Pahalgam attack: 'Pak can't tolerate lifestyle improving in Kashmir'

In this episode of Capital Beat, host Neelu Vyas brings together a distinguished panel — Dr. Abhijeet Jasrotia, Anuradha Bhasin, General Ashok K Mehta, and Nadir Ali — to unpack the shocking terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 civilians were killed. With the government touting normalcy in the Valley post-2019, the panellists dissect what the latest strike reveals about the ground reality, intelligence lapses, and the fragile line between peace and conflict in the region.

Valley under shock

Veteran journalist Anuradha Bhasin began the discussion by describing the attack as an unprecedented breach of Kashmir’s social fabric. “This militates against all those ethos,” she said, referring to the Valley’s long-standing tradition of hospitality, particularly towards tourists.

Bhasin criticised the government's repeated claims of decimating terrorism post-2019, calling them hollow. “There is a revival of terrorism in Jammu and increasing attacks on civilians,” she stated. She also flagged a dangerous silence in the region, attributing it to heightened militarisation and mass surveillance.

While refraining from jumping to conclusions about why Pahalgam was targeted, Bhasin acknowledged the area’s geographic and symbolic significance, urging restraint from speculative narratives.

Also Read: Pahalgam attack: Terrorists wore body cams, wanted maximum casualities

Government’s claims questioned

Dr. Abhijeet Jasrotia, BJP spokesperson, joined the panel from Srinagar, where he had visited victims at a local hospital. He unequivocally blamed Pakistan for the attack, alleging it was driven by an attempt to destabilise the Valley and divert attention from Pakistan’s internal chaos.

“It is intolerable to a country like Pakistan to see lifestyle improving in Kashmir,” Jasrotia said, suggesting that the ISI is intensifying infiltration attempts. He added, “Our brave forces neutralise most infiltrators, but a 1–2% margin of error exists in every country.”

Pressed by Neelu on intelligence failures and inadequate security deployment, Jasrotia defended the government, asserting that “no country is 100% safe” and reiterated India’s ability to strike back, citing Balakot and surgical strikes.

Also Read: Pahalgam attack: 'Nothing to do with it', Pakistan claims; Delhi skeptical

Terror's military aims

General Ashok K Mehta, retired Army officer, called the attack a “deliberate soft-target strike,” designed to destabilise not just public confidence but also the local economy.

“This is the first such large-scale terror attack on civilians since Pulwama,” he noted. He emphasised that terrorism in Kashmir has not ended, contrary to official claims. “Silence is not peace. Silence is forced and unnatural,” Mehta added.

He explained that terrorists strategically chose an area with minimal or no security presence, making tourists an easy target. “The objective was to simultaneously spread fear and disrupt economic activity,” he said.

Narrative vs. reality

Political activist Nadir Ali condemned the killings and warned against communalising the event. “Terrorism has no religion,” he asserted, mentioning that a local Muslim, Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, was among the victims. “Let’s not reduce this to a Hindu-Muslim issue,” he urged.

Nadir also revealed a disturbing detail—security agencies had been tipped off about high-ranking officers holidaying in the area, including personnel from the Navy, IAF, and IB. This, he said, raised serious concerns about a major security breach.

He strongly criticised the BJP’s “hollow narrative” of normalcy and said the Valley remains alienated. “There is silence, but it’s a dangerous silence. Kashmiris are not integrated. They feel disconnected and unheard,” he said.

Militarized response or political outreach?

Neelu asked whether the solution lies in further militarisation or political engagement. General Mehta noted that local intelligence networks have eroded. “Earlier, even shepherds alerted us during Kargil. That kind of cooperation is missing today,” he said.

He also warned that the geopolitical situation today differs drastically from 2019. “The Americans were backing us then. Now, their interests have shifted. Balakot-level retaliation may not be diplomatically feasible,” he stated.

Despite BJP’s political rhetoric, Mehta believed the response to this attack would likely be more restrained but strategically calculated to preserve deterrence.

Also Read: 'Go, tell Modi’: Woman gets chilling message after husband killed in Pahalgam

Local complicity and political silence

Jasrotia returned to stress that internal actors in Kashmir are part of the problem. He pointed to remarks by politicians like National Conference MP Aga Ruhullah Mehdi, claiming that such statements embolden separatist sentiments.

“We know how to deal with Pakistan, but we must also question those within who fuel these narratives,” Jasrotia said. He blamed “1–2% of the population” for acting as Pakistan’s proxies, and urged stronger action against them.

Neelu pressed him again on whether this deflects attention from the government’s own failures in intelligence and preparedness. Jasrotia reiterated that his government had acted swiftly and responsibly.

The role of silence

Both Bhasin and Nadir had earlier emphasised the importance of understanding the meaning of silence in Kashmir. “It is not peace. It is forced calm,” Nadir warned, adding that this state of fear often erupts violently when left unaddressed.

Bhasin pointed out that the government’s inability to build trust with locals leaves a vacuum easily filled by extremist narratives. “You cannot win hearts through surveillance and suppression,” she said.

Will India retaliate again?

Jasrotia insisted that India would not hesitate to act. “When it comes to the safety of our citizens, we will not think twice,” he said. He emphasised India’s past responses—surgical strikes, Balakot, and Pokhran—as proof that “this government doesn’t back down.”

General Mehta disagreed on the feasibility of another Balakot-style strike. “The geopolitical context has changed. The threshold for retaliation has shifted. Pakistan thinks it can get away this time,” he said. However, he agreed that a calibrated response was inevitable.

Also Read: In photos: Terror attack disrupts peace in Kashmir’s Pahalgam

Searching for real peace

Towards the end, Neelu asked what lasting solutions could look like. Nadir pointed out that peace is not possible without engaging the people. “Terrorism will go only when society rejects it. That happens through trust, not intimidation,” he said.

He credited former PM Manmohan Singh’s outreach efforts for the relative calm in Kashmir during the early 2000s. “Those efforts worked because they were rooted in dialogue, not force,” Nadir noted.

Neelu ended the discussion by urging viewers not to communalise the tragedy. “This is not about Hindus or Muslims—it’s about innocent people losing their lives in a place they came to find joy,” she said.

The panel concluded with unanimous agreement that the fight against terrorism in Kashmir cannot be won with force alone. Political engagement, community trust, and honest introspection are equally important.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.