TMC MP Mahua Moitra questions the extension of the IB Chief’s tenure Photo Credit: The Tribune
In a controversial move following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, the Indian government has extended the tenure of Intelligence Bureau Chief Tapan Kumar Deka by another year—drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers, including Mahua Moitra, who questions the decision given the recent security lapse. The timing and justification of this extension have ignited public debate about accountability and leadership in India’s intelligence apparatus.
What Happened
Tapan Kumar Deka’s term as IB chief was scheduled to end in June 2025, but the government granted him a one-year extension into June 2026. The official explanation cited “public interest” and ongoing national security imperatives—especially after recent counterterror operations in Pakistan and the unresolved consequences of the Pahalgam incident.
However, critics contend that extending the IB chief after a significant intelligence breakdown sends the wrong message about responsibility. Moitra, a Member of Parliament, demanded a clear rationale: “Why grant the extension when a major terror breach occurred under your watch?”
The Pahalgam Attack
On April 22, five militants infiltrated the Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 civilians, primarily tourists, using AK-47 and M4 rifles. In one of the deadliest civilian massacres in recent years, attackers allegedly targeted individuals by asking them to recite the Kalima before shooting.
The incident revealed serious intelligence lapses: despite prior warnings, forces failed to detect infiltration, and a CRPF quick-response team took over an hour to reach the site across difficult terrain.
Fallout: Introspection and International Scrutiny
The government’s aggressive response included Operation Sindoor, air strikes targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan-controlled territories. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar linked the attack to extremist ideologies within Pakistan’s military establishment. Meanwhile, international bodies like FATF highlighted the role of terror financing, urging stricter controls on cross-border money flows .
Why the Extension Decision Matters
This renewal reignites a critical debate:
- Accountability vs Experience: Deka is a seasoned counter-terror expert, credited with intelligence operations in Kashmir and the Northeast. Supporters argue continuity is vital. Critics counter that accountability should matter—especially after major failures.
- Transparency and Public Trust: Critics like Moitra argue that extending the tenure implies a lack of consequences, reducing public confidence in the intelligence establishment.
Calls for Broader Security Reforms
Moitra and others have demanded an urgent parliamentary review of the IB’s role in Pahalgam, including questioning coordination failures across agencies.
Security analysts also point to systemic problems:
- Intelligence alert delays and poor field communication;
- Uneven counter-infiltration measures along the LoC and unguarded tourist zones;
- Over-reliance on centralized alerts with limited local actionable follow-up.
In response, the Centre has ordered a civil-defence drill across 244 districts to strengthen emergency readiness.
External Perspective and Global Pressure
India has launched diplomatic outreach, involving former diplomats and policymakers, in the Global South and Western capitals to stress Pakistan’s culpability.
Domestically, former IB officers endorse aggressive action against terror camps and condemn any delay in leadership accountability.
Final Take
The extension of the IB chief following the Pahalgam tragedy serves as a critical test of India’s approach to accountability, security, and public confidence. As leaders debate experience versus responsibility, the nation awaits a credible path forward—one that ensures both tough leadership and sincere oversight in safeguarding against future threats.
