The sudden emergence of Tehrik-i-Taliban Kashmir (TTK) in the already volatile landscape of Jammu and Kashmir introduces new complexities that demand serious scrutiny. TTK’s self-presentation as an “independent resistance movement” aiming for the complete liberation of Kashmir from both India and Pakistan positions it uniquely on the ideological spectrum. However, a closer examination of its rhetoric, target profile, and operational strategy raises concerns that its existence may be less about legitimate resistance and more about strategic manipulation by external actors, most notably India’s intelligence apparatus.
TTK’s narrative is not built on the grievances of the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
TTK’s narrative is not built on the grievances of the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), but disproportionately targets Pakistan’s military, intelligence agencies, and governance structures in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). While it appropriates names like Maqbool Bhat to cloak itself in the garb of indigenous struggle, its core accusations, such as the Pakistani military colluding with RAW or ISI recruiting national security agents for targeted killings, echo conspiratorial themes aimed at delegitimizing Pakistan’s moral and diplomatic support for Kashmiris. These claims are not only devoid of credible evidence but also contradict the political realities on the ground, where Pakistan remains the only country consistently advocating for Kashmir on international platforms.
What raises more alarm is the evident parallel between TTK’s emergence and India’s long-standing policy of supporting proxy groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). Both TTK and BLA are designated terrorist organizations with a history of targeting civilians and state infrastructure while using the resulting chaos to blame Pakistan for internal repression. In both cases, the strategic logic is clear: destabilize Pakistan internally, create international confusion about the legitimacy of its actions, and divert attention from New Delhi’s own human rights violations, particularly in IIOJK.
The timing of TTK’s emergence is also telling. India’s recent operational failures, including the international backlash following its 2025 drone strikes in AJK under “Operation Sindoor,” have pushed it to recalibrate its hybrid warfare strategy. With overt aggression proving diplomatically costly, the use of irregular warfare through non-state actors provides plausible deniability. By creating a façade of indigenous discontent within AJK, India can both undermine Pakistan’s international position and blur the lines between resistance and militancy.
The use of irregular warfare through non-state actors provides plausible deniability.
Nonetheless, any responsible analysis must also acknowledge that the vacuum created by political disaffection, socio-economic challenges, and governance lapses in AJK can be exploited by groups like TTK. The legitimacy of Pakistan’s position on Kashmir is only as strong as its commitment to ensuring political inclusion, transparent administration, and human rights within AJK. The more space Islamabad allows for conspiracies to fester, the more likely it becomes for hostile narratives to gain traction among the youth.
Equally important is the need to distinguish between dissent and subversion. Legitimate political criticism in AJK should not be conflated with the activities of armed groups whose operational and ideological agendas are more aligned with regional destabilization than with the empowerment of Kashmiris. The people of Kashmir, on both sides of the Line of Control, are deeply aware of their historical context, and attempts to mislead them through manipulated ideologies or co-opted historical figures like Maqbool Bhat are unlikely to find enduring legitimacy.
Pakistan’s security establishment must remain vigilant, but equally, it must avoid heavy-handed responses that can lend credibility to such fringe actors. Simultaneously, there is a growing need for international observers and analysts to scrutinize the expansion of India’s proxy strategy beyond its borders. If the world is concerned about state-sponsored terrorism, then the funding and direction of groups like TTK should be viewed under the same lens applied elsewhere.
The legitimacy of Pakistan’s position on Kashmir is only as strong as its commitment to transparent administration and human rights within AJK.
The emergence of TTK is not just a security challenge; it is a test of political narrative, regional diplomacy, and the resilience of Kashmiri identity. Whether it succeeds or fades will depend on the clarity with which regional and global actors separate engineered subversion from genuine political aspiration.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
