The Peace Economy, How Tourism Can Counter Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir
From Pahalgam to Policy: Reimagining Development as a Counter-Insurgency Tool
On a spring morning in April 2025, the tranquil beauty of Pahalgam was shattered by violence. Terrorists attacked a tourist destination in one of Kashmir’s most beloved locations, killing and injuring visitors who had come to experience the region’s famed landscapes. The attack was not just a tragedy for those directly affected; it was a blow to the entire edifice of hope that tourism represents in Jammu and Kashmir.
In the aftermath, the local administration took the predictable but painful step of closing 48 government-approved tourist sites. The message was clear: when security is uncertain, access must be restricted. But the closures also sent another message, one that resonates deeply with the region’s complex politics: terrorism succeeds not only in killing people but in killing livelihoods, in closing spaces, in reinforcing the isolation that feeds resentment.
The sites have since been reopened in phases, including 14 on February 16, 2026. But the challenge remains: how can tourism recover and thrive in an environment where violence can erupt at any moment? The answer, emerging from the Union Budget 2026-27 and from the work of analysts studying the region, points toward a strategy that goes beyond security measures and into the realm of economic development, community engagement, and environmental governance.
The Two-Pronged Budget and the Missing Third Prong
In her Union Budget 2026-27 announcement, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman outlined a two-pronged plan to enhance tourism across India: institutional capacity building and the development of trails and heritage sites. She specifically singled out Jammu and Kashmir for the development of ecologically sustainable mountain trails.
This focus on trails is significant. Formal trails admit better management—ticketing systems, permits, deployment of rangers, medical facilities. They reduce the environmental impact of tourism by concentrating footfall on designated paths. And they diversify the “Kashmir experience,” moving beyond the familiar circuit of Srinagar, Gulmarg, and Pahalgam to encompass the region’s broader natural and cultural heritage.
But the original analysis, upon which this reflection is based, suggests that Kashmir could benefit from a third prong: shared environmental governance. The region is extraordinarily biodiverse, home to ecosystems and species found nowhere else on earth. It is also heavily militarised, a fact that shapes every aspect of life, including the relationship between communities and the state. Environmental governance—the management of forests, water, wildlife, and landscapes—offers a domain where cooperation is possible even when other forms of engagement are fraught.
Forest protection committees already operate around protected areas, implementing protocols for conservation and community engagement. These committees could be expanded to include paid civic roles in tourism management: trail maintenance, waste management, guiding, fire watch, and wildlife conflict mitigation. Instead of relying only on volunteer awareness campaigns, the government could create real jobs with real wages, embedding tourism development in the economic life of local communities.
The Calculus of Risk and Certainty
Tourism recovers only when two conditions are met. First, visitors must be able to predict what will happen to them. Second, local communities must see credible benefits from keeping sites open. These conditions are interdependent. Tourists will not come if they perceive risk, regardless of how much communities benefit. Communities will not support tourism if they bear the costs—disruption, environmental degradation, cultural change—without sharing the rewards.
The April 2025 attack disrupted this delicate balance. It reminded everyone that Kashmir remains a conflict zone, that violence can return at any moment, that the peace that enables tourism is fragile. But it also revealed something important: tourists themselves differentiate between types of risk. Surveys show that visitors rate the Kashmir Valley as relatively safe overall, even while recognising that some areas carry higher risk than others. This nuanced perception is a resource that policy can build upon.
What visitors need is certainty. They need to know which sites are open and which are closed. They need a clear, lucid rationale for closures and reopenings—not arbitrary decisions that seem to change with the political winds. They need reliable information about conditions on the ground, about the availability of permits, about what to do in an emergency. The state’s incentive to provide this certainty is straightforward: lower disruption means more tourism, more revenue, more legitimacy.
The Terrorist Ecosystem and Its Vulnerabilities
Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. It requires an ecosystem—a set of conditions that enable recruitment, sustain operations, and provide cover for actors. That ecosystem includes ideological narratives, but it also includes economic deprivation, political alienation, and social isolation. When young people have no path into the economy, when communities feel excluded from decision-making, when the only interactions with the state are through checkpoints and security forces, the ground is fertile for extremist messaging.
Tourism can disrupt this ecosystem. An influx of visitors creates demand for services—hotels, restaurants, transport, guiding, handicrafts. This demand jolts the local economy, providing jobs and incomes that did not exist before. Over time, more families develop a stake in the continuation of tourism. They have something to lose if violence returns. They have reason to speak out against those who would suppress the flow of visitors.
This is not a theoretical proposition. It has been observed in conflict zones around the world, from Northern Ireland to Colombia to Sri Lanka. Where tourism has been integrated into post-conflict reconstruction, it has provided tangible benefits that communities defend. It has created constituencies for peace.
But the benefits must be credible. They must reach ordinary families, not just established business interests. They must be visible and sustainable. This is why paid civic roles matter. When a young person is employed to maintain trails, to manage waste, to guide visitors, they see a direct connection between tourism and their own well-being. They become advocates for the conditions that enable tourism to flourish.
The Infrastructure of Normalcy
Tourism also drives improvements in infrastructure that benefit everyone. Functional sites need clear rules, reliable permits, fast help during emergencies, working roads, clean public spaces, and good communication. These are not luxuries; they are necessities for any community that wants to participate in the modern economy.
When the state invests in these things to support tourism, it is also investing in the daily lives of residents. The road that brings tourists to a scenic spot also connects a village to markets and services. The communication network that enables visitors to book accommodations also allows locals to access information and opportunities. The emergency response system that rescues stranded trekkers also serves residents who fall ill or suffer accidents.
This infrastructure of normalcy is itself a counter to the terrorist ecosystem. It reduces isolation, which is a precondition for radicalisation. It demonstrates that the state can deliver services, not just security. It creates spaces where people from across India can meet, interact, and build relationships that cut across the lines of division.
Reducing Fear Through Contact
One of the less discussed consequences of conflict is the fear it generates—not only among tourists, but among residents themselves. When the only news that reaches the rest of India is of violence and unrest, Kashmiris become objects of pity or suspicion rather than fellow citizens with whom one might share a meal or a conversation. This isolation feeds resentment and reinforces the psychological distance between the region and the rest of the country.
Tourism can help bridge that distance. When visitors from Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Chennai come to Kashmir and experience its beauty and hospitality firsthand, they carry those experiences home. They become informal ambassadors, correcting misconceptions and building constituencies for engagement. When Kashmiris travel to other parts of India, they discover that they are welcomed, that their culture is appreciated, that they are part of a larger whole.
Business ties develop alongside personal ones. A hotel owner in Srinagar develops relationships with travel agents in Gujarat. A handicraft seller finds markets in Kolkata. A trekking guide leads groups from Pune. These economic relationships create mutual dependence and mutual benefit. They make it harder to see the other as enemy.
The Path for Young People
Perhaps most importantly, tourism offers a path for young people. The region has a youth bulge—a large cohort of young people entering adulthood with limited economic opportunities. When these young people cannot find work, when they feel that their futures are blocked, they become vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups. The promise of purpose, belonging, and material support can be seductive when the alternatives are unemployment and despair.
Tourism and allied services can provide a different path. By skilling and reskilling young people—training them as guides, hospitality workers, entrepreneurs, conservationists—the state can offer real economic opportunities. These opportunities come with dignity. They connect young people to the wider world rather than isolating them. They build skills that are transferable, that can support a lifetime of productive work.
The Union Budget’s focus on institutional capacity building is relevant here. Capacity building means training, certification, quality standards, and career ladders. It means creating pathways from informal work to formal employment, from marginal participation to full integration. It means treating tourism not as a sideline but as a serious economic sector worthy of investment and support.
Civilian Ownership and Negotiating Power
The original analysis concludes with a powerful observation: the people of the region deserve more civilian ownership of social stability and more negotiating power, especially one that outstrips their cause for resentment.
This is the heart of the matter. For too long, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been positioned as objects of policy rather than subjects of their own development. Security approaches treat them as potential threats to be managed. Development approaches treat them as beneficiaries of largesse. Neither treats them as agents with their own interests, their own aspirations, their own capacity to shape their future.
Tourism, properly structured, can change this. When local communities have real ownership over tourism assets—when they manage trails, operate lodges, guide visitors, and benefit directly from the money that flows through—they gain negotiating power. They have something to defend. They have a stake in stability that is not imposed from outside but arises from their own interests.
This ownership also addresses the cause for resentment. Resentment in Kashmir has many sources, but among them is the feeling that the region’s resources—its land, its water, its beauty—are exploited for the benefit of outsiders while locals bear the costs. When tourism benefits locals visibly and directly, that calculus shifts. The costs of violence—lost visitors, closed sites, damaged reputation—become immediate and personal. The benefits of peace become tangible and shared.
The Path Forward
The February 16 reopening of 14 tourist sites in Kashmir is a step forward, but only a step. The real work lies in building the institutions, the infrastructure, and the relationships that will make tourism resilient in the face of future shocks.
This work requires coordination across multiple domains: security, development, environment, and governance. It requires patience, because the benefits will not appear overnight. It requires investment, because quality does not come cheap. And it requires trust, because without the confidence of both visitors and locals, nothing else matters.
The April 2025 attack was a reminder of how fragile progress can be. But it was also a reminder of why progress matters. The sites that closed and then reopened are not just scenic spots; they are places where people make a living, where families spend time together, where visitors from across India discover the humanity of Kashmir. Every day they remain open is a small victory against the forces that would keep them closed.
The vision of tourism as a counter to terrorism is not naive. It is grounded in evidence from around the world and in the specific conditions of Jammu and Kashmir. It recognises that security alone cannot defeat an ideology; it must be accompanied by opportunity, by inclusion, by hope. Tourism, done right, can provide all three.
The people of Kashmir deserve a future in which they are not defined by conflict. The visitors who come to experience the region’s beauty deserve to do so in safety. And the nation as a whole deserves to see its unity reflected not in checkpoints and barriers but in the free movement of people, ideas, and commerce across its territory.
Tourism will not solve every problem. But it can be part of the solution—a tangible, practical, hopeful part. That is worth investing in.
Q&A: Unpacking Tourism as a Counter-Terrorism Strategy in Kashmir
Q1: What happened in Pahalgam in April 2025, and why does it matter for tourism policy?
A: In April 2025, terrorists attacked a tourist destination in Pahalgam, one of Kashmir’s most popular locations, killing and injuring visitors. In response, the local administration closed 48 government-approved tourist sites, later reopening them in phases including 14 on February 16, 2026. The attack matters because it exposed the fragility of tourism in conflict zones and highlighted the need for a policy framework that addresses both security concerns and the economic interests of local communities. It demonstrated that tourism recovers only when visitors can predict their safety and when locals see credible benefits from keeping sites open.
Q2: What did the Union Budget 2026-27 propose for tourism in Jammu and Kashmir?
A: Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman outlined a two-pronged plan: institutional capacity building and developing trails and heritage sites. She specifically mentioned ecologically sustainable mountain trails in Jammu and Kashmir. Formal trails are significant because they enable better management through ticketing, permits, ranger deployment, and medical facilities, while diversifying the “Kashmir experience” beyond traditional circuits. However, analysts suggest a third prong is needed: shared environmental governance that leverages the region’s biodiversity and existing forest protection committees to create paid civic roles in tourism management.
Q3: How can paid civic roles in tourism help counter terrorism?
A: Paid civic roles—such as trail maintenance, waste management, guiding, fire watch, and wildlife conflict mitigation—create direct economic stakes for local communities in the success of tourism. When families derive tangible benefits from visitors, they are incentivised to speak out against terrorism that suppresses tourism. These roles also provide young people with legitimate economic pathways, reducing vulnerability to extremist recruitment. Unlike volunteer awareness campaigns, paid positions embed tourism development in the economic life of communities, creating constituencies for peace.
Q4: What infrastructure improvements does tourism drive, and why do they matter?
A: Functional tourism sites require clear rules, reliable permits, fast emergency response, working roads, clean public spaces, and good communication. These improvements benefit not only visitors but also residents. The roads that bring tourists also connect villages to markets. Communication networks that enable bookings also provide locals with information and opportunities. Emergency systems that serve trekkers also help residents. This “infrastructure of normalcy” reduces isolation, demonstrates state capacity to deliver services, and creates spaces for interaction between Kashmiris and other Indians, thereby reducing fear and building relationships across lines of division.
Q5: What does “civilian ownership of social stability” mean in the Kashmir context?
A: The concept refers to shifting from treating Kashmiris as objects of policy to recognising them as agents with their own interests and capacity to shape their future. When local communities have real ownership over tourism assets—managing trails, operating lodges, guiding visitors, and benefiting directly from tourism revenue—they gain negotiating power and a stake in stability that arises from their own interests rather than being imposed from outside. This addresses sources of resentment by ensuring that the region’s resources benefit locals visibly and directly. It transforms the calculus of conflict: the costs of violence become immediate and personal, while the benefits of peace become tangible and shared.
