Tourism depends on a promise that is rarely written down.
You will be safe here.
For destinations built around mountains, lakes, forests and pilgrimage routes, that promise can be as important as scenery, hotels or roads. A visitor may remember a landscape, a meal or a walk through an old market, but the decision to come in the first place often begins with a more basic calculation: Is it safe?
In Jammu and Kashmir, that question has acquired particular weight.
A parliamentary committee has recommended an integrated security and surveillance system at major tourist destinations across the region, calling for comprehensive CCTV coverage, centralised monitoring and regular assessments of security vulnerabilities.
The recommendations were contained in the 260th report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, presented in Parliament after the panel visited Jammu and Kashmir in May to assess security arrangements at important tourist locations.
The recommendations come at a consequential moment for Kashmir’s tourism industry.
Visitor numbers have risen in recent years, supported by expanded infrastructure, improved connectivity and renewed traveller confidence. Hotels, transport operators, guides, restaurants and small businesses have all benefited from the return of visitors.
But the growth has also increased the importance of protecting the people who come.
The committee said security arrangements should be reviewed regularly, particularly before the peak tourism season, when visitor numbers increase and the pressure on tourist destinations rises.
Its recommendations seek to make surveillance less fragmented and more systematic.
CCTV cameras should be installed at important tourist sites, the panel said, and connected to a central monitoring system capable of providing real-time surveillance.
The idea is straightforward.
Instead of cameras operating as isolated pieces of equipment, footage from important tourist locations could feed into a coordinated monitoring network. Authorities would then have greater visibility over crowded areas and a potentially faster means of responding when something goes wrong.
The committee also recommended regular vulnerability assessments.
The purpose would be to identify security gaps before they become incidents, determine preventive measures and ensure that arrangements evolve with changing risks.
Periodic security audits should also be conducted, the panel said, to determine whether existing measures remain effective.
That emphasis on repetition is significant.
Security cannot be treated as a one-time exercise, particularly in places where visitor patterns, threats and infrastructure are constantly changing.
A security arrangement that appears adequate in one season may need to be reassessed before the next.
The recommendations follow the April 2025 attack in Pahalgam, in which 26 people, including 25 tourists, were killed.
The attack brought renewed scrutiny to the security of tourist destinations in Kashmir and sharply underscored the consequences of a failure to protect visitors.
For the tourism industry, the damage caused by such an incident extends beyond those directly affected.
Tourism depends heavily on confidence.
Visitors make decisions based on what they see and hear. News of an attack can travel far beyond the location where it occurred, shaping perceptions of an entire region.
A destination may have improved roads, new hotels and attractive tourism infrastructure, but those investments cannot compensate for a widespread perception that visitors are vulnerable.
The parliamentary committee acknowledged that reality.
It said improved connectivity, tourism infrastructure and security arrangements, combined with a recovery in traveller confidence, had contributed to rising tourist arrivals in Jammu and Kashmir.
But it stressed that the perception of safety remained critical.
“Security management at tourist destinations assumes special importance,” the committee said, linking visitor safety with the quality of the tourism experience and the continued growth of the industry.
That connection is particularly important in Kashmir.
Tourism is not confined to a single site.
Visitors move through a network of destinations, roads and public spaces. They may begin their journey in Srinagar, travel toward Pahalgam, Gulmarg or Sonamarg, visit lakes and gardens, stay in hotels and guesthouses, and spend time in markets and other public areas.
Security therefore cannot be reduced to guarding the entrance of one attraction.
It has to follow the movement of visitors.
That is what makes the committee’s recommendation for an integrated system significant.
Cameras at individual sites can provide useful information, but a central monitoring system can potentially provide a broader picture.
Authorities could monitor multiple locations at once, identify unusual activity, respond to incidents and coordinate with personnel on the ground.
The technology is only one part of the equation.
The panel also emphasised assessments and audits.
Those measures acknowledge that cameras alone do not create security.
A camera that does not cover the right location, cannot be monitored effectively or produces footage that no one is watching may offer little protection.
The usefulness of surveillance depends on what happens after an image is captured.
Who monitors it?
Who responds?
How quickly can personnel reach the location?
Are communication systems reliable?
Are emergency procedures understood?
Are blind spots identified?
And are lessons from previous incidents incorporated into future planning?
The committee’s recommendation for regular vulnerability assessments addresses precisely those questions.
Instead of waiting for a security incident to expose a weakness, authorities would be expected to examine tourist locations in advance and identify areas that could be exploited.
That could include physical access points, crowded spaces, parking areas, transport hubs and other locations where large numbers of visitors gather.
The approach also reflects the changing nature of tourism.
As visitor numbers grow, tourist sites can become increasingly crowded.
More people mean more economic activity, but they also create more complex security requirements.
A busy destination needs to manage not only potential threats but also ordinary emergencies – lost children, medical incidents, accidents, crowding and other situations in which rapid response can make a difference.
A coordinated monitoring system could assist with those challenges as well.
The parliamentary panel’s recommendations therefore sit at the intersection of security and tourism management.
The objective is not simply to prevent attacks.
It is to create tourist environments in which visitors feel protected and authorities are capable of responding when problems arise.
That perception can be crucial.
Tourists do not necessarily see security infrastructure in technical terms. They experience it through visible policing, organised public spaces, reliable emergency services and the sense that someone is paying attention.
Security that is effective but invisible may be valuable.
Security that is both effective and reassuring can be even more important for a tourism destination.
The committee’s call for regular reviews before the peak tourism season reflects this understanding.
Tourist destinations do not remain static.
Hotels open.
Roads change.
New attractions emerge.
Visitor numbers shift.
Events alter crowd patterns.
Threat assessments evolve.
A security plan therefore has to evolve too.
The panel’s May visit provided an opportunity to examine these arrangements directly.
Members assessed security at major tourist sites and held discussions with officials.
The resulting recommendations emphasise coordination rather than isolated measures.
CCTV infrastructure, central monitoring, vulnerability assessments and security audits are intended to function as parts of one system.
That would require cooperation among different agencies and departments.
It would also require investment.
Installing cameras across major tourist destinations is only the beginning. Maintaining equipment, ensuring reliable connectivity, staffing monitoring centres, storing and securing footage, training personnel and maintaining response systems all carry costs.
The larger question is whether such investment should be viewed as a burden or as part of the infrastructure required to sustain tourism.
For a region seeking to build a large and stable tourism economy, the answer is increasingly clear.
Security is infrastructure.
Just as roads allow tourists to reach a destination, security allows them to feel comfortable once they arrive.
The two are connected.
A destination that is difficult to reach may struggle to attract visitors.
A destination that is easy to reach but perceived as unsafe may face a different problem.
The committee’s report places security alongside connectivity and tourism infrastructure as part of the conditions needed for sustained growth.
That is particularly relevant as Jammu and Kashmir seeks to consolidate the tourism revival of recent years.
The region has invested in roads, hotels, tourist facilities and new destinations. Improved connectivity has opened access to places that were previously harder to reach.
The growth has created opportunities for local communities and businesses.
But every increase in visitor numbers also raises the stakes.
A larger tourism economy means more people whose safety must be considered.
The April 2025 attack demonstrated how quickly confidence can be shaken.
The committee’s recommendations represent an attempt to ensure that the lessons from that tragedy are incorporated into the architecture of future tourism.
The emphasis is on preparedness rather than reaction.
CCTV can help detect.
Central monitoring can help coordinate.
Vulnerability assessments can help anticipate.
Security audits can help evaluate.
Together, they create a cycle in which security arrangements are continually tested and improved.
That cycle may be more important than any individual piece of equipment.
Technology changes quickly.
Threats change too.
The security system that is adequate today may not be adequate tomorrow.
Regular assessments provide a mechanism for recognising that before a crisis forces the issue.
For Kashmir’s tourism industry, the stakes extend beyond visitor statistics.
Every tourist represents a network of economic activity.
A hotel room is booked.
A taxi is hired.
A restaurant serves a meal.
A guide leads a group.
A shop sells handicrafts.
A local worker earns an income.
Tourism spreads through these interactions.
When confidence rises, those interactions multiply.
When confidence falls, they contract.
Security therefore has an economic dimension.
Protecting tourists protects more than the visitors themselves.
It protects the livelihoods connected to their presence.
That is why the committee’s recommendation comes at a significant point in the region’s tourism story.
Jammu and Kashmir is trying to build on renewed interest from travellers while developing new destinations and strengthening its infrastructure.
The challenge is to ensure that growth does not outpace preparedness.
More visitors require more capacity.
More destinations require broader security coverage.
More crowded public spaces require better monitoring.
And changing risks require continuous assessment.
The committee’s proposed framework is an attempt to bring those elements together.
At its core is a simple idea: security should not be an afterthought to tourism.
It should be built into it.
A visitor arriving in Kashmir may first notice the mountains.
They may photograph a lake, walk through a garden or watch the evening light fall across a valley.
They may never think about the cameras positioned around them or the people monitoring them from somewhere else.
That is, in many ways, the point.
Effective security allows a destination to be experienced as a destination rather than as a security zone.
But behind that apparently effortless experience is a system that has to work continuously.
The parliamentary panel is asking Jammu and Kashmir to strengthen that system.
Its recommendations are ambitious but practical: put cameras where they matter, connect them to central monitoring, assess vulnerabilities regularly and audit security arrangements before weaknesses become crises.
The goal is not to make tourism feel watched.
It is to make it feel safe.
And for a region whose economic future is increasingly tied to the confidence of visitors, that distinction may matter more than ever.
About the Author
Bisma Rafiq is interested in human resources and its role in improving journalism and media organisations. She is also a passionate storyteller.
