A decade after PM Modi’s ‘Where are the answers?’ The same questions resurface after Pahalgam Terror Attack

Pahalgam Terror Attack: The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of at least 28 civilians, including 25 Indian tourists, two locals, and a foreign national, has reopened long-standing questions about India’s counterterrorism preparedness. As the nation mourns yet another tragedy, the spotlight turns not only to the operational lapses that allowed the attack to take place but also to a stark contrast between past rhetoric and present governance.

Over a decade ago, Narendra Modi, then the Chief Minister of Gujarat, had publicly questioned the Congress-led central government for similar failures. In a widely circulated video, he had demanded accountability on issues of border security, terrorist infiltration, financial monitoring, and intelligence operations. He had argued that all security levers—borders, coastal surveillance, financial systems, communications—were under the control of the Union government, and yet, terror incidents persisted.

Today, with Modi in power as Prime Minister for over a decade and his party in firm control of the central government, many of these same vulnerabilities still exist. The Pahalgam attack has highlighted concerns about intelligence failures, border breaches, and gaps in communication monitoring despite extensive technological surveillance infrastructure across the country.

Also read: 5 Reasons Pahalgam Became Terror Target Amid Tourist Surges

The Pahalgam assault isn’t the only one. The 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack, one of the worst in recent memory, tells the same story. On February 14, 2019, a suicide bomber targeted a convoy of officers on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway, killing 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) soldiers. Subsequent investigations identified 19 individuals linked to the Pulwama attack. By August 2021, seven people had been arrested, and seven, including the main accused, had been killed. However, Indian investigative agencies were found to have ignored at least 11 intelligence inputs from various sources, including the Intelligence Bureau and Jammu and Kashmir Police, before the attack.

Both attacks point to a recurring pattern: failure of intelligence, lack of inter-agency coordination, and absence of institutional accountability. Despite significant investments in surveillance technology and national security infrastructure, the fundamental challenges of anticipating and preventing attacks remain unresolved. This stark contradiction raises questions about the effectiveness of the security measures in place under the current administration.

The broader political discourse continues to be shaped by religious identity and partisan positioning, often overshadowing sober assessments of security policy. High-profile religious and political events receive massive security deployments, yet routine protection for civilians in known sensitive areas appears inconsistent. The security discourse is often marred by political narratives, diverting attention from the real structural issues at play.

While the political discourse surrounding security continues to be polarized, the handling of terrorism requires more than condemnation or retaliation. It demands transparency, institutional review, and above all, political accountability from those in power. The focus should shift from blaming external actors or political opponents to addressing the failures within the system that allow attacks to occur.

There is no denying that India has made significant investments in counterterrorism infrastructure, but the question remains: Why do terror attacks continue despite centralized control over borders, finance, and intelligence? What structural reforms have been made to address these lapses? Who is accountable when protocols fail?

A crucial aspect of addressing these concerns lies in the willingness to reflect on past mistakes, learn from them, and take corrective action. The government must prioritize institutional reforms that focus not only on enhancing technological capabilities but also on fostering better coordination and communication among various security agencies. A shift towards transparency and accountability within these institutions would go a long way in restoring public trust and ensuring more effective responses to security threats.

As India continues to grapple with terrorism, it becomes increasingly clear that counterterrorism requires more than condemnation and retaliation—it demands a commitment to transparency, the implementation of structural reforms, and the political will to hold those in power accountable for the lapses that continue to endanger citizens. The tragedy in Pahalgam is a stark reminder that governance, particularly on matters of national security, is not just about rhetoric but about action, introspection, and most importantly, accountability.