The Attack

A convoy of 78 vehicles transporting more than 2,500 CRPF personnel was traveling on National Highway 44 from Jammu to Srinagar. At around 3:15 PM, a terrorist named Adil Ahmad Dar, a 22-year-old from Kakapora, drove a vehicle laden with explosives into one of the buses in the convoy near Lethpora in Pulwama district. The impact of the explosion was devastating, instantly killing 40 personnel and leaving behind a scene of destruction.

Jammu & Kashmir Under Governor’s Rule

At the time of the Pulwama attack, Jammu and Kashmir was under the Governor’s Rule, with Satya Pal Malik serving as the Governor. The state had been placed under Governor’s Rule on June 20, 2018, after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) withdrew support from the coalition government led by Mehbooba Mufti’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Subsequently, in November 2018, President’s Rule was imposed, continuing the direct governance by the central government.

This political situation meant that security and administrative decisions were being taken directly by the Governor and the central government. The attack raised questions about intelligence failures and whether the warnings issued by security agencies were adequately acted upon.

Intelligence Warnings and Security Lapses

Several reports and official statements suggested that intelligence agencies had issued warnings about a possible terror attack before the Pulwama incident. Some key reports include:

• Intelligence Alerts (Early February 2019): Reports from Indian security agencies, including the Jammu and Kashmir police, had warned about a possible IED attack on security convoys.

• Kashmir Police Advisory (January 2019): A specific advisory was issued by the Kashmir police warning CRPF and other security forces about the possibility of a suicide attack by Jaish-e-Mohammed.

• Media Investigations: Various media houses reported that intelligence agencies had intercepted communications about a possible attack but failed to prevent it.

Aftermath and India's Retaliation

The attack sent shockwaves across India and the world. Leaders from several countries, including the United States, Russia, France, and the United Nations, condemned the act of terrorism and expressed solidarity with India. In response, the Indian government took several measures, including diplomatic isolation of Pakistan and the withdrawal of its Most Favored Nation (MFN) status.

On February 26, 2019, in response to the Pulwama attack, the Indian Air Force (IAF) carried out an airstrike on a JeM training camp in Balakot, Pakistan. This marked a significant shift in India's counter-terrorism strategy, as it was the first airstrike conducted across the Line of Control (LoC) since the 1971 war. The operation was seen as a strong message to terrorist organizations and their supporters.

Impact and Lessons Learned

The Pulwama attack highlighted major lapses in security and intelligence coordination. Despite multiple warnings and alerts from security agencies, the threat was largely ignored or not acted upon effectively. The movement of a large CRPF convoy on a highly vulnerable route without aerial surveillance or additional protection was later criticized. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs questioned how such a large quantity of explosives was transported and why better coordination between agencies was lacking.

Moreover, Jammu and Kashmir remains one of the most volatile yet often ignored territories in India. Even after the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which revoked the region’s special status, security challenges persist. The region continues to witness militant activities, cross-border terrorism, and civilian unrest, raising concerns over India’s long-term strategy in handling the Kashmir conflict.

While the Pulwama attack served as a wake-up call, J&K remains at the center of geopolitical tensions, yet it often lacks sustained attention from policymakers. The cycle of violence and military operations continues, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach that goes beyond military responses and includes diplomatic, developmental, and intelligence-driven solutions.