By Yogendra Yadav
“So, what’s it looking like?” I anticipate this question, even before it is asked. I know I am expected to carry in my pocket a forecast of the 2019 elections. I deflect the question with a one-liner: “Pahle bhavishya batata tha, ab bhavishya banata hoon (I’m now into making futures, not telling it)”. It doesn’t work. Then I offer cold reason: “Look, I don’t have access to survey data of my choice any more”. They agree, but persist. I try to disarm: “The tragedy of being a politician is that people tell me only what they think I wish to hear, so I know much less than you do.” The incredulous look tells me they don’t believe me one bit.
Here it goes, then: All you wanted to know about the 2019 elections outcome, but didn’t know who else to ask. Remember, it comes with a statutory warning: The author is a political activist who does not pretend to be neutral but strives to be truthful.
Truth is that you don’t have to be a psephologist (whatever that means) to understand the basic outlines of the battle of 2019. All the theoretical apparatus you need is political common sense. It would be useful to refer to an archive of past election results, especially the outcome of the Lok Sabha elections, 2014.
Also read: There are two ways opposition can beat Modi in 2019—and mahagathbandhan is not one of them
The best way to know about trends of public opinion would be to refer to either India Today’s six-monthly Mood of the Nation series or the ABP-CSDS Mood of the Nation series. My personal favourite is the detailed report put out by the CSDS-Lokniti team. [Full disclosure: I was in the founding team of CSDS-Lokniti, but have no connection now with the surveys or its reports, which have vastly improved since I left the team!]. If you want to track changes in the last few weeks, you might want to check out the weekly tracker of India Today’s Political Stock Exchange and the latest all-India poll done by C-Voter for ABP. I have many issues with both these latest surveys, but even a straw poll is better than drawing room gossip.
Let us think of India as five regions, each representing a distinct kind of battleground. And for the time being, let us focus on the fortunes of the BJP. Luckily, you don’t have to keep tabs on all the five regions for this election. The battle of ballots in 2019 will be decided in one of these battlegrounds, the ‘Hindi heartland’ (heartland of Hindi speakers, not India’s heartland!). The logic is simple. Compared to its performance in the 2014 elections, the BJP is poised to make some gains in the East. These gains would be more than offset by its small losses in the West, the South and the tiny Northern region. The entire balance would thus depend upon the Hindi heartland region. If you know what would happen to the BJP in the Hindi belt, you know the outcome of the 2019 elections.
Let us now look at each of these battlegrounds closely and understand why the BJP is jittery, notwithstanding its public grandstanding.
The East offers the BJP its only growth possibility over 2014. It won 11 seats in this entire region and thus has room to grow. All credible polls indicate that its support base is growing in Odisha at the expense of the Congress and in Bengal at the expense of the Left Front. The BJP has followed the old Congress strategy of acquisition and merger to register unprecedented growth in the northeast. The BJP will be a force to reckon with in east India. The only question is whether it can convert its additional votes into additional seats this election. As of now, the BJP appears to have crossed that threshold in Odisha, but not in Bengal. It may overtake the Left to emerge as the runner-up in Bengal, but it is still way short of challenging Mamata Banerjee’s hegemony. It cannot grow more in Assam, but is likely to pick additional seats in the hill states of the northeast. All in all, the BJP may pick up to 20 additional seats from this region.
The West is likely to witness a business-as-usual election with a small dent in the BJP tally. It swept this region in 2014 by winning all but six seats. Since then, anti-incumbency has hit it in all the three states. Rural unrest in Gujarat, farmers’ agitation in Maharashtra, its troubles with the Shiv Sena and the unholy and proxy government in Goa appear to have set the stage against the BJP in the region. Yet, the surveys suggest that the BJP can contain its losses. A Gujarati PM can help the party reverse some of its assembly poll setbacks in Gujarat. In Maharashtra, if the Shiv Sena goes back to the BJP, the NDA can take on the combined strength of the NCP-Congress alliance. In sum: The BJP may keep its losses to about 15-20 seats in this region.
The South is likely to witness a series of critical elections that can shape the future of state politics. But precisely for this reason, the Lok Sabha election is likely to be focused on regional issues and personalities. Modi vs Rahul presidential-style contest makes no sense here. The BJP has low stakes in the region, as it won only 22 seats here in the last election, of which 17 came from Karnataka. All indicators suggest that the BJP will remain a marginal player in this region. The BJP’s attempt to acquire the AIADMK seems to have failed. The DMK appears to have taken an early lead in this critical first election after the departure of Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa, leaving the BJP in the cold. The BJP’s brazen stoking of communal passions in Sabarimala may help it make a breakthrough in Kerala. If so, it would be critical, but may not mean much in terms of numbers. Both Andhra and Telangana are likely to witness regional battles with little space for the BJP or the NDA, since Chandrababu Naidu has broken off from the BJP. The results of recent by-elections in Karnataka suggest that popular disgust with the Kumaraswamy coalition government may be overcome by the combined strength of the forced marriage between the JD(S) and the Congress. We do not know yet if the BJP would strike a rewarding alliance in Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, but as of now, the BJP looks like it’s shedding 5-10 seats in this region.
The North is not much of a separate region. It is just that the politics of Punjab and J&K does not fit into the pattern of the Hindi-speaking states. If one goes by the record of the local bodies elections and the implosion within the AAP, the Congress appears set to make small gains in Punjab. But that or a splintered verdict in the J&K hardly affects the national equation. It might add up to a loss of 3-4 seats for the BJP.
Let us take a stock of all the 317 seats we have surveyed so far. In 2014, the BJP had won 91 seats out of these. This time the picture is unlikely to change very much. The BJP’s losses in the South, mainly in Karnataka, may be the net loss for the party in all these regions put together. All in all, we are looking at the BJP winning anything between 80-90 seats in the non-Hindi speaking states of the country. Let us say it is 91: No losses, no gains for the BJP. For the sake of simplicity, therefore, we can forget the rest of India in the electoral arithmetic of 2019. The final outcome depends entirely on how well the BJP can retain its tally in the Hindi heartland. Let us turn to that.
The Hindi heartland is where the battle of 2019 will be won or lost. The BJP swept this region with 192 seats (203, if you add NDA’s allies in Bihar and UP). And that is the problem for the BJP. It can only go down from where it reached in 2014. All indications are that it will, almost everywhere in this region. Bihar may be an exception, as the BJP has recovered its alliance with the JD(U) to take on the resurgent and united opposition as well as to cut its losses. Polls suggest that the BJP state governments in Jharkhand, Haryana and Uttarakhand are very unpopular and would cost the party at least 10 seats in these three states. Nor is the party in a position to repeat its sweep in Delhi. While there are different projections of the mood of the electorate in the upcoming assembly elections, everyone agrees that the BJP faces a rout in Rajasthan and a serious challenge in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Past records show that in these states, the assembly verdict is repeated in the Lok Sabha results. If so, the BJP could easily lose 30 seats in these poll-bound states. All in all, the BJP is looking at a loss of up to 50 seats in these Hindi-speaking states.
That leaves Uttar Pradesh. It takes no genius to see that the impending SP-BSP alliance, that looks pretty robust as of now, could potentially reverse the 2014 verdict. The alliance can defeat the BJP in about 50 seats. To make matters worse for the ruling party, polls suggest that the Yogi Adityanath government is losing popular traction within two years of its historic victory. As things stand today, the BJP could lose up to 50 seats in UP alone and another 50 in the rest of the Hindi heartland.
Is that how the big election would play out in the Hindi heartland? We cannot be sure. This is the one region that may not see only state-level contests. This is where the BJP would try and turn the elections into a presidential-style contest between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. Mr Modi’s popularity rating is way ahead of Rahul Gandhi’s. The level of satisfaction with the Central government is much higher than satisfaction with BJP’s state governments. This is also the region that is more susceptible to the Ram temple propaganda and hate mongering that the BJP has started resorting to. At the same time, this region has seen very little of the vikas promised by Mr Modi, has suffered most from loss of jobs and has been hit by farmers’ distress. The battle for the future of India will be fought as Jawan-Kisan versus Hindu-Mussalman in the battlefields of the Hindi heartland.
As things stand today, the BJP is staring at a loss of 100 seats from the peak it attained in 2014. Unless something changes dramatically, there is no way the BJP can touch the 200 seat mark necessary for it to cobble up a majority. That would effectively put paid to Mr Modi’s prospects of a re-election. A lot can change between now and the election time. But that’s what it’s looking like. For now.
Pulwama: In the Aftermath
By Imran Yawer
The Pulwama terror attack which claimed the lives of more than 40 CRPF troops was the deadliest to have occurred in Kashmir in terms of casualties. The Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) or Army of Mohammed, claimed responsibility for the attack while Adil Ahmed, a young man from Pulwama who joined JEM in 2018, was identified as the perpetrator. This brutal attack has ratcheted up the already tense relations between India and Pakistan, leading many to wonder what the cross-border implications of the attack will be on the two countries.
Interestingly enough, even before the forensic evaluation of the scene of the crime was completed, the Indian Government embarked on a diplomatic and economic offensive against Pakistan. The Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi was summoned to the Indian Foreign Office for a strongly worded demarche. Concomitantly, the ambassadors of foreign countries were briefed on the attack and on Pakistan’s purported role by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. New Delhi also revoked Pakistan’s MFN status and pledged to launch an all-out effort to isolate Pakistan, an effort that has already been initiated by the Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, who on February 16, 2019, declared that custom duties on all imports from Pakistan would be raised to 200 percent. India is further expected to seek Pakistan’s blacklisting in the upcoming FATF meeting, and according to reports, Indian agencies are already busy with preparing a dossier to establish Pakistan’s culpability in the recent Pulwama attack.
Pakistan’s response to these allegations by India has been an outright rejection of any involvement in the attack. The Foreign Office released a statement expressly condemning such ‘acts of violence anywhere in the world’ and dismissed all such inferences made ‘by elements in the Indian media and government that sought to link the attack to Pakistan without investigations.’
Insurgency in Kashmir, which once was attributed to links across the border has morphed into a homegrown movement for liberation, at the vanguard of which are the new generation of Kashmiri youth; educated and enlightened. These young liberators are challenging the military might of the Indian establishment and their struggle is garnering popular support from within, which has had a dispiriting effect on the Indian security forces, who despite overwhelming presence in the region have not been able to weaken the will of the Kashmiris.
The surge in violence in Kashmir is rooted in decades of violence, repression and discrimination against the Kashmiri people. According to the UN, the ‘excessive use of force, unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests, sexual violence, detention of families and children, as well as enforced disappearances’ is tantamount to a gross and consistent violation of human rights. All evidence suggests that by resorting to hardline policies in Kashmir, India has failed to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Kashmiri people. Against such a backdrop, pointing a finger at Pakistan for bloodshed and violence in Kashmir is both vile and risible. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who was elected in 2014, had vowed to undertake a hard line policy in its dealings with Pakistan and to crackdown on the separatist movement in Kashmir.
As such, the Modi Administration, like its predecessors has been unable to recognise discontent and disenfranchisement among the Kashmiris against Indian policies, and their disproportionate use of force, in a trend that will continue unless India brings sanity and rationality in its Kashmir policy. With general elections in India only a few months away, the Indian Prime Minister would need to project an image of tough leadership in regard to national security matters. As the situation currently stands, he is already under pressure from hard line groups for a decisive retaliation against Pakistan, much in the pattern of the ‘surgical strikes’ India claimed to have carried out against Pakistan, following the 2016 attack on an Indian army base in which 19 soldiers were killed; claims that have been denied by Pakistan.
Meanwhile, according to media reports from February 15, 2019, the US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, assured his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval of US’ cooperation “to work together to ensure that Pakistan ceased to be a safe haven for JEM and terrorist groups that targeted India, the US and others in the region.” It was further reported that in a telephone call, Bolton had assured Doval of US’ support for India’s right “to defend itself against cross-border attacks.” On February 16, 2019, Modi stated that the “country understood the anger simmering within the soldiers,” and gave free reign to the military to respond to acts of violence in kind.
Pakistan’s response to these allegations by India has been an outright rejection of any involvement in the attack. The Foreign Office released a statement expressly condemning such ‘acts of violence anywhere in the world’ and dismissed all such inferences made ‘by elements in the Indian media and government that sought to link the attack to Pakistan without investigations
Although, JEM has been classified a proscribed organization in Pakistan, India claims that the group and its leader, Masood Azhar, were openly active in Pakistan, raising money, recruiting, and training. India has further attributed several similar terrorist activities to the group, including a 2001, raid on its parliament in New Delhi, and demands that Pakistan should take ‘immediate and verifiable action’ to stop the activities of these militants. In response, Pakistan has vehemently rejected these insinuations as ‘part of New Delhi’s known rhetoric and tactics” to divert global attention from their human rights violations. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has called for an end to such ‘tit for tat’ accusations, in favour of the resumption of dialogue. In fact, since assuming office, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, has repeatedly focused on dialogue with the promise to take two steps forward for every one step taken by India, in order to forge friendly ties; an effort that has been stonewalled by the Modi administration on grounds that India saw no constructive approach from Pakistan.
The terrorist attack in Pulwama has been rightly condemned by the international community, including Pakistan. At the same time, there has also been a growing realization that the reinvigoration of insurgency in Kashmir is home based and home grown, in popular reaction to India’s ‘muscular policies’ in the form of atrocities by Indian security forces on helpless protestors. The option for peace in Kashmir is only achievable if India desists from pursuing its hardline policies against hapless Kashmiris and if it works in tandem with Pakistan to find a solution that brings harmony to a region that has long been plagued by instability and conflict.
The old practices of blaming and intimidation have proven ineffective for India in the past, suggesting the need for an alternative strategy that does not rest on the need for one-upping the other but on collective efforts geared towards sustainable peace in the region.
For its part, Pakistan also needs to exercise greater insight and control on the clandestine activities of non-state actors that operate from within the country to malign the State with their unacceptable actions. Just days before the Pulwama attack, Jaish ul-Adl, a Salafi jihadist terrorist organization based in the Sistan and Baluchistan Province of Iran, carried out a car bomb attack against Iranian revolutionary guards, killing 27 of them. The brutality of the attack by an organization that has allegedly sought shelter in Pakistan, prompted the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, to warn that ‘unless Pakistan did more to crack down on Jaish al-Adl, Iran would take action it deemed appropriate’.
While the State of Pakistan or its agencies may not be involved in carrying out or supporting activities detrimental to peace and stability in the region, the buck does not stop there. We need to get up from our languorous slumber and exercise greater vigilance. The evolutionary trends in terrorism have already outwitted even the most resourceful countries. In South Asia, its burgeoning existence is a painful reality. ‘No country in the world has suffered more than Pakistan from the scourge of terrorism, often perpetrated from outside’. Today, Iran seethes with anger, India grits its teeth and the world is looking for foot prints in Pakistan, in such times, we should not be found cuddling the neighbour’s sheep.
(Daily Times, Lahore)
Pulwama Reveals Limits to Muscular Policies
The fedayeen attack in Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir, on Thursday killing 44 paramilitary personnel and injuring scores of others should be properly understood.
At the most obvious level, the country is paying a very heavy price for the Modi government’s Kashmir policies — riveted on relentless state suppression of an alienated people — and its muscular, one-dimensional approach toward Pakistan — giving a ‘free hand’ to the security establishment to pay back in the same coin.
The Modi government’s hardline policy has proved not only futile but may increasingly become counterproductive. Indeed, the crisis in J&K has deepened in the past 3-4 years while the security tsars don’t even have a back channel to Pakistan anymore.
In all probability, the Jaish-e-Mohammed led by Masood Azhar continues to enjoy the patronage of Pakistani security establishment. But Islamabad has swiftly responded that “We strongly reject any insinuation by elements in the Indian media and government that seek to link the attack to Pakistan without investigations.”
But the bottom line is that the massacre in Pulwama could have been foretold. Pakistan’s internal security situation has significantly improved and cross-border terrorism from Afghanistan has tapered off. This creates a sense of triumphalism and an ‘itch’ to settle scores, as it were.
Nonetheless, one striking thing must be noted — the timing. The campaign for the 2019 parliamentary poll is gathering momentum. To be sure, the attack casts the government and PM Modi in very poor light.
Our ruling elite is hard-pressed to be seen reacting strongly and decisively. The dilemma is palpable. On the one hand, disconnect between the authorities and the people of J&K is almost unbridgeable today. On the other hand, any ratcheting up of tensions with Pakistan is inextricably linked to regional security and stability.
Significantly, the crisis has erupted just four days before the next round of talks between the US and the Taliban in Islamabad on February 18 and the final hearing on the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an alleged R&AW operative, at the International Court of Justice at the Hague on the same day. Is it a mere coincidence?
The Pakistani PM Imran Khan is personally mediating between the US officials and Taliban leadership. To be sure, what is unfolding will be of momentous consequence for President Trump personally, whose decision to bring the ‘endless war’ in Afghanistan to an end is directly related to his own bid for re-election in 2020.
Fundamentally, though, the Pulwama attack has been directed at the paramilitary forces — not the Indian Army. It aimed to hit our security tsars below the belt and expose them as inept and vacuous people.
The ICJ hearing on February 18 provides the backdrop to the Pulwama attack. At the Hague, India is having to defend itself against the Pakistani allegations of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan will leave no stone unturned to level charges that India has been undertaking covert operations to destabilise it. There seems to be a message in all this for the Indian security establishment.
Of course, in the final analysis, the buck stops at Modi’s desk. The sensible thing should have been to follow up the BJP’s tie-up with PDP to form a coalition government in Srinagar with political initiatives to create synergy for a peace process in the Valley.
Similarly, nothing would have been lost by engaging Pakistan in talks. Good statecraft dictates that a country engages its adversaries on core issues of differences and disputes instead of resorting to meaningless theatrics to impress the uninformed public gallery.
Arguably, conditions were propitious to open a new page in our relations with Pakistan. The election of Imran Khan and the overture made by him (as well as army chief Qamar Bajwa) did open a window of opportunity.
But our security establishment, with its entrenched zero sum mindset, preferred to quibble and look for alibis not to engage with Imran Khan — that he is a mere rubber stamp of the military, that he hobnobs with Islamist groups, that he is a bird of passage and so on. Modi could have — and should have — asserted.
At the end of the day, the conclusion becomes unavoidable that an India-Pakistan moratorium on muscle-flexing is badly needed. This ancient ruckus must be laid to rest — and the shenanigans that go on below the radar must be ended conclusively. It involves statecraft to rein in hawks from crowding the skies. Of course, the easy thing to do is always to whip up jingoism.
With the Afghan power calculus shifting, a new beginning is possible. There is food for thought that Masood Azhar, who has a chequered past leading all the way to Kandahar, has surged in the Valley after an absence of 20 years.
And the Pulwama attack took place just 4 days before serious talks are beginning in Islamabad, finally, to rehabilitate the Taliban as a mainstream political force and India will be defending its own reputation at the Hague. We must read the tea leaves correctly.
Meanwhile, in political terms, in the face of the infinite tragedy in Pulwama, the government must make the effort to evolve a consensus opinion in the country to address the crisis in J&K, which is undeniably the root cause of terrorism.
But that may be too much to expect from the Modi government, whose focus is on vilifying political opponents and harassing them, or systematically polarising the national opinion.
Punitive action must begin at home
By Sanjiv Krishan Sood
The deaths of more than 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel in an attack by a suicide bomber in South Kashmir on February 14 has led to shrill calls for retribution against Pakistan by self-proclaimed defence experts on social media, panelists on TV news channels and the anchors moderating these sessions. Since the attack – the second-most deadly strike in the history of the Central Reserve Police Force – senior government functionaries have also been mechanically trotting out statements, as they always do, promising that the sacrifice of India’s jawans will not be in vain.
But if any action needs to be taken, it must first start in India. There is absolutely no doubt that the political leadership and policy makers in New Delhi, and police and security officials on the ground – all of whom allowed this massive tragedy to happen under their watch – are guilty of criminal negligence.
What is worse is that they refuse to learn from previous mistakes, allowing such tragic losses of life to recur with alarming regularity. Those responsible for the huge failure of intelligence that led to the Pulwama tragedy must therefore be sacked for their incompetence. This will be a lesson to all.
There are several failures that contributed to the success of the suicide attack on the Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Kashmir.
First, why did the government allow such a large body of troops – nearly 2,500 men – to travel together in a large convoy of 80 vehicles? The troops were stranded in Jammu for two days prior to this because bad weather had led to the closure of the National Highway. But once the weather improved, instead of transporting all of them via road, they should have been airlifted into the Valley.
This is typical of the disconnect between decision makers in Delhi and troops on the ground. What kind of leaders are those who do not act proactively to alleviate the hardships of the specialised paramilitary forces they command? I believe these leaders are not up to the task entrusted to them and must be sacked.
The second failure is that of intelligence. A wireless signal dated February 8 is being touted as proof that intelligence received about a possible improvised explosive device blast had been shared with the Central Reserve Police Force. But that was a general signal addressed to everyone in the Valley to be cautious against such a blast. This cannot be called “intelligence”. Perhaps intelligence agencies could do a better job by being more specific. Unfortunately, such agencies have started treating basic information as intelligence. They appear to have forgotten the art of collating and analysing information received from different sources.
Intelligence agencies have a few questions to answer. For one, the assembly of such a large quantity of explosives and the purchase or requisition of the vehicle that became the moving bomb would have taken some time, and have also left some footprints for intelligence personnel to identify. Why were these not spotted? Similarly, there would have been contact between the suicide bomber and his handler. Why were these not intercepted?
The third failure if that of operational negligence, which is related to training. Before any armed forces personnel convoy proceeds in the Valley, a road opening party or ROP, which leads the convoy, sanitises the route. The job of this team is to ensure that the road is clear of any threats, including from small arms fire.
It is not clear whether the car used by the suicide bomber came from the same direction of the convoy or the opposite direction. Either way, the road opening party failed in its task. If the car was travelling in the direction of the convoy, how was it allowed to overtake several vehicles of the convoy and ram into one of them? Reports also suggested that the explosives-laden vehicle was stationary on the road for a few minutes before the convoy reached the spot where the attack took place. If that was the case, how did that not attract any suspicion from the road opening party?
Additionally, news reports quoted an Inspector General of the Central Reserve Police Force who suggested that the explosion was accompanied by firing. If true, this is an even bigger failure on the part of the road opening party. This implies that the troops did not dominate the road effectively. It also speaks poorly of the officer supervising the road opening party. Had he been doing his job properly, he would have ensured that his team was alert, ensuring that there would have been a chance – however remote – of preventing the tragedy.
All this reflects poorly on the training of the troops deployed with the road opening party. This brings us to the matter of training of troops, a growing cause of concern. It is a fact that training of the central paramilitary forces has suffered over the years. Continuous deployment of troops, absence of any reserves – including training companies – and a large intake of troops around 2013-2014 to fill vacancies as well as to aid expansion has played havoc with training systems. But that is not all. The attitude of Indian Police Service officers who lead the force – who do not assign any priority to training – is also to blame.
When I served with the Border Security Force, I recall that the post of Inspector General (Training) – responsible for formulating training policies for troops – was used mainly as a parking slot for officers on the verge of retirement or wanting a posting to Delhi for personal reasons. Merit was rarely a consideration for filling up this important post. It is possible that the same attitude plagues the training position in the Central Reserve Police Force.
The fourth failure is that of the Centre’s Kashmir policy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Friday that security forces had been given a free hand to punish those responsible for the attack. The question is: why did it take this massive tragedy for him to realise the seriousness of the situation in Kashmir? It is well known that South Kashmir is the hotbed of militancy. Then, what prevented security forces from operating proactively there? Even if one might concede that the previous government in Jammu and Kashmir was somewhat sympathetic to militants, the state has been governed by the Centre since the government collapsed in June. What has then prevented the government from operating proactively?
In the aftermath of the Pulwama attack, several voices – official and unofficial – blamed Pakistan for the tragedy. The narrative is that militants carried out this operation in “despair”. This is an immature understanding of the situation. While the role of Pakistan in fomenting trouble in Kashmir is beyond a doubt, it cannot be said that it is the only reason. Pakistan is exploiting the weaknesses of India’s Kashmir policy to the hilt. This is why New Delhi needs to urgently address its policies on Kashmir.
Additionally, militants do not operate out of despair. They operate whenever they find that security forces have let down their guard. They attack security forces at their weakest point after meticulous planning and preparation. This is why security forces in Kashmir cannot afford to let their guard down even for a moment. It is for their commanders to ensure this through adequate training and continuous supervision.
Finally, the fifth failure is the attitude of India towards its paramilitary soldiers. They are treated as second-class soldiers and are poorly paid and under equipped as compared to their counterparts in the Army. They are even deprived of pension of the kind Army personnel are entitled to. The lack of proper equipment such as bulletproof vehicles and jackets also seriously compromises their efficiency and morale. All this must change.