The aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed 26 innocent lives, has escalated into a political standoff of grave proportions. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has ignited controversy by alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had prior intelligence about the attack but failed to act or inform security forces. These remarks have not only raised questions about intelligence handling but also triggered a full-blown political confrontation just ahead of national elections.
Speaking at a rally in Ranchi, Kharge claimed the Prime Minister postponed a scheduled April 19 visit to Srinagar after receiving an intelligence warning, implying deliberate inaction. “When intelligence agencies told you it would not be appropriate to go, why didn’t you share this intelligence with police and security forces?” he asked. The Pahalgam attack occurred three days later, on April 22.
Kharge further criticised the Modi government for admitting to an intelligence failure and accused it of negligence in securing tourist zones. His comments reflect growing pressure on the ruling party to provide transparency and accountability in national security matters.
However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responded with fury. Party spokesperson CR Kesavan compared Kharge to “a modern-day Mir Jafar,” branding his comments as “toxic, baseless, and treacherous.” Demanding an unconditional apology, the BJP called on Kharge to either furnish evidence or retract his remarks.
The Congress, aware of the potential political fallout, quickly distanced itself from inflammatory content, including a now-deleted social media post portraying PM Modi as “missing.” The party leadership has urged its members to maintain discipline and stick to official stances outlined by the Congress Working Committee.
This incident underscores the volatile mix of national security and electoral politics. With both parties entrenched in blame and deflection, the real concern—how to prevent such attacks and restore faith in the intelligence apparatus—remains unresolved.
As political discourse grows increasingly incendiary, the Pahalgam attack and its handling risk becoming another flashpoint in a deeply polarised environment. The question remains: will this debate bring about systemic accountability, or is it just another episode in India’s charged pre-election narrative?
