When the Army base in Uri in Srinagar was attacked in the early hours of Sunday, 18 soldiers were killed. Of those, 14 were killed when they were refilling diesel in barrels from fuel tanks.
While the specific security lapses in the Uri attack will be investigated by the Army, the documented facts of the Uri attack raise broader questions about the security of our military bases and efficient intelligence reports.
Post-Pathankot, No Review in Security of Army Bases
Writing for The Quint, Syed Ata Hasnain has said that due to a reduction in the number of terrorists since 2003, the security of garrisons like Uri may have been diluted. Do we need to rethink the security of our military bases? Particularly in context of the attack on Pathankot base earlier this year?
Speaking to The Quint, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, Ajai Sahni said,
After the Pathankot attack, there was assurance from the government about a nationwide review of security of army bases throughout the country. But it has been 9 months after the attack and to my knowledge there has been no upgradation. The government is simply not spending on internal security and the military.Ajai Sahni, who is also an expert on counter-terrorism
The Uri camp is surrounded by a barbed wire fence and the four terrorists cut the wire to enter the camp, according to a report in the Economic Times.
At the time of the attack in Uri, the administrative echelons of 10 Dogra and 6 Bihar were in camp. Writing for the Business Standard, Ajai Shukla says that the combat echelons of the battalions were deployed in forward posts along the LoC, leaving the camp lightly guarded.
But some believe that upgrading security of army bases is a gradual and ongoing process, which should be undertaken by the Army. Speaking to The Quint, National Security Analyst Nitin Gokhale says he certainly thinks so.
Upgrading security is an ongoing process which is done using security audits and something the army is capable of conducting very well.Nitin Gokhale, National Security Analyst
Did the Militants Have Prior Knowledge? Could We Have Acted on Intel Reports?
When the Uri attack took place, there was a turnover taking place in the army camp which made it more vulnerable. Also, there were additional troops inducted in the camp which meant that there were extra troops in camp. These troops were accommodated in extra tents, making the administrative camp even more vulnerable to attack.
These facts have led to a debate over whether the terrorists had inside information about the camp, with some army generals not ruling out the possibility. General HS Panag speaking to The Quint says,
I would say that the chance of terrorists having intelligence reports is 50-50. It could be likely that the terrorists did a recce of the camp or it could just be a coincidence.Lieutenant General (retd) HS Panag
Did we have actionable intelligence? No, most military experts agree.
While intelligence agencies had sent a written warning that a Pakistani ‘border action team’ including militants was planning to launch an attack across the LoC, it was not specific, actionable intelligence which could have prevented the attack.
A general intelligence report in a volatile area like in Jammu and Kashmir doesn’t make sense. A specific, actionable intelligence report is another thing. In my experience, I have never come across specific information based on the Intelligence Bureau (IB).Lieutenant General (retd) HS Panag
(Sources: The Economic Times, The Business Standard article reproduced in Ajai Shukla’s blog)