One year after Pahalgam attack: Questions on safety in Kashmir still loom large

Srinagar: The April 22, 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, in which 25 tourists and a local resident were killed, continues to shape how many Indians view Kashmir, raising questions about safety, stability, and the nature of violence in the region.

The images from the attack, which had spread rapidly across television and social media at the time, left a lasting impact far beyond the Valley.

For many watching from distant cities, the first question is immediate: Is Kashmir still unsafe?

The attack reinforced a sense of vulnerability. Officials, however, say such incidents are intended precisely to create that perception.

“Striking a place like Pahalgam ensures national attention and creates fear well beyond the immediate area,” a senior police officer said. “Terror groups operating with backing from across the border rely on such attacks to project instability in Kashmir.”

The next question follows: If the situation has improved, why do such attacks still happen?

Security officials point to the changing nature of terrorism—fewer large-scale incidents, but occasional high-impact strikes designed to draw attention.

These, they say, continue to draw logistical and ideological support from across the border, even as local recruitment has declined compared to earlier phases.

For many Indians, however, the most pressing concern is more fundamental: Does this violence represent Kashmir or Kashmiris?

Voices from within the Valley suggest otherwise.

“No sane person would endorse acts of violence. Pahalgam was barbaric,” said Javid Trali, a political analyst capturing the widespread anger and rejection of the attack within the Valley. In several areas, residents and community groups condemned the killings, describing them as harmful to both lives and the region’s fragile stability.

This gap between the perpetrators of violence and the people who live in Kashmir has become more pronounced over the years. For many residents, such attacks are seen not as expressions of local sentiment, but as disruptions imposed on everyday life.

That distinction is also central to another question being asked across India: How should Kashmiris be viewed after such incidents?

Past experience shows that attacks in the Valley can lead to suspicion towards Kashmiris living or studying in other parts of the country. Community members caution against such reactions.

“Whenever something happens back home, we feel it here,” said Maroof, a student from Srinagar studying in Bengaluru. “People assume we are somehow connected to it. But we are not. We want the same peace as everyone else.”

Officials warn that blurring this line risks amplifying the very divisions such attacks seek to create.

“There are elements that want to keep the situation disturbed,” the police officer said. “It is important to recognise who is responsible and who is not.”

Another question that arises is about the larger message behind the attack. By targeting civilians in a well-known location like Pahalgam, the perpetrators aimed to ensure that the impact extended far beyond the immediate casualties—reviving uncertainty and drawing national attention.

“This kind of violence only brings suffering to ordinary people here,” Javid Trali added. “We are the ones who have to live with the consequences. People outside should understand that Kashmiris want peace, not this.”

The response, however, has not been limited to fear. Messages of solidarity have also emerged.

“We stand in solidarity with the people of India,” a statement from the Commonwealth Secretariat said, reflecting broader international condemnation of the attack.

For the ordinary Indian, the Pahalgam incident underscores a complex reality. Terrorism remains a threat, sustained by networks that extend beyond India’s borders.

At the same time, voices from within Kashmir make it clear that such violence does not reflect the aspirations of its people.

The images that spread rapidly in the aftermath captured the scale of the tragedy. But they do not fully represent the broader reality—one in which ordinary Kashmiris continue to reject violence and bear its consequences, even as they seek stability and normal life.