India mourns the death of 26 people, 24 of them Indian tourists, two foreigners and two Kashmiris, in a terrorist attack in the crowded Baisaran meadow near Pahalgaon in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Twenty were injured, some critically. The foreigners were from Nepal and the United Arab Emirates. The four attackers reportedly included two Pakistani nationals and two locals.
This is touted as the most serious attack on civilians in the Kashmir valley since the 2019 Pulwama bombing, and has serious repercussions on tourism, which is the lifeline of the valley and the chief source of livelihood of local people, including porters, and syces of horses and mules.
In 2024, Kashmir saw record tourist arrivals, with Pahalgam’s meadows and glaciers drawing millions.
Kashmir’s tourism industry, a cornerstone of its economy, has long been a target for militants. The insurgency, ongoing since 1989, has seen periods of intense violence, with civilians, security forces, and militants among the tens of thousands killed. While tourists were rarely targeted on such a scale, recent years have seen a disturbing pattern of attacks on pilgrims and non-locals.
After bifurcation, and its formation as a union territory, Jammu and Kashmir has a unique governance system. While the civil government is under an elected chief minister – Omar Abdullah -- the security apparatus is under the direct control of the Union government through the Lieutenant Governor.
In the general outrage over the killing, which is attributed to the Resistance Front, a part of the Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Tauba, questions need to be asked over the summary intelligence failure at all levels, which left the meadows, favourite of tourists, totally bereft of any security cover.
There is no question but that the attack was timed to coincide with the visit by US Vice President JD Vance to India. It was a coincidence perhaps that the Prime minister was in Saudi Arabia, a visit he cut short on hearing of the Pahalgaon
mayhem.
There are reports that warnings were either ignored or inadequately acted upon. There had been rumours of possible or potential attacks on tourists for over a week, including Srinagar city as a target.
The region, which has an estimated 500,000 Indian troops, has an extensive surveillance and intelligence grid. However, the attack’s success in a high-traffic tourist area, far from the heavily guarded urban centres, speaks volumes of gaps in coordination and proactive measures.
The Baisaran meadow, lacking armed security presence, was a soft target, contrasting sharply with the fortified checkpoints and patrols in nearby Pahalgam town.
The involvement of local operatives, as suggested by intelligence sources identifying two attackers from Bijbhera and Tral, points to another critical failure: the inability to dismantle local militant networks. Despite intensified counter-insurgency operations since 2019, groups like TRF apparently continue to recruit and operate with support from sympathetic civilians.
It would seem obvious that there is inadequate coordination among central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), and local police.
The lack of actionable response to prior warnings suggests deficiencies in real-time threat assessment and dissemination. Credible newspapers and people have been calling for “sharper intelligence and tighter coordination,” with proactive measures like enhanced vigilance and community engagement.
The attack particularly highlights the challenge of securing remote tourist areas. While urban centres like Srinagar are heavily fortified, rural destinations like Baisaran meadow are harder to patrol. Deploying permanent security posts in such areas risks militarising tourist experiences, but the absence of protection leaves visitors vulnerable.
A balanced approach, combining discreet security measures with community-based intelligence, could mitigate risks without deterring tourism.
Also disconcerting is the attack’s ethnic targeting—evident in the assailants’ focus on Hindu tourists—raising concerns about furthering communal polarization.
The Pahalgam attack reflects deeper structural issues in India’s approach to Kashmir. The heavy military presence, while effective in urban areas, has not eradicated militancy, which continues to draw support from Pakistan-based groups and local grievances.
Pakistan’s role, though denied officially, is evident in the involvement of Pakistani nationals and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s backing of TRF. India’s insistence on treating the insurgency as purely Pakistan-sponsored terrorism overlooks the domestic roots of discontent, including alienation fuelled by the 2019 revocation and subsequent crackdowns.
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants security forces broad powers, has been criticized by groups like Amnesty International for enabling human rights abuses, further eroding trust in the government.
Observers have spoken about the inadequate political action required in the state. The assembly was revived, and after general elections, a civil government is in place. This government is not involved in the security process. That in many ways also impacts intelligence gathering as political workers feel themselves alienated instead of actively seeing themselves involved in helping enhance security.
This came out embarrassingly sharply in the post violence security review under union home minister Amit Shah who had rushed to Srinagar. Chief Minister Abdullah was pointedly excluded from the meeting for a review of the security situation.
The Pahalgam terrorist attack of April 22, 2025, was a tragic consequence of multiple levels of intelligence failures, local complicity, amidst the broader complexities of the Kashmir conflict.
Patchwork solutions will not work. The massacre, which claimed 26 lives and injured many more, calls for improved intelligence coordination, enhanced security for tourist areas, and a nuanced approach to counter-terrorism that addresses both external and internal drivers of militancy.
The path forward lies in combining robust security measures with genuine efforts to address local grievances.
Addressing these grievances requires not only security measures but also political engagement, as suggested by Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge’s call for cross-party talks to ensure safety and unity.
(John Dayal is an author, Editor, occasional documentary film maker and activist.)