A Claim That Shook the Campaign Trail
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge’s assertion that Prime Minister Narendra Modi cancelled a scheduled visit to Jammu and Kashmir after receiving intel on a possible terror attack—days before the Pahalgam tragedy—has ignited a fierce political battle. Speaking at a rally in Ranchi, Kharge alleged that the government had advance warning of the April 22 attack, in which 26 civilians lost their lives, but failed to act. His statement, based on unspecified media reports, questioned the government’s preparedness and has drawn sharp rebukes from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accused the Congress of politicizing national security.
The Allegation: ‘PM Knew, Yet Tourists Weren’t Protected’
Kharge claimed that the central government had received specific intelligence three days prior to the terror strike, allegedly carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives. According to him, this prompted PM Modi to cancel a planned visit to Kashmir, while no proactive measures were taken to secure the vulnerable tourist spot of Baisaran Valley, near Pahalgam, in Anantnag district.
“If they had this information, why wasn’t the area secured? The government admitted to intelligence failure in the all-party meeting. They should take responsibility for the loss of lives,” Kharge said. His remarks directly challenged the Centre’s accountability and raised concerns about the prioritization of high-level security over civilian safety.
BJP Pushes Back: ‘Irresponsible and Demoralising’
The BJP reacted swiftly, calling Kharge’s allegations baseless, speculative, and demoralising for the security forces. Party spokesperson Tuhin Sinha dismissed the Congress leader’s claim that the PM cancelled his visit due to terror threats, asserting there was no confirmation or official communication supporting such a narrative.
“To suggest the Prime Minister altered his schedule due to security concerns is pure speculation. This undermines the efforts of our armed forces at a time when decisive action is being planned,” said Sinha, pointing to ongoing counter-terrorism operations and the possible fallout with Pakistan.
Former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad echoed similar sentiments, stating that Kharge’s comments betrayed double standards. “He claims to support national interest in meetings, but weakens the country with such rhetoric. This is not statesmanship,” Prasad said.
Context: The Government’s Admission and Intelligence Warnings
During the April 24 all-party meeting, the central government reportedly acknowledged localised security lapses, stating that authorities had prematurely opened the Baisaran Valley—a restricted zone until the Amarnath Yatra begins in June—without adequate coordination with security agencies.
Multiple intelligence agencies, according to PTI reports, had flagged possible targeting of tourists in hotel zones on the outskirts of Srinagar and Pahalgam, especially those near the Zabarwan range. Yet, no additional preventive measures appear to have been taken, a fact the Opposition has latched onto.
Kharge’s reference to media reports claiming PM Modi received the same intel has not been independently verified. However, the timing of his cancelled visit has led to widespread speculation, even though BJP leaders maintain it had no connection to the attack.
Political Undercurrents: Security vs. Strategy
The controversy is unfolding at a sensitive juncture, with India’s general elections in full swing and the national security narrative looming large. The Congress has positioned Kharge’s statement as a legitimate question of accountability, while the BJP sees it as an opportunistic attempt to politicize terrorism and sow doubt during a time of national mourning and strategic readiness.
The ideological divide between the two parties on handling terrorism, transparency in governance, and public communication of threats is stark—and the fallout from this episode is likely to linger through the electoral season.
Accountability Shouldn’t Be a Political Taboo
In a democracy, questioning the government—especially after a tragic loss of lives—is not just a right, but a responsibility. Yet, when such questions intersect with electoral politics and national security, they demand a delicate balance. Kharge’s charge may lack full substantiation, but it taps into a deeper public anxiety over whether security is equitably ensured for all.
Rather than deflect or escalate, this moment calls for clarity from the state, maturity from the opposition, and a unified message that national interest stands above political gamesmanship. Because when it comes to terrorism, the cost of division could be greater than any political gain.
(With inputs from agencies)
