Pahalgam Terror Attack: Intelligence officials debrief all-party meet on security failures, says Kiren Rijiju

What happened in the Pahalgam terror attack?

On 23 April 2025, a devastating terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of at least 26 civilians, most of whom were domestic tourists. The assault, reportedly carried out by heavily armed terrorists linked to the Pakistan-backed “Kashmir Resistance” group, marked one of the deadliest attacks targeting civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai tragedy. Armed with automatic weapons and explosives, the assailants targeted a cluster of tourist vehicles on a routine sightseeing route, causing extensive casualties and national outrage.

This incident triggered an immediate political and security response, leading to heightened alerts across the Kashmir Valley and strategic actions both within India and along the India-Pakistan border. Security agencies responded with intensive combing operations across the region, while the Indian government moved swiftly to convene a high-level all-party meeting in New Delhi.

How did the Indian government respond to the Pahalgam attack?

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, addressing the outcome of the all-party meeting, confirmed that top intelligence officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Intelligence Bureau provided comprehensive briefings to political leaders across party lines. According to Rijiju, the briefings included detailed assessments of the operational security lapses that allowed the attackers to infiltrate the area undetected and carry out the mass casualty event.

He described the nature of the intelligence oversight that may have contributed to the failure to prevent the attack, revealing that although there had been earlier indications of potential militant movement in the Anantnag-Pahalgam sector, the threat had not been adequately addressed. This admission has raised questions over coordination among central and state-level security forces, as well as the effectiveness of on-ground counterterrorism protocols.

What did opposition parties say about the handling of the attack?

In a rare show of unity, political leaders across the spectrum voiced strong condemnation of the attack. Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi supported the government’s efforts to combat terrorism, calling for a “decisive national security doctrine” that strengthens preventive frameworks and modernises intelligence gathering. Leaders from the Trinamool Congress and Aam Aadmi Party echoed similar sentiments, demanding aggressive diplomatic and military action to dismantle cross-border terror camps.

However, some criticism emerged as well. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi questioned the selective nature of the all-party briefing, pointing out that smaller parties were initially excluded from the discussion. He also raised concerns about the overall security infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir, stating that the attackers’ ability to reach Pahalgam highlighted vulnerabilities in the broader territorial defence framework. He warned that if armed militants could target a heavily patrolled tourist destination, then larger urban areas, including Srinagar, could be at equal or greater risk.

What role did Pakistan-based terror outfits play in the incident?

Intelligence sources have linked the attackers to the “Kashmir Resistance” group, an emerging affiliate reportedly supported by Pakistan-based organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. These groups, long designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations and other international watchdogs, have intensified their operations in recent years despite diplomatic overtures and cross-border dialogues.

The Indian government has accused Pakistan of providing ideological, logistical, and financial support to these groups, a charge Islamabad has routinely denied. However, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam tragedy, New Delhi announced the suspension of several key bilateral arrangements, including the Indus Waters Treaty, and closed the Wagah-Attari land border indefinitely. This marks one of the most severe diplomatic escalations between the two countries in recent years.

How has the global community responded to the attack?

Global reactions have largely been in India’s favour. Leaders from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China issued strong condemnations of the attack and pledged support for India’s fight against terrorism. The United Nations also reiterated its call for international cooperation in tackling cross-border terrorism and called for accountability from state actors that provide safe haven to non-state militant groups.

While India’s Ministry of External Affairs has stepped up outreach to global capitals, demanding sanctions against specific individuals associated with the Kashmir Resistance and related networks, diplomatic observers noted that geopolitical tensions in South Asia may limit the speed and scope of such international action.

What security changes are being considered following the attack?

In the wake of the all-party meeting, the Indian government is reportedly evaluating multiple policy and operational reforms aimed at preventing future attacks. These include enhanced surveillance of high-risk regions through drone and satellite-based monitoring, restructuring of central-state intelligence sharing frameworks, and acceleration of long-pending proposals to modernise armed forces stationed in border areas.

There are also internal discussions about expanding the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) model and empowering it with real-time data integration capabilities across law enforcement, intelligence, and defence systems. Experts believe that while the state police and paramilitary presence in Jammu and Kashmir remains strong, critical lapses in threat prioritisation and asset deployment have allowed gaps to persist.

What’s next for India’s counterterrorism strategy?

The Pahalgam attack has reignited long-standing debates around India’s counterterrorism strategy, particularly in the volatile Kashmir region. Analysts say that despite multiple military successes against terrorist hideouts, the reactive nature of security operations leaves room for high-profile attacks.

Strategists argue for a shift toward intelligence-led policing, with predictive modelling, local community engagement, and AI-assisted threat analysis. Strengthening inter-agency cooperation and creating a transparent chain of accountability from field operatives to national command centres is also being discussed at high levels.

As India mourns the lives lost, the path ahead involves not just vengeance or diplomatic rebukes, but systemic reform of national security mechanisms. While the exact outcomes of the government’s new counterterrorism directives remain to be seen, what is certain is the growing consensus that old methods are insufficient for today’s threats. The Pahalgam incident is poised to be a watershed moment in how India defines, responds to, and prepares against the evolving dynamics of modern terrorism.