Pahalgam Attack: The aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir has sparked outrage not just among citizens but also in the political sphere. One of the most vocal critics has been Abhishek Banerjee, Trinamool Congress (TMC) national general secretary and Member of Parliament. His pointed five-question salvo aimed at the Central Government has intensified scrutiny over national security, border intelligence, and the government’s diplomatic response. With multiple fatalities—including tourists from West Bengal—the demand for answers has grown louder.
The Pahalgam Attack: What Happened?
On April 22, 2025, a brutal ambush by terrorists in Pahalgam, Kashmir, claimed the lives of over two dozen tourists, pony operators, and civilians. The attack was coordinated, targeted, and heavily armed. Initial reports suggest that the terrorists carried automatic rifles, used guerilla tactics, and selectively targeted individuals based on religious identity. The shock reverberated across India, especially in West Bengal, where several victims originated.
While local authorities and paramilitary forces responded quickly, national-level commentary and condemnation from the Centre were noticeably delayed—sparking criticism and speculation across political and civil society groups.
Abhishek Banerjee’s Five Key Questions to the Centre
In a direct and scathing public statement, Abhishek Banerjee laid out five critical questions, each centered on failures of intelligence, border security, accountability, and diplomacy.
How Did the Terrorists Infiltrate Indian Territory Undetected?
Banerjee questioned how heavily armed militants were able to infiltrate a high-security region and launch a full-scale attack without detection. This points to a serious border surveillance failure and raises concerns about the effectiveness of ongoing anti-terror operations and satellite monitoring.
Why Was the IB Chief Granted an Extension Amid Intelligence Lapses?
One of Banerjee’s most pointed accusations was directed toward the Intelligence Bureau (IB). He questioned why the Chief of the IB received a service extension despite what he termed a massive lapse. If the attack wasn’t anticipated despite years of intelligence training and funding, is the leadership being rewarded for failure?
Have the Perpetrators Been Neutralized or Arrested?
Abhishek asked a simple but critical question: “Are the terrorists who executed the Pahalgam massacre dead, arrested, or at large?” The lack of a clear update from national security forces has left many concerned. The absence of transparency fuels anxiety and speculation, particularly in vulnerable regions.
When Will India Reclaim Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK)?
Linking the issue to India’s long-standing diplomatic conflict, Banerjee asked: if nationalistic rhetoric about reclaiming PoK is genuine, why hasn’t there been strategic progress, especially after such attacks? He also called out a past claim made by former U.S. President Donald Trump that India had agreed to a ceasefire under foreign pressure—a claim never officially denied by the Indian government.
Why Has the International Community Not Condemned Pakistan?
Banerjee concluded by asking why, despite evidence of cross-border terrorism, countries continue to engage diplomatically and economically with Pakistan. He raised concerns over Pakistan receiving international aid, investment, and even seats in global security forums, while India seemingly struggles to project its position post-attack.
Political Response in Bengal and Beyond
Banerjee’s remarks have reignited discussions across Bengal’s political landscape. TMC leaders, including Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien, have supported the move, saying it reflects the people’s voice. Opposition parties have been more cautious, but privately admit that the Centre’s lack of public clarity has created a vacuum.
Political analysts observe that Banerjee’s intervention may signal a shift toward assertive federal accountability—where state leaders question national governance on security matters more publicly.
Public Sentiment: Mourning Meets Outrage
In West Bengal, where several victims of the Pahalgam tragedy hailed from, public sentiment has shifted from grief to indignation. Candlelight vigils were held across districts like Nadia, Murshidabad, and Howrah. Victims’ families have demanded justice and clearer information about investigations and government action.
Social media remains abuzz with posts echoing Banerjee’s questions, many of which have trended on X (formerly Twitter) under hashtags like #PahalgamAttack and #WhereIsAccountability.
The Silence from the Centre
The most glaring point in Banerjee’s attack is not just the questions themselves, but the lack of response from the Central Government. As of June 15, there has been no official press conference or high-level statement offering answers to these queries.
The government’s silence has been perceived by critics as strategic, aimed at avoiding escalation—but it may backfire by deepening public mistrust.
Impact on India’s Global Image
If India is unable to respond with clarity and authority after a domestic terror attack, it risks eroding its reputation as a firm and secure democracy. International partners often look to how a government responds to such incidents when deciding on defense partnerships, foreign aid, and geopolitical alignment.
Banerjee’s challenge also indirectly highlights this reputational concern: How can India demand global support against terrorism when it offers no transparency internally?
Legal and Strategic Implications
Banerjee’s comments have indirectly pressed for:
- A judicial inquiry into the incident;
- Enhanced parliamentary oversight on intelligence agencies;
- Revised protocols for information release during national security incidents;
- Greater involvement of state governments in post-terror response mechanisms.
If pursued through legal means or political advocacy, these implications could reshape India’s counter-terror doctrine.
What Should Happen Next?
For meaningful resolution, the following steps are being called for by citizens, analysts, and political figures alike:
- Detailed public report on the Pahalgam incident;
- Status update on the search and neutralization of terrorists involved;
- Diplomatic strategy to isolate state sponsors of terrorism;
- Official denial or clarification on Trump’s ceasefire claim;
- Parliamentary session dedicated to India’s counter-terror efforts.
Conclusion
Abhishek Banerjee’s five questions have opened a critical debate on the Centre’s handling of the Pahalgam terror attack. His intervention isn’t merely a political tactic—it reflects growing public demand for transparency, strategy, and compassion. In a country as diverse and democratic as India, demanding answers is not dissent—it is democracy in action.
Whether or not the Centre chooses to respond, the questions now echo across state assemblies, social platforms, and global diplomatic circles. India’s credibility depends not just on defending borders—but on answering its people.
-
Parliamentary Oversight and Security Briefings:
🔗 Parliament debates on national security – PRS India -
Centre’s Intelligence Agencies Structure (IB, RAW):
🔗 Government of India – Ministry of Home Affairs Overview -
India-Pakistan Ceasefire Agreements:
🔗 MEA Statements on Border Issues – Ministry of External Affairs
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
