Pahalgam Terror Attack: Intelligence Faultlines?

Analysis

By: Gowri Dixit, Research Scholar, Dr Chetan Singai, Professor and Dean School of Law, Governance and Public Policy, Chanakya University

It was just another day for the tourists and the locals in Kashmir - until terrorists struck Pahalgam, killing innocent people in broad daylight. While terrorism never truly left Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), a troubling shift appears to be underway: the target population is once again innocent Hindu civilians. A Pakistan-supported group, The Resistance Front (TRF), operating as a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has claimed responsibility. This attack reveals faultlines in the national security system, especially in gathering intelligence information and acting upon it in a timely manner.  

It is chilling to see that the terrorists were impersonating Indian Army personnel. By creating trust and hope amongst the innocent tourists and then shooting the Hindu, aka non-Muslim, tourists reflects not just brutality, but the larger normative construct of cultural indifference and intolerance. The TRF is notorious for its presence on social media through which it carries out propaganda and radicalisation. Their activities on the internet, which they claimed to be intellectual, were used to recruit youth into their group. Their aim in this attack is clear: to fracture the already fragile social fabric of India, and to sow further division and distrust.

Historically, terrorism has thrived on and for ideology, and this is not a novel phenomenon. And while it may be possible to counter an attack with force, countering the belief system that breeds terrorism is significantly harder. The security agencies dealing with counter-terrorism are aware of this.  However, the agencies have been concentrating on the terrorist attack per se, but not on the root cause, i.e., the ideology that feeds the act of terrorism.

Mostly, attacks are followed by investigations, arrests, legal trials, and some policy changes. In a few cases, attacks were followed by reforms. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks spurred coastal security reforms, and the German Bakery blast in Pune led to an overhaul in intelligence coordination to identify the possibility of attacks. In a few other cases, it followed calibrated military action, examples being Uri, which prompted surgical strikes, and Pulwama, which triggered the Balakot airstrikes. The only instance where a decision was made proactively to address security issues in J&K was the abrogation of Article 370. This decision brought a much-needed respite and hopeful rays of development in the state. However, the move itself was considered a jolt to the ‘Kashmiri identity’. TRF, the group that has claimed responsibility for this attack, was formed in the background of the abrogation of the article.  This shows that once again, policy changes and operational tactics were necessary but not sufficient to put an end to terrorism in J&K. The central question now is whether India wants to continue responding to terrorist attacks or begin responding to terrorism itself.

Responding to Radicalisation: The Strategic Imperative

To truly root out terrorism, India must address radicalisation at its source. This hinges on intelligence—gathering, analysing, and acting effectively. A proactive intelligence network can identify and neutralise both local and cross-border outfits before they act. The Pahalgam attack underscores a severe intelligence lapse. Reports indicate that the attackers scoped out tourist hotspots with minimal security presence to maximise casualties. Some attackers were locals, others from Pakistan, suggesting collaboration and coordination that slipped through the cracks of the porous borders.

A robust intelligence infrastructure is not just about averting attacks; it's the first line of defence against radicalisation itself. Intelligence has a critical role to play, not just in responding to planned attacks but in identifying and disrupting the pathways that lead individuals toward extremism. Building local informant networks, engaging with community leaders and socially influential people, like educators, can help identify those at risk of radicalisation. These actors can also be critical allies in deradicalisation efforts, offering alternative narratives rooted in community trust.

Further, inter-agency coordination must improve. Compartmentalisation of agencies leads to intelligence and security faultlines. Real-time sharing between central and state agencies, military and civilian units, and even international partners is vital for tracking cross-border radicalisation pipelines.

Ultimately, preventing radicalisation is about foresight, not force. It’s about intelligence agencies engaging with not just surveillance tools, but with cultural knowledge, psychological insight, and long-term engagement strategies. This can make intelligence India’s first line of defence – not just to attacks, but to the ideologies that make them possible.

The Road Ahead: A Dual Strategy

While the nation mourns the lives lost in Pahalgam, justice for the victims must extend beyond arresting the perpetrators. Along with responding with operational tactics, India must resolve to neutralise radicalisation networks within J&K—and beyond. This dual approach of operational preparedness and ideological counteroffensive can weaken cross-border infiltration and reduce local support for extremist agendas. Terrorism in Kashmir is not just an external problem—it is a mirror held up to India’s vulnerabilities. The Pahalgam attack should not just evoke outrage; it should catalyse a shift in how India defines, approaches, and defeats terrorism. Only when we begin to counter both the gun and the idea behind it will we truly begin to secure peace.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.