The Pahalgam, Kashmir, attack by Indian authorities and media framed as a brutal act of terrorism by Pakistan-backed militants against Hindu pilgrims, deserves a deeper deeper and a more critical looking at it. The unquestionable loss of innocent lives should not preclude terminal culpability being assigned to Pakistan too hastily, and without the transparency of identifying such evidence. With regards to both the factual integrity and the strategic utility of the official narrative, these concerns are quite serious given the scenario ‘as is’.
How could militants operate freely in one of the world’s most militarized zones without detection or retaliation?
First off, there are serious questions as to how such an attack would be conducted in one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world. Over 800,000 Indian security personnel guard Jammu and Kashmir, and if a militant strike was successful, hitting civilians and eluding detection, it would require either a disgraceful security apparatus breakdown or internal complicity. Infiltration and escape are almost impossible without detection through the use of surveillance infrastructure, including drones, biometric checkpoints, and electronic monitoring. However, the attackers are said to have vanished without a trace when civilian movement is so tightly monitored in an area.
The lack of independent evidence that would link the alleged attackers to Pakistan-sponsored groups further diminishes the official claims. Indian media channels report on the statements that Indian intelligence agencies made with regard to Pakistan’s involvement, while no forensic, biometric, or photographic proof has been released to show such involvement. The identities of the so-called neutralised militants are also not disclosed. History is replete with previous such incidents where similar patterns of blame without evidence have taken place, like the 2019 Pulwama attack, for instance, which is disputed due to a lack of evidence and doubts on intelligence leaks. (See: Pasha, A. (2020). Strategic Narratives and South Asia’s Information Wars, Routledge).
Moreover, the timing of the Pahalgam incident coincided with several high-profile international engagements involving India, including visits from global diplomats and multilateral forums focusing on counterterrorism. The strategic benefit of redirecting international scrutiny toward Pakistan and reaffirming India’s position as a victim of cross-border terrorism is difficult to ignore. History offers numerous examples where such crises have been instrumentalized for diplomatic gain. Political scientist David C. Rapoport identifies such incidents as “pseudo-terrorism”, events manipulated or fabricated to generate political capital (The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11, Rapoport, 2001).
No forensic or biometric evidence has been disclosed linking the attackers to Pakistan.
Further compounding doubts is the apparent coordination of information campaigns that followed the attack. Within hours, social media platforms were inundated with hashtags vilifying Pakistan, many originating from handles previously identified as bot accounts or linked to Indian state-sponsored digital operations. Investigations by disinformation watchdogs such as EU DisinfoLab have previously uncovered similar online campaigns, aimed at manipulating international perception and manufacturing legitimacy for India’s Kashmir policy (EU DisinfoLab, 2020, Indian Chronicles).
The portrayal of Pakistan as a perpetual aggressor also serves domestic purposes. In India’s polarizing political landscape, externalizing internal unrest is a well-established tactic. By framing the attack as foreign-sponsored terror, the state effectively silences questions about local grievances, democratic backsliding in Kashmir, and growing discontent with central governance. The narrative aligns with a broader pattern of securitization, wherein dissent and civil rights are delegitimized under the pretext of national security.
Critically, Kashmir has a documented history of alleged false flag operations. The 2000 Chattisinghpora massacre, initially blamed on Pakistani militants, later saw compelling evidence suggesting Indian security forces’ involvement, confirmed through a CBI investigation and reported by The Hindu (2003). It has darkened the shadows around the 2016 Uri attack and the 2001 Indian Parliament attack too, where those gaps in circumstantial firings and political utility prove to have kept the academic pen, and more importantly, the journalistic interest sustained.
Hashtag campaigns vilifying Pakistan emerged within hours, many from bot accounts linked to Indian digital operations.
The Pahalgam incident falls far short of these precedents and bears a long shadow of them. Motive, execution, and evidence are compelled to be re-evaluated. Failure to contest the state narrative leaves Pakistan open to unjustly being cast as a villain in the region, undermines public faith, and hinders efforts to be truly and for good, peace in the region.
Terrorism is never something that is acceptable, but so is politicizing such tragedies for strategic gain and ideological scores. The various inconsistencies in security accounts, the lack of credible evidence, coordinated media narratives, and a record of manufactured events in the past all point to the fact that it is highly doubtful that the official version of a ‘Pahalgam attack’ is the actual one.
False flag precedents in Kashmir demand that the Pahalgam incident be investigated independently and without bias.
Without prejudice, an independent international investigation is vital to make findings. It is only until such transparency is achieved that any acceptance of unverified state narratives constitutes a support of cycles of violence, mistrust, and geopolitical manipulation.
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.
