Sunday February 18, 2018
Home World Four major Pa...

Four major Pak related terrorist activities in India



The Gurdaspur district of the state of Punjab, on July 27, 2015, woke up to gun shots as three gunmen in Army fatigues attacked different sites.

They started their assault by shooting indiscriminately at an incoming Punjab Roadways bus. The bus driver showing attentiveness and courage drove straight to the assailants forcing them to clear the way.  He then sped of directly to a government hospital for treatment of the injured passengers.

The shooters then carjacked a nearby Maruti 800 after killing its driver and then zoomed off to the Dina Nagar police station. In their way, they shot dead a roadside vendor.

Before entering the police station, the attackers shot at an adjacent community health centre, killing three civilians and a policeman.

The gunmen then entered the police station and opened fire at the occupants, seriously maiming five policemen. They were immediately engaged by the other policemen in the spot.

After an 11 hour, siege all three were finally neutralised by the special security forces.


Following the Gurdaspur attack, in nine days India experienced yet another attack in its vulnerable northern belt. This time, it was in the Udhampur district of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, an otherwise peaceful district.

A consortium of four terrorists wielding AK-47s opened fire on a convoy of BSF plying on the Jammu-Srinagar highway. The subsequent retaliation from the BSF forces resulted in the death of one terrorist. The BSF lost two of its soldiers.

Two terrorists managed to flee the scene while one, Mohammad Naved, was caught alive by the security forces. He claimed to be a resident of Ghulam Mohammadabad in Pakistan.

ISI-linked spies

The Delhi police have also been uncovering an emerging ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence) linked spying racket in India’s security agencies. In the latest case related to this spying racket, an erstwhile IAF officer from Punjab has been nabbed by Delhi police.

The accused KK Ranjith, dismissed recently by the IAF on receiving actionable evidence by security agencies, was posted at Bhatinda.

He was ensnared into a ‘honey trap’ set up by the ISI after he met an unidentified woman on Facebook.

Earlier a similar arrest was made in West Bengal of a serving army personnel. His arrest took the total number to five in the operations undertaken by the Delhi police to unearth a spying racket, headed by alleged ISI operative Kafaitullah Khan.


The state of Punjab witnessed yet another attack as it began the New Year with a continuing siege at the western frontier Indian Air Force (IAF) base.

In the wee hours of January 2 a posse of terrorist entered the IAF base and were immediately engaged by prepositioned elite security forces, Garud commando force, of the IAF, raised especially for such contingencies.

The security agencies had a credible intelligence of the attack after the centre alerted the concerned authorities and quickly dispatched the NSG. Earlier, on Jan 1, SP Salwinder Singh, whose car was forcefully taken by the terrorists had alerted the local police station. No credence was given initially but later the picked it up and it immediately became clear that Pathankot was the target.

Despite early intelligence, with sufficient time to mobilise troops to preserve the military sanctity of the IAF base, the security forces failed to prevent the entry of the terrorists.

Thus far, seven security troops have become martyrs and six terrorists have been neutralised. The combing operations continue, almost sixty hours since the operations began, around air base, akin to the size of a ‘mini city’.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 NewsGram

Next Story

Jihadis targeting India are seen as ‘the good guys’: Haqqani

Pakistani scholar and author Husain Haqqani talks about his recent book 'India vs Pakistan: Why Can't We Just be Friends?'


Former Pakistani Ambassador to the US, scholar and author Husain Haqqani who is an integral part of the powerful elite in Islamabad, talks about his recent book ‘India vs Pakistan: Why Can’t We Just be Friends?’, discussing jihad, relations with India, terrorism and the connection between Pakistan’s military intelligence service – the ISI and Islamic jihadi forces.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q. Can you explain ex-ISI chief Shuja Pasha’s statement on 26/11 terror attack, “Log hamare the, operation hamara nahi tha” (our people but it was not our operation)?
A. Pasha said, “our people” were involved, he didn’t say it was Pakistan army officers or ISI men. Pasha could have meant Pakistanis or he could be referring to LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) as “our people.” However, Pasha had told ex-CIA Director, General Michael Hayden, that “retired Pakistani army officers and retired intelligence officers” were involved in the planning. General Hayden says so in his book. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, has also written the same.
Since 26/11, Pakistan never went into the depth of the case even though proof was presented. We did arrest some, but we have not successfully prosecuted those responsible and until that is done, questions will remain.

Q. Rice had warned Pakistan to shut down terror operations. However, nothing has changed.
A. Prosecution is difficult in a system where jihadis targeting India are seen as ‘the good guys’. Yes, Secretary Rice had told Islamabad to shut down all terrorist operations. But that wasn’t the first time and certainly not the last. Pakistan has persisted with the same policy since the 1990s. When pushed by US on terror: first deny, then list Pakistani grievances, bring up Kashmir and blame India, provide commitments and assurances and end again with denial. This is not working.

Q. Though US had named Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi of LeT as the 26/11 mastermind, he is roaming around freely in Pakistan. What is stopping Islamabad from taking action?
A. Pakistan sees jihad as a low cost option to bleed India. The security apparatus views terrorism as irregular warfare. Islamabad feels this is the only way to ensure some form of military parity.

Q. Is there a concerted attempt by the Pakistan army to thwart peace talks?
A. As an analyst, I have seen that over the last 69 years, Indian and Pakistani leaders have met 53 times and yet been unable to change the course of their ties. Whenever the two try to move forward, the military has reacted. Civilian and army leaders have lost power after attempting to make peace.

Q. What should be Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir?
A. Having a normal relationship, people-to-people ties and trade doesn’t mean giving up on legal or political claim. The question I ask is: Is Kashmir really Pakistan’s ‘jugular vein’ if it has survived for 69 years without it? Should the two risk nuclear mass destruction over a quarrel they have not been able to resolve for so long?
However, Pakistan’s military has insisted on resolution of the Kashmir imbroglio before opening trade or travel.

Disputed Areas of Kashmir, Wikimedia Commons
Disputed Areas of Kashmir, Wikimedia Commons

Q. Pakistan’s Kashmir policy remains by and large in the hands of the military even when a civilian prime minister holds office. How can we expect a solution?
A. Under civilian prime ministers, Pakistan has moved forward with India. But Pakistan’s security establishment insists on controlling foreign and security policy, including the Kashmir policy. They have not been able to reach any long-lasting solution. Pakistanis realise that it is only civilian leaders who can actually reach a solution.

Related article: The Fight for Kashmir

Q. In your opinion, Indira Gandhi had been magnanimous with the Shimla Pact, but Pakistanis saw the absence of pressure for a full settlement of Kashmir as an opportunity to keep the conflict alive. Should she have been more assertive on Kashmir?
A. Mrs Gandhi did not trust (prime minister) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto but she saw him as preferable to a military regime. For India, domestic unrest or balkanisation of Pakistan, is not a favorable development.
The compromise was to declare in Shimla that “the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.” This was meant to preclude any future war.

Q. The book mentions how Pakistan intelligence had passed on the information of 10 terrorists who sneaked into Gujarat in March. Do you feel that its a sincere move to preempt a crisis after Pathankot?
A. It’s very positive that Pakistan has shared intelligence with India. But it was more because pressure from India and US. India cancelled scheduled talks and (Prime Minister Nawaz) Sharif was eager to resume dialogue. It was less likely that this move reflected concern for possible Indian casualties and was more to do with the need to deflect international pressure.

Q. Are you hopeful of a breakthrough in Indo-Pak relationship after Pathankot?
A. The two foreign secretaries met in New Delhi for the Heart of Asia conference and Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi is scheduled to travel to Islamabad for the SAARC summit in November this year. So, talks will continue as before but for a breakthrough, the two sides need to move beyond simply cancelling or rescheduling talks and create an environment for change.

Q. You also talk about the shrinking space for friendship and increasing ‘saffronisation’ of India. How harmful is this for ties?
A. Indo-Pak ties have become a victim of two parallel and contending nationalisms. In recent years, we are increasingly resembling each other in rage, resentment and public displays of religion.

Q. How do you see US policy towards Pakistan in the wake of US elections?
A. Neither of the current Presidential candidates have expressed a positive view of Pakistan. What should worry my countrymen is that entire US think tank and the average American share the same view.
Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State in 2011 said, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors.” US policy towards Pakistan has been built on what I call ‘Magnificent Delusions’. Pakistan saw the US as its superpower ally who would build its resources to stand up to India, but Washington never saw India as a threat. US and Pakistan have very different goals but still assume they can get the other to work to their advantage.

Source: IANS
(Preetha Nair can be reached at