The attack in Pampore, Jammu and Kashmir, and the interview of Sartaj Aziz, the Pakistan foreign affairs advisor on an Indian news channel occurred in the third week of February. Simultaneously there were reports of India considering recommencing dialogue with Pakistan since they had lodged an FIR on the Pathankot strike. The report suggested three possible future actions, the meeting between the foreign ministers in Kathmandu in March on the sidelines of the SAARC foreign ministers conference, a meeting between the foreign secretaries prior to that and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by Pakistan to investigate the Pathankot attack visiting India. This was followed by the arrest of a trained JEM militant, a resident of Sialkot in Pakistan, who was part of the group which unsuccessfully attacked an army camp in Tangdhar in November last year.

The Pampore encounter claimed the lives of five security personnel including two officers of the elite parachute commandos. The attack on the CRPF convoy and the subsequent cornering of the terrorists in the Entrepreneurship Development Institute (EDI) building restricted their movement. Future actions were dependent on the security forces ensuring minimum loss of civilian life. Thus the first step involved all civilians, over one hundred, being safely evacuated from the building. Then the army moved to the next phase – of eliminating the terrorists. This involved storming of the building, resulting in the casualties.

To prove that we care more for our soldiers than for property, the building should have been blown up, employing air force attack helicopters engaging with direct firing missiles or destroyed part by part by deploying armoured vehicles. Similar action would have been adopted by Western troops in other parts of the world, especially when there was no threat to civilian casualties. The troops should have remained in a cordon, ensuring no survivor escaped. This would give a clearer message to our neighbours and to militants of our firmness and determination. It would convey that the nation is determined to eliminate terrorists, but would not compromise by losing its own troops. However, the army decided to clear the building, room by room, like it was done before notably in Mumbai. The two situations are vastly different. In Mumbai the hotels had to be cleared in this manner as there were still civilians present, whereas in this case, there was no such situation. Therefore a bold action of destroying the building should have been considered at the earliest stage itself.

The local population supported the militants and attempted to distract the army by sloganeering and stone throwing. This was sad but then this is all that the youth of J and K, born after the commencement of militancy, have been exposed to. There has been very little development and almost no job opportunities for which successive governments are responsible. They have been brainwashed into believing that militancy is their only saviour. This was despite the fact that security forces managed to rescue all who were trapped prior to commencing neutralization of the terrorists. The CRPF and local police were responsible for keeping the population at bay, while the army dealt with the terrorists.

The interview by Sartaj Aziz came while the encounter was ending and the nation had just finished paying its final respects to its martyrs. He brought forth the issue of commencement of talks since the action of filing an FIR had been completed. As an Indian, I wonder why an FIR should be filed only in the case of Pathankot or even Gurdaspur? There should be similar action against those responsible for Pampore. After all, it is J and K and clearly our territory. The issue of dispute is only for the purposes of dialogue, not for terror strikes. With the recent arrest of the terrorist from JEM and his spilling the beans, further proof of their involvement only becomes clear.

Aziz commented on India being held hostage to the narrative of terrorism. In his opinion, terror strikes and talks should never be linked. However, he failed to realise that India has yet to retaliate against any terror strike. While it is developing requisite capabilities to strike back and strike deep, however, a military attack verses one by militants carries an altogether different connotation. India may be compelled to act in case of a major strike, irrespective of whether it escalates the situation or not. Every nation would want to ensure the safety and security of its population, and hence would always be hostage to the narrative of terrorism. A recent example is of increased and direct participation of France in Syria, post the terrorist strike in Paris. Therefore the words of our Prime Minister are clear, ‘terror and talks can never go together.’

Pampore and its aftermath have clearly brought forth a few lessons. Firstly, we should take greater care to prevent casualties. Each scenario may be different, but when there are limited chances of collateral damage, then destruction of a terrorist hideout is a better option than physical storming. Secondly, the government should be firm and only contemplate commencing talks once terrorist strikes stop against every part of India, including J and K. Finally, we need to develop cross-border strike capabilities including employing armed drones or long-range missiles from armed helicopters at the earliest, thus forcing Pakistan to stop terrorist attacks.

The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.