FPJ Interview: Defence Expert Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Analyses Geopolitical Dynamics Behind Pahalgam Terror Attack; VIDEO

Afrida Rahman Ali in conversation with defence expert Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

Afrida Rahman Ali: Abhijit, thank you for joining us. Let me begin by asking — what do you think provoked such a mindless, brutal terror attack in Pahalgam?

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra: This has been Pakistan’s strategy for decades. Every time there’s a high-level US visit, such attacks are used to internationalize the Kashmir issue. In 1998, Clinton’s visit saw the Chattisinghpora massacre. In 2006, during George Bush’s visit, Doda was targeted. In 2020, Trump arrived and we saw deadly riots.

Add to that, Pakistani rhetoric has been building — terming tourism in Kashmir as a tool of Indian colonization. This attack was the intersection of three things: tourism breaking the conflict economy, rising Pakistani agitation, and a high-profile US visit. It was a calculated move.

Afrida: And this conflict economy you speak of — how does that link to these attacks?

Abhijit: For decades, Kashmir's economy was dependent on conflict. From stone-pelters to taxi drivers serving security forces — a huge section thrived on unrest. Tourism has broken that cycle. Today, hotel rooms in Kashmir cost ₹30,000–₹40,000 even in peak season — there’s no off-season anymore. Militants and their backers are rattled.

Afrida: Do you think the abrogation of Article 370 and domicile laws triggered this escalation?

Abhijit: That’s part of the perception. In reality, the domicile law is very stringent — it's hard to get one. But Pakistani elites aren't misinformed. They’re highly educated, many from Oxford and Cambridge. However, their interests — landowning, military, industrial — are deeply tied with terror infrastructure. So even educated elites play a role in fueling this unrest.

Afrida: So would you say this was meant to send a message internationally?

Abhijit: Absolutely. Pakistan has a history — if India refuses dialogue, a terror attack follows. That escalates tensions and pressures India into talks. But this time, it won’t work. We are not engaging, period. They’re desperate for legitimacy because we’ve closed the Kashmir chapter on our terms.

Afrida: Let’s talk about the Indian response. Was there a delay?

Abhijit: Not at all. The area of attack was deep inside a forest, 30 minutes by foot. The closest base was 40 minutes away. Within 15 minutes, alerts were sent and drones were redirected to the area. Ground forces reached as fast as humanly possible. Intel failure is often thrown around by armchair experts. Intelligence is like a 50,000-piece puzzle — and you don’t know what the final image is. It’s difficult. Just because something happens doesn’t mean intel failed.

Afrida: But is there a case of infiltration, or local support?

Abhijit: We don’t know yet. One terrorist was exfiltrated in 2018. Two aren’t in our database — likely Pakistani. Whether sleeper cells were involved or locals aided them is still under investigation. But we must acknowledge that over the years, locals have aided security forces too — for money. It’s a complex ecosystem.

Afrida: Then why is our border surveillance still vulnerable?

Abhijit: No border in the world is foolproof — not even the DMZ between North and South Korea. High-tech surveillance can be beaten by low-tech tactics. Even Israel, with its AI-heavy systems, was caught off guard on October 7. It’s a constant game of cat and mouse.

Afrida: So you're saying this attack was inevitable?

Abhijit: Yes. Out of 400–500 planned attacks, one will get through. That’s the harsh

news