Sadly, It Is Guns Again

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, questions rise, demanding urgent answers

- Toufiq Rashid, Ishfaq Naseem

A hail of bullets spilt blood in the bustling Baisaran meadow in South Kashmir’s Anantnag district on April 22. When the sound of gunshots rang out, terrified people, many of them tourists, scurried down the nearly three-km track that would take them from Baisaran to Pahalgam market. As word about the terrorist attack spread, shopkeepers in Pahalgam downed their shutters, eateries closed. Restaurant owners offered free meals to panicky tourists and arranged vehicles so they could reach safer destinations elsewhere in Kashmir or head back home.

The next day, 26 coffins had to be readied. In one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, 24 tourists, one Nepali citizen and a Kashmiri, who used to work as a pony ride operator at Baisaran meadow, were killed and several others were injured. Though security agencies initially held The Resistance Front (TRF)—an offshoot of the banned Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)—responsible for the attack, TRF later denied any role in it. Most of the survivors of the April 22 attack and many local Kashmiris told the media that the Baisaran meadow was unmanned when the heavily armed terrorists struck. The now infamous scenic spot, which reportedly receives 2,000 to 3,000 visitors daily, did not have any security personnel guarding it. The meadow, accessible only by pony or on foot, is two and a half hours away from a motorable road. It can be reached via a serpentine trek route, which spans muddy roads, small streams, dense forest and an army camp. It is also important to note that the meadow is located on the iconic route of the Amarnath Yatra, which starts on July 3 this year.

Security experts point out that the attack on civilians at Baisaran seems to be a serious and multi-layered security lapse. The security apparatus had mistakenly believed that there was “no militant presence” there and presumed that militants “would not attack tourists”.