Every time terror strikes India — be it Pulwama, Mumbai, Dhangri, Pehlgam, or countless other places whose names we have forgotten too easily — the cycle of grief, anger, and political noise plays out with eerie similarity.
The wounds are raw. The media flashes images of crying families. Politicians line up with garlands and promises. “High-level enquiries” are ordered. And then… nothing.
In the end, the common citizen is left holding the shattered pieces — wondering not just why these attacks happen, but why they happen again and again, despite our promises of “never again.”
It’s time we confront an uncomfortable truth: precaution, accountability, and honesty have been sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.
The Price of Ignored Intelligence
Whenever an attack happens, government officials are quick to declare that intelligence agencies had issued warnings.
It happened after the Pulwama attack in 2019, where 40 brave CRPF soldiers lost their lives. Intelligence alerts were available, intercepts were made, and threats were known.
Yet no hardened convoy protection, no high-level alert on the route, no extraordinary measures were taken.
Similarly, in the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack, multiple alerts had warned of infiltration attempts. Yet the terrorists stormed one of India’s most sensitive military bases with ease.
Compare this with Israel, a country that lives under a constant cloud of threat.
When Israeli intelligence detects even a hint of a credible threat — say, a suspicious movement across the Gaza border — immediate action follows.
Checkpoints are heightened, roadblocks are activated, targeted operations are launched — even if it means political inconvenience or international criticism.
They believe in stopping terror before blood is spilled, not after.
The result is not that Israel faces no attacks. But the number of prevented attacks far outweighs successful ones — because leadership values prevention over optics.
It’s a matter of choice — and India, tragically, keeps choosing silence until blood is shed.
Why Only Action After Bloodshed?
It is not difficult to organize security measures when intelligence is available. It requires decision-making, urgency, and sometimes a willingness to cause temporary inconvenience to the public.
Yet political systems are often reluctant to act until blood is spilled.
Why?
Because raising the security alert before an attack risks looking “alarmist” or “inefficient,” while reacting after an attack provides an opportunity to appear as a savior.
Common sense tells us: prevention is invisible; reaction is photogenic.
Thus, we have a system where candles are cheaper than caution. Where condolences are easier than corrections. Where leaders prefer to preside over funerals rather than face questions.
Is this a government failing — or is it something worse: a deliberate political strategy to capitalize on tragedy?
The Dark Politics of Tragedy
In a mature democracy, attacks on citizens are seen as a direct failure of governance, requiring introspection, resignations, reforms.
In India, sadly, terror attacks often become opportunities to deepen religious divides, rally emotional support, and deflect public anger toward convenient enemies.
The 2008 Mumbai terror attacks were one such moment.
Amidst the horror of 26/11, genuine questions were raised:
- Why were coastal surveillance warnings ignored?
- Why were elite NSG units stationed hundreds of kilometers away from Mumbai, delaying response?
But instead of a full overhaul of internal security mechanisms, what followed were months of political blame games between parties — each trying to cash in on public grief.
Similarly, in incidents like the Dhangri village killings in Jammu & Kashmir (2023), and now most recently Pehlgam, the first reflex of the system is not to secure, but to frame — to reduce complex failures into communal headlines, where Hindus or Muslims are blamed collectively depending on political needs.
The tragedy deepens when ordinary citizens, overwhelmed by fear and rage, fall into the same trap — turning away from questioning power and toward hating each other.
Endless Enquiries, Forgotten Justice
Every high-profile terror attack in India has been followed by the same rituals:
- A judicial commission is formed.
- Public hearings are held.
- Findings are delayed.
- Political heat cools down.
- No senior head rolls.
The Kargil Review Committee after the 1999 war recommended strong reforms in intelligence coordination — yet it took years and another spate of attacks before minor reforms were made.
After the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, despite clear security lapses, bureaucratic infighting remained untouched.
Enquiries become tools not to find the guilty, but to run down the clock.
By the time reports come out, public memory has faded, media has moved on, elections have arrived.
This “event management” approach to national security is not just negligent — it is dangerous. It teaches political actors that deaths are survivable, but honesty is not.
A Republic Must Remember, Not React
The Constitution of India promises every citizen the right to life and security under Article 21.
It does not promise the right to condolences after death.
It promises proactive protection.
A truly responsible government acts before terror strikes.
A truly aware citizenry demands accountability not just in opposition, but also from governments they love or voted for.
The solution is not permanent hatred between Hindus and Muslims.
The solution is permanent vigilance by citizens against any system that allows human lives to be gambled for political comfort.
It is not enough to chant “Jai Hind” after attacks.
It is not enough to post angry tweets.
It is not enough to light candles.
We must demand — and vote for — a culture where:
- Intelligence alerts lead to visible actions.
- Security officials are empowered, not stifled by political calculations.
- Accountability is swift, and failures cost careers.
Until then, we are not honoring our martyrs — we are only preparing for the next obituary.
About Author
Ankush isn’t just writing articles—he’s starting conversations that Matter. Known for his fearless Opinions and Sharp Editorials, he writes with a voice that commands attention. Every piece carries a pulse—thoughtful, bold, and deeply human—leaving readers no choice but to read till the last word.
Leave a Reply