings based on religion. General Asim Munir’s speech leaves no room for doubt about the deep divide that Pakistan holds about other religions. It is well established that anti-India sentiments not only unite Pakistanis but also help drive the country. The Pakistan army runs that country. However, if the recent developments within the country were any indication, the stock of Pakistan’s armed forces had plummeted. They needed something worthwhile to shore up their image. Clear prospects of a military defeat notwithstanding, there is nothing better than a direct military confrontation with India to come out as Pakistan’s saviour once again.

Victory and defeat in battle can be debated. Despite the irrefutable military losses suffered by them this time again, Pakistan's social media peddles the myth that Pakistan has decimated India. The domestic audience seems to believe that their army saved them from India. Believe or dispute anything you want to, but there can be no disputing the fact that the Pak Army has once again succeeded in positioning itself as the saviours of Pakistan. Pakistan Army has regained relevance despite an irrefutable military loss. Immediate objective achieved!

Resumption of Dialogue with India.

When two countries go into conflict, only a dialogue between the two can conclude or halt the conflict. Since 2016, India has refused Pakistan an opportunity for any formal dialogue. Whether bilaterally agreed or through a third-party mediation, India agreeing to a talk between two government functionaries, this time the respective DGMOs, has essentially obtained for Pakistan what India had been denying it all this while. The outcome of the discussion might be anything, but Pakistan has wrested from India what India had been steadfastly denying Pakistan.

Immediate objective achieved! 

Indo-Pak Hyphenation.

It was common practice for the world at large to hyphenate Pakistan with India. However, growing economic disparity, vastly different internal security situations, ease of doing business, and safety of foreign investments have, over the years, reduced the instances of the Western world hyphenating the two adversaries. With Ms Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, explicitly articulating the de-hyphenation policy in 2005, and an aggressive strategy followed by the BJP Government since 2014, India had achieved a great degree of de-hyphenation. However, with this one terrorist attack, Pakistan has succeeded in slowing the process and, to an extent, re-hyphenating the two adversaries despite India’s overwhelming response.

Short-term objective achieved! 

Kashmir to Fore again.

Pakistan had been attempting to internationalise the Kashmir issue in every possible forum and whenever possible. India had been successful in thwarting their attempts almost every time. However, the armed conflict and the likelihood of a military flare-up between two nuclear neighbours have brought Kashmir to the fore again, raising a new challenge to Indian Diplomacy.

Immediate objective achieved! 

Deepen Religious Divide in India. 

India has been going through some amount of inter-religious turmoil.  The selective targeting of Hindu males immediately sent a deeply disturbing and provocative message across the country. It could easily have spiralled out of control, deepening the divide and sowing the seeds of civil unrest. While there were some untoward incidents of targeted attack against the minority community, the country, by and large, remained peaceful and united.  The local population of Kashmir displayed a brilliant example of National Unity, coming out in large numbers against the terrorists.

The objective was not achieved.

Spinoffs 

Terrorism as an Instrument of Foreign Policy.

The terrorist attack and the funeral of known terrorists attended by senior civil and military functionaries have once again confirmed that Pakistan considers terrorists an extension of its military and pursues terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. Not only has the attack confirmed the efficacy of its strategy, it succeeded in garnering the requisite traction in its favour. As the cradle and fountainhead of terrorism, the attack in Pahalgam also serves as a message to the other countries in the world about Pakistan’s capability to wage this mode of warfare anywhere. Distances may be a source of comfort for many, but it does serve one well to remember that plague spreads. 

Reaffirmation of International Support.

China and Turkey came out in open support of Pakistan; so did Bangladesh. India received support from some, but couched in diplomatic semantics and nuances. It is impossible that Pakistan planned this operation without the intelligence services of the developed countries getting wind of it. While no accusations are being made against any agencies for having given tacit support or approval to the Pakistani plan, the failure of those intelligence agencies to alert Indian Agencies, which anyway did not get even a whiff of it, does not augur well for India. 

Milking Geographical Advantage

Pakistan has its borders with Iran, Afghanistan, and China, making it a springboard for those with close ties with it. Despite its double game and terrible ways, Pakistan is still sought after by the Western world and China because of its strategic location. They all need Pakistan’s real estate for their strategic purpose. Therefore, the world does not want to see a failed state descending into disintegration. That is one reason, no major Western power openly came in support of India. 

Indian Objectives

The Indian response to the terrorist attack, prima facie, had one political objective: “message Pakistan and all the terrorist organisations within Pakistan and POJK, that India will not hesitate to reach any place in Pakistan to get them.” The military aims, therefore, were in pursuance of this political diktat. This message has amply been driven home unambiguously to Pakistan and to the whole world.

Objective achieved.

Spinoffs

Redefining the response threshold. Now on, India does not differentiate between acts of terrorism and military action against it. It has bracketed nonstate actors, state, and terror proponents, all into one. The threshold for retaliation has been redefined, at least for now. We also demonstrated our willingness to use our military across the IB and LoC and accept the risks involved.

Unity in diversity. With the country facing adversity, all political parties buried their differences and supported the ruling party. Unity is possible even against odds.

Make-in India Competency. The response gave India the room to war-test its homegrown armoury and technology, and prove the efficacy of its AD shield. It proved to the world that the Indian arsenal is world-class. Considering the accuracy and extent of damage inflicted on targets by the Indian missiles, it is reliably learned that many countries are seeking to purchase ‘Made in India” weapons, especially missiles.

Digital shaping the battlefield. The conflict had a huge segment of digital warfare that both sides used to shape the battlefield in their own favour. Over the 48 hours since 7 May, India had gradually gained dominance and held sway over the adversary.

Joint Manship. The three services gave an exemplary demonstration of jointness through the seamless interoperability of various platforms. Planners can now sit to refine them.

Nuclear bluff. Exposing the Nuclear bluff, Operation Sindoor created a space to conventionally tackle a nuclear Pakistan and yet keep it under the nuclear threshold. It will be irrational to expect Pakistan to adhere to reason. One can never rule out a desperate Pakistan resorting to a nuclear launch. The planners will do well to strategise how that threat can be managed.

AD Resources. In the 48 hours of military engagement, India successfully laid to waste most of the launching pads and the air defence resources of Pakistan. Though all that will be repaired and made usable, it will cost Pakistan a lot. It will also force Pakistan to commit more resources to them. One school of thought says that India had destroyed Pakistan’s war-waging capability.

Forcing the enemy to move troops. With troops being diverted to the Indian front, the western part of Pakistan became more vulnerable.  This indirectly helped the Baloch freedom fighters to exploit the gaps in Pakistani defences. This has helped India militarily. 

Days Ahead 

One of the most repeatedly asked questions is, “Will the ceasefire hold? How long will it last?”

It is one of the easiest sets of questions to answer. History will repeat itself, and Pakistan cannot help but violate our borders. The only question left to answer is, when would that be? The objectives that they had in mind when they started the terrorist attack remain relevant and current. It will force Pakistan to strike again.

In the meantime, it will do well for India to publicly define which terrorist activity would be considered an act of war. It would also serve the country well if the required responses were well defined, tasked, and resources kept ready for instant retribution. This becomes very important because we have already progressively ratcheted up our responses.

Now, if Pakistan does something, they would have already prepared themselves for the Indian responses. Our retribution will have to be few screws tighter and yet keep the region safe.

The situation that has evolved from the combat situation presents a fresh set of challenges to the strategists. But isn’t it easier to follow the time-tested saying, “prevention is better than cure?” The sudden call to action must have also thrown up many challenges. Planners must have taken note of it, too. Without getting blown away by the euphoria of success, it may serve India well if all the lessons are faithfully and truthfully recorded, studied and remedials determined.

Operation Sindoor has not officially been concluded.

Pixels of an Emerging Picture: Understanding Operation Sindoor (Part – 2)

 

Anatomy Of The Act And Its Retribution

 

The Pahalgam Carnage and Its Retribution

Only on 15 April 2025, General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Army Chief, speaking at the first annual convention of Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad, reminded the audience of the two-nation theory that brought Pakistan on the map of the world and the unbridgeable gap between Muslims and Hindus.  In his speech, filled predominantly with anti-India rhetoric, he called Kashmir the jugular vein of Pakistan. Whether Munir’s remarks triggered the incident or it was the go-ahead signal for a preplanned carnage will remain debatable, but it was a sign of something sinister cooking. In just seven days, it became visible.  

On 22 April 2025, four terrorists appeared from the shadows, in Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in J&K, approached unarmed tourists enjoying the time of their lives, asked them to recite the Kalma, the Islamic declaration of faith, and shot point blank those men who could not, and told the shocked ladies accompanying them to tell the authorities what happened. The terrorists vanished into the shadows after taking the lives of 26 innocent Indian men, 25 of them non-Muslims. The lone Muslim, a local, who resisted them was killed. 

Shocked beyond words, and emotions flaring, Indians called for retribution. The Government of India, having delivered what was considered an “appropriate military response” on two occasions before, had no option but to deliver an even more spectacular, visible, and harsher response. The Prime Minister promised the Nation the Government’s resolve to pursue each man involved in the act and those who abetted or aided ‘to the ends of the earth,’ and bring them to suffer the consequences. The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility and cited its opposition to India allowing non-local settlements in Kashmir. Pakistan immediately washed its hands of the incident, calling it a freedom struggle. Pakistan reminded the Indians and the world at large that they were a nuclear power and ready to face any military challenges. The TRF retracted their claim, saying that their account had been hacked. The nation waited eagerly for the retribution to unfold. Meanwhile, television channels and social media were on fire with propaganda and counterpropaganda from both sides. A showdown was inevitable. 

Indian response was measured, proportional, and calibrated with increasing severity. The first ones came in the form of diplomatic moves. India suspended the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 until Pakistan stopped its support for cross-border terrorism. The treaty had survived all the wars and turbulence between the neighbours till then, and its suspension had the colours of a military-like swift counterattack.  India also imposed a travel ban for Pakistani nationals under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme, cancelled all existing visas, and issued a 48-hour departure order for Pakistani nationals in India. It also expelled Pakistan's defence attachés from the Pakistani High Commission in India and reduced the diplomatic staff strength from 55 to 30. On their part, Pakistan asked India to share the evidence to support the allegations and proposed an international inquiry by a third party. India rejected the call.  

In response to the Indian action, Pakistan suspended the Shimla agreement (1972), closed its air space to Indian Airline companies, reduced the Indian diplomatic strength, suspended all trade with India even through third countries, and declared that any diversion of water from the Indus water would be considered as an act of War. In the meantime, the two armies started to exchange heavy artillery fire at the border. Thereafter, events unfolded one after the other, unlike ever before. 

India imposed a temporary lockdown in Pahalgam, deployed army helicopters to track militants in the Pir Panjal range, and demolished the residences of two suspects linked to the attack. On 27 April, the local media in Muzaffarabad, PoJK reported flooding in the Jhelum River due to India’s unannounced release of water from the Uri Dam. The Chenab River in Sialkot, Pakistan, also saw a sharp decline in water levels, with satellite imagery showing a drying riverbed. Independent observers called it the first water war between the two neighbours.

As temperatures between the two rivals rose, the United Nations and the USA, besides other countries, called for restraint. India rejected mediation offers made by other countries. With each passing day, the call for military action against Pakistan became louder in India. The military response took time. On 5 May, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs announced a nationwide civil defence drill for May 7 across 244 districts, the first since 1971, involving air raid sirens, blackout measures, and civilian evacuation training. Pakistan closed schools in its Kashmir region and Punjab province. Pakistan announced that an Indian military action was imminent and vowed to teach India a lesson if it dared to. The element of surprise in any military action revolves around the quantum and type of force, geographical point of application, the mode and precise time of its delivery. 

Some experts opine that, by giving reaction time to Pakistan, India allowed the adversary to move its vulnerable terrorism assets away from all the likely points of response. The optics around the intended countermeasures certainly raised hopes amongst the domestic audience, but some experts feel that it gave away the surprise. If the initial advantage was with the aggressor, the respondent had the choice of time on targets. Armchair experts from the comforts of their cocoons debated for and against every aspect of the likely response while those in the real hot seats busied themselves shaping the response. Surprise was the key, and surprise was achieved.

On 7 May, Indians woke up to Operation Sindoor, the name conspicuous enough to indicate revenge for the lost vermilion of widowhood. Past midnight of 6 May, India rained missiles on 24 targets in nine locations, all in a matter of 25 minutes. India targeted the terrorist infrastructure in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Bhimber, Gulpur, Chak Amru and Bag, located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Indian munitions also reached mainland Pakistan. In Pakistan’s Punjab province, India targeted Markaz Subhan Allah, the JeM headquarters, and a significant economic hub in Bahawalpur, besides Markaz Taiba, a critical operational base for LeT located in Muridke, Mahmoona Joya facility linked to Hizbul Mujahideen in Sialkot, and a JeM facility in Sarjal Tehra Kalan. 

Indian missiles, glide bombs, and loitering munitions penetrated Pakistan’s elaborate air defence cover to find and decimate designated targets. India declared that its response was categorically against terrorist infrastructure, and claimed no Pakistani military facilities were hit. India also made it clear that the conflict would not escalate if Pakistan did not climb the escalatory ladder. That was not to be.

Pakistan called the Indian retaliation a “violation of international law.” It reported more than 30 civilian deaths, including a three-year-old girl and alleged that India targeted civilian areas, including mosques and a hydroelectric dam. Pakistan also claimed that it shot down three Indian Rafale jets, one Mig-29, one Su-30 MKI, and 77 Israeli-made Harop drones. India denied losses, claiming Pakistan’s jets were intercepted outside Indian airspace. This engagement was unlike any before. The military hardware mostly remained within its own borders, but payloads went deep within. Drones swarmed the skies at night from both sides, luring the adversary to expend valuable air defence resources. On 8-9 May night, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan al-Marsus targeting Indian cities, including Amritsar, with drones and missiles. India successfully neutralised all of them. India successfully carried out SEAD/DEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence / Destruction of Enemy Air Defence) operations targeting deep into Pakistan and crippling its air defence resources and airfields.  

Claims, counterclaims, threats, and counter-threats flooded the entire spectrum of media. Citizens from both sides joined the battle with fake videos and propaganda on their own. While the armies fought for military supremacy, common people, skilled in the use and misuse of the internet, lugged it out against each other in web space. The mere scale of web activity might turn one day be reported as unprecedented. Prolongation of the battle would have turned Pakistani airspace unusable for its own air force. An even bigger surprise was in store!

Mr Donald J Trump, the President of the USA, suddenly announced on Truth Social, his own SM platform handle, that the two countries would stop hostilities and cease fire. Soon after that, both countries announced cessation of military activities with effect from 5 PM IST that day. India made it clear that Operation Sindoor has not been concluded, but it was merely a cessation of military activities, subject to how Pakistan conducted itself, adding a caveat that any further acts of terror would be considered an act of war. India also categorically stated that the agreement was bilateral and initiated with the call of the Pakistani DGMO. However, it is widely believed that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia played a major role in the cessation of military activities. 

One group of defence analysts feel that the USA intervened after Pakistan raised concerns about India potentially targeting its nuclear command infrastructure. Some analysts feel that Pakistan had significantly lost its war-waging capability and  requested the USA to intervene. Many theories, including a few rooted in conspiracy, are floating around on social media. The media is full of debate on what prompted Trump to do it and what events led to it. The truth might emerge later in time. Everything in the realm of conjecture, the only thing certain is that the ceasefire was the answer to the prayers of people at the border. 

(To be continued in Part 3)

 

Pixels of an Emerging Picture: Understanding Operation Sindoor (Part -1)

 

Terrorism in Kashmir 

India saw the horror of terrorism once again when the face of a newly married lady sitting desolate next to the body of her husband, shot dead in Kashmir, because he could not recite the Kalma, filled the TV screens. 22 people died there. Operation Sindoor was the reply, the retribution India had promised in revenge. The killing was not the first and might not be the last. The revenge was not the first and might not be the last. It was a new, horrific chapter with roots from the past and tentacles into the future. Let us delve into the past and crystal-gaze and attempt to understand a picture with ever-evolving pixels.

Background

Pakistan-sponsored terrorism visibly infected Kashmir first in 1987. How can anyone conclusively accuse Pakistan of complicity in terrorist violence in Kashmir? India has presented proof on multiple occasions to establish the complicity of the state of Pakistan in terror activities inside India. It has been of no use since no amount of effort can awaken one who is pretending to sleep. However, Pakistan itself has on many occasions made it publicly clear that it supports, finances, and provides logistics for terrorism in Kashmir.

Since 1987, Kashmir has swayed between flare-ups and Army intervention-induced lows, the lull, giving time and opportunity to terrorists to regroup and replan. The local population, always part of it, were victims, collateral damage, not-so-silent spectators, and facilitators. Successive governments focused on ‘Winning the Hearts and Minds’ (WHAM) of the local population through Operation- Sadbhavana, building infrastructure, schools, and providing means to earn steady incomes. When the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), promising stronger measures to curb terrorism,  rode to power at the Centre, with Mr Narendra Modi being sworn in as the PM on 29 May 2014, India looked forward to finding an end to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). 

Political Process

Elections to the Legislative Assembly of J& K were conducted in five phases, from 25 November 2014 to 20 December 2014. The election, marked by high-decibel emotions, saw 65.23% voter turnout. The results declared on 23 December 2014 did not allow any party to form the government independently. Protracted political negotiations between various parties continued until the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and the BJP, two fierce political rivals, formed an unexpected coalition government to rule the state based on a Common Minimum Programme (CMP). On 01 March 2015, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed of the PDP became the CM for the coalition. However, he passed away on 07 January 2016. After a brief spell of President’s rule, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, daughter of late Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, took over as the CM on 04 Apr 2016 and continued till the BJP withdrew its support on 19 Jun 2018.

In the meantime, Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terrorist organisation based in Pakistan, had started finding supporters in the Kashmir Valley. They recruited a social media-savvy young local lad named Burhan Wani. He exploited the power of social media, appearing without any hood or mask, and publicly called on the Kashmiri youth to rise against the Indian state. A neighbourhood lad for many, he became the new identifiable and relatable face of homegrown terrorism. Wani helped his handlers across the border find more local unemployed and disillusioned lads willing to be recruited, radicalised and used for terrorist activities in Kashmir. Kashmir now witnessed a new face of insurgency. 

The locals, in open defiance of law and seemingly unafraid of consequences, uncovered their faces while throwing stones at the army convoys and patrols. They even actively participated in facilitating the escape of terrorists trapped in the cordons established by the Army. 

Fresh Wave of Attacks

Belying expectations, terrorist attacks started getting more audacious.  On 5 December 2014, militants attacked an army camp in J&K, killing 11 security personnel. On 20 March 2015, two LeT militants attacked the Rajbagh police station in Kathua, Jammu. India accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism; however, showing restraint, India did not initiate any direct military action against Pakistan in either incident.  On 30-31 December 2015, a group of 6 JeM terrorists from Pakistan entered India, hijacked a Police officer's SUV, and reached Pathankot. On 2 January 2016, they attacked the air base at Pathankot. All of them were neutralised in due course.  India, asking Pakistan for action against the perpetrators, shared dossiers of the attackers and demanded action from Pakistan. Unhappy with the response, India suspended peace talks with Pakistan till they took visible measures to contain terrorism. The Prime Minister promised a strong response, and the Home Minister assured the country of a befitting reply to the terrorists. However, India demonstrated restraint, and no military action was taken against Pakistan. Terrorism is a persistent ailment, but terrorists, however smart they might be, cannot persist for long. They have a short shelf life. Burhan Wani met his bullets on the 8th July 2016, in an encounter with Indian security forces in Kokernag of Anantnag. The Valley saw violent protests. 

Crime and Punishment

On 18 September 2016, four heavily armed terrorists of the Jaish-e-Mohammed attacked an Indian Army Brigade headquarters in Uri, killing 19 soldiers. India accused Pakistan of supporting the terrorist organisation, boycotted the SAARC meeting, and retaliated with pre-emptive military strikes across the line of control in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir on the intervening night of September 28-29, inflicting death on more than 150 terrorists. Even though it was widely believed that India had undertaken cross-border actions before, this was the first time that the Government of India publicly declared military action against Pakistan across the LoC. The Indian establishment believed that the publicised military action, widely known as the “Surgical Strike”, across the LoC would deter Pakistan from further sponsoring terrorism in India. The action satisfied the Indian public and bolstered the strong image of the Prime Minister, Mr Modi, who had vowed an appropriate response to the Uri attack. It also set a new benchmark for India's response to terrorist attacks on its soil. Pakistani soil, however, continued to nurture and promote cross-border terrorism relentlessly.

On 03 October 2016, terrorists attacked a Border Security Force camp in Baramulla, killing one BSF Soldier. On 29 November 2016, terrorists mounted an attack on an Army base in Nagrota, killing seven soldiers.  India did not take any military action across the border but intensified the counterinsurgency operations within Jammu and Kashmir. India accused Pakistan of fostering terrorism. Pakistan steadfastly refused its involvement in terrorist activities and stonewalled investigations into terrorist incidents in India, attributing those to non-state actors and calling themselves victims of terror. On 10 July 2017, militants attacked the Amarnath pilgrims, killing seven. Worse was yet to come.  

On 14 February 2019, Adil Ahamed, a Local Kashmiri youth and a Jaish-e-Mohammed operative, drove a Mahindra Scorpio SUV loaded with approximately 350 kg of explosives that included RDX and other high-grade explosives into a bus that was part of a CRPF convoy, killing 40 CRPF personnel. It was the deadliest terrorist attack since terrorism raised its head in Kashmir. The Government of India had no option but to respond. Having set the benchmark in the Uri incident with the Surgical Strike, the response had to be more severe and more visible than before. 

On the 26th February 2019, the Indian Air Force swung into action with what India called a non-military pre-emptive Strike, targeting terrorist facilities and taking care to avoid civilian and military assets. The attack resulted in the killing of 300 to 350 terrorists, mostly recruits being prepared for fidayeen attacks, their trainers and even senior terrorist commanders. Pakistan, however, denied having suffered any such losses. The Government of India, in one of the boldest political moves in Kashmir, revoked Article 370 through a Presidential order on 05 August 2019 and followed it with the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 in the Indian Parliament, effectively trifurcating J&K. India revoked the most favoured Nation status of Pakistan, imposed a 200% custom duty on Pakistani goods, and suspended cross LOC trade and bus services. 

Experts felt that India had finally established a credible deterrence against its persistent adversary, Pakistan and was seen to be willing to use it without remorse or hesitation. The red lines for India had been redrawn, and the threshold for retaliation redefined. It is widely believed that the incidents of terror have come down ever since. The Government declared that normalcy had finally been restored in Kashmir. While facts and figures provided by the Government may be contested, the fact that the tourism industry picked up and gained momentum in Kashmir remains unequivocal and uncontested, even by the government's harshest critics. The thriving tourism industry provided assured income to locals and largely weaned the youth away from becoming terror fodder. Peace seemed to have finally descended on Kashmir.

(To be continued in Part 2)