Written By: Abdul Basit Alvi
A recent reported attack on tourists in Pahalgam, a town located in IIOJK, has once again sparked serious questions about New Delhi’s narrative and the ongoing baseless allegations directed towards Pakistan. Indian media, particularly social media accounts believed to be affiliated with the intelligence agency RAW, were quick to blame Pakistan for the incident—well before any credible investigation had taken place.
What stands out in this case is the deliberate targeting of non-Muslim tourists, seemingly aimed at giving the incident a sectarian spin. This aligns with a known pattern in which India uses such attacks to shift global attention away from its deteriorating security situation in IIOJK. Notably, this alleged incident occurred during the visit of the U.S. Vice President to India—a timing that raises further suspicion.
India has a history of orchestrating false flag operations during major diplomatic events to tarnish Pakistan’s image and obscure its internal failures. Under the Modi government, there have been repeated accusations of staging such events for political gain and to divert attention from its mishandling of Kashmir.
Despite India’s claims, independent verification of the attack and casualty figures was not available at the time of reporting. The nature and timing of the incident suggest another instance of India’s false flag strategy. Many Kashmiris believe this event is being used to justify a potential military escalation against Muslims in the region. Comparisons have even been drawn between this alleged attack and Hamas’s October 7 operation in Israel—implying that India may use the situation as a pretext for aggression in areas like Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, or even stage another Balakot-style operation to distract the Indian public from domestic failures.
This is not the first time India has been accused of fabricating such narratives. The 2002 Agra incident stands as an early example. On June 2, 2002, a crude explosive device—later identified as firecracker-based and lacking any sophisticated triggering mechanism—detonated near a temple in the Shah Ganj area of Agra, injuring four individuals. Investigations found no evidence linking the attack to any organized terrorist network. Despite this, Indian authorities hastily pointed fingers at Pakistan, continuing a broader pattern of attributing terrorism to its neighbor without substantive proof.
Pakistan, for its part, denied involvement, condemned the Agra attack, and offered full cooperation in any investigation—requesting that evidence be shared to support the allegations. These accusations have consistently been part of India’s broader narrative aimed at portraying Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism, a portrayal that has often lacked credible substantiation. In the absence of concrete evidence, Pakistan continues to assert that the allegations are unfounded and part of a wider effort to tarnish its international reputation. India has consistently failed to present any credible proof to support its claims.
Subsequently, on the evening of July 11, 2006, a series of seven coordinated bomb blasts struck crowded commuter trains during Mumbai’s evening rush hour. The explosives, hidden in pressure cookers, were planted inside train compartments, causing widespread destruction across Mumbai’s local rail network. The coordinated blasts targeted the Western Line—one of the busiest rail corridors in the world. In the immediate aftermath, Indian authorities hastily blamed Pakistan-based militant groups, alleging involvement and support from Pakistani intelligence agencies. However, Pakistan categorically denied the accusations, citing a lack of credible evidence and dismissing them as politically motivated propaganda. To date, India has failed to provide any substantiated proof to support these claims.
On January 2, 2016, another high-profile incident occurred when a group of armed militants infiltrated the Pathankot Air Force Base in Punjab. Dressed in military uniforms, the attackers engaged in a prolonged gunfight with Indian security personnel, resulting in the deaths of seven Indian soldiers and all five attackers. The militants targeted key defense infrastructure, raising serious concerns about the security of India’s military installations. Despite the complexity and severity of the assault, Indian officials were quick to point fingers at Pakistan, again without offering any conclusive evidence to back the allegations.
A similar pattern emerged on February 14, 2019, when a suicide bomber struck a convoy of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district, killing 40 personnel and injuring many others. Indian authorities swiftly accused Pakistan of backing the group responsible for the attack, significantly escalating tensions between the two nations. In response, on February 26, 2019, the Indian Air Force carried out airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan, claiming to have destroyed a militant training facility and killed a large number of alleged militants. Pakistan retaliated the following day by downing an Indian fighter jet and capturing its pilot, bringing the two nuclear-armed nations to the brink of full-scale conflict.
The Pulwama incident was widely viewed by many analysts as a potential false flag operation aimed at achieving specific political goals. Occurring just months before India’s general elections, the timing of the attack raised suspicions that it was orchestrated to stir nationalist sentiments, divert attention from domestic challenges, and consolidate public support for the ruling government. Despite repeated claims, Indian authorities failed to produce verifiable evidence linking Pakistan’s intelligence agencies to the attack. The lack of transparency and absence of a clear operational link fueled growing skepticism regarding India’s narrative.
The international community expressed deep concern over the rising tensions and the possibility of further escalation. Meanwhile, India maintained its version of events, insisting that its airstrikes in Balakot had eliminated a significant number of militants—a claim that was never independently verified. The Indian government framed the Balakot airstrike as a retaliatory action in response to the Pulwama attack, portraying it as a strong statement of its resolve to combat terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior officials celebrated the operation as a major success. However, independent analyses and satellite imagery cast serious doubts on the credibility of India’s claims. No visible signs of a militant training camp were found at the targeted site, leading many to conclude that the strike was part of a carefully orchestrated narrative rather than a legitimate counterterrorism operation. In response to the Indian airstrikes in Balakot, the Pakistan Armed Forces launched a counter-operation on February 27, 2019. During this action, a Pakistani fighter jet shot down an Indian MiG-21 aircraft, resulting in the capture of its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. This incident marked a significant escalation in tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The swift and precise response by the Pakistan Air Force underscored its operational readiness and capacity to defend national airspace.
The timing of the Balakot airstrike—just months before India’s general elections—led to widespread speculation that the move was politically motivated, aimed at bolstering the ruling party’s image and stirring nationalist sentiment. The absence of independent verification, coupled with inconsistencies in official narratives, has prompted many analysts to conclude that the operation was more about political optics than a genuine counterterrorism initiative.
The capture of Wing Commander Abhinandan became a pivotal moment in the standoff. From the outset, the Pakistan Army ensured that the Indian pilot was treated with dignity and in full accordance with international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions. Despite heightened tensions, the Pakistani military displayed professionalism, restraint, and a clear commitment to de-escalation. Abhinandan was shown to the international community in a composed and respectful manner—an act that contrasted sharply with the aggressive rhetoric emanating from across the border.
By releasing Abhinandan just days later, Pakistan made a significant diplomatic gesture that helped cool tensions and averted further military escalation. The decision was widely regarded as a step toward peace, reinforcing Pakistan’s image as a responsible and mature actor on the global stage.
India has frequently blamed Pakistan for acts of terrorism within its territory—accusations that Pakistan firmly rejects as baseless and politically driven. Since its establishment in 1947, Pakistan has consistently advocated for peace, diplomacy, and mutual respect in its foreign policy. While regional conflicts and geopolitical complexities have occasionally drawn the country into military confrontations, Pakistan has always projected itself as a proponent of stability and peaceful resolution.
One of the clearest demonstrations of this commitment is Pakistan’s persistent call for a diplomatic settlement of the Kashmir dispute. The nation’s foundational principles, laid down by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, emphasize peaceful coexistence, non-aggression, and the sovereign equality of nations. Throughout its history, even amid persistent regional strife, Pakistan has urged dialogue over confrontation.
On the international stage, Pakistan has actively participated in numerous peace-building initiatives under the auspices of the United Nations, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Domestically, Pakistan has waged a long and difficult battle against terrorism, with major operations such as Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad serving as evidence of its dedication to internal stability and regional peace.
Pakistan also staunchly upholds the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. At various international forums, it has consistently stressed the importance of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, reinforcing its stance as a responsible and peace-seeking member of the global community. Whether addressing challenges in Afghanistan, the Gulf region, or its relationship with India, Pakistan has consistently advocated for diplomatic dialogue rather than military intervention or covert strategies. The country often aligns itself with international consensus, engaging through the United Nations and adhering to international legal frameworks, rather than acting unilaterally. At the heart of its bilateral tensions with India remains the long-standing and unresolved Kashmir dispute. Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir dispute is firmly grounded in historical agreements and international law, particularly United Nations Security Council resolutions that recognize the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. In 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was given the option to join either Pakistan or India. The state’s controversial accession to India has remained disputed ever since, leading to multiple wars and ongoing instability in the region.
Successive Pakistani leaders—from Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to the current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif—have consistently advocated for peaceful resolution through dialogue, bilateral negotiations, and, when appropriate, third-party mediation. Pakistan has raised the issue of Kashmir at numerous international forums, not to provoke conflict, but to highlight ongoing human rights violations and to seek support for a peaceful settlement through the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Even in the face of provocations and periods of heightened tension, such as the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis, Pakistan has demonstrated restraint. Rather than respond with aggression, Pakistan has continually called for de-escalation and dialogue. Following India’s unilateral revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status, Pakistan intensified its efforts to raise awareness of the resulting humanitarian crisis in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Through comprehensive dossiers and appeals to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Pakistan has documented alleged human rights abuses and called for international accountability.
Pakistan remains committed to supporting the right of Kashmiris to determine their own future through peaceful and diplomatic means. It has put forward a clear proposal for resolving the conflict, which includes resuming comprehensive peace talks with India without preconditions, welcoming third-party facilitation if mutually agreed upon, and promoting cross-border cooperation, easing trade restrictions, and encouraging people-to-people contact across Kashmir. Pakistan firmly upholds the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other nations and consistently advocates for peace and mutual respect.
At the same time, while being a peace-loving nation, Pakistan remains fully prepared to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against any form of aggression. Pakistan’s military leadership has repeatedly reaffirmed its readiness to defend every inch of the country’s land. The Pakistan Army, as the cornerstone of national defense, is renowned for its professionalism, resilience, and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the nation.
Formed in 1947 amid regional turmoil, the Pakistan Army has grown into one of the world’s most experienced and battle-hardened military forces. In the contemporary landscape of hybrid warfare, the Army is fully equipped and trained to counter all forms of threats—be they conventional, sub-conventional, or cyber. The Army has played a pivotal role in defending Pakistan’s territorial integrity during the conflicts of 1948, 1965, and 1971, the Kargil confrontation in 1999, and more recent border tensions.
Moreover, Pakistan’s armed forces have extensive experience in counterterrorism, having conducted major operations such as Zarb-e-Azb, Radd-ul-Fasaad, and Sherdil. These campaigns have enhanced the military’s capabilities in asymmetric warfare, urban combat, and intelligence-driven operations. The Pakistan Army maintains a high level of preparedness through a rigorous training doctrine, routine drills, and strategic readiness.
Joint military exercises—such as Azm-e-Nau, Strike of Thunder, and multinational drills with China (Warrior Series), Turkey (Ataturk Exercise), and Russia (Friendship Drill)—further strengthen the Army’s capabilities and ensure operational synergy. The Army’s strategic command structure enables rapid deployment and effective responses to threats across all borders. Seamless coordination between the Army and the Pakistan Air Force allows for a powerful, integrated defense posture in times of crisis. Pakistan has made substantial investments in modernizing its military hardware and technological infrastructure, working closely with trusted defense partners such as China and Turkey, while also enhancing its indigenous research and development capabilities. The introduction of advanced main battle tanks like the Al-Khalid and T-90 has significantly improved the Army’s firepower and maneuverability on the battlefield. Additionally, the integration of cutting-edge automatic weapons, night vision systems, self-propelled howitzers, and advanced rocket artillery systems such as the Nasr and AR1A has considerably strengthened Pakistan’s fire support and operational readiness. Pakistan has made significant advancements in strengthening its air defense capabilities through the integration of systems such as the LY-80 surface-to-air missile system, which provides robust protection against aerial threats. In the current era of information warfare, the Armed Forces’ Command and Control structure has expanded its expertise in cyber defense and surveillance, ensuring the country’s security in both physical and digital domains.
A cornerstone of Pakistan’s national defense is its strategic deterrent. As a nuclear-armed state, Pakistan maintains a policy of credible minimum deterrence, ensuring that any existential threat will be met with a decisive and calculated response. This strategic capability is overseen by the National Command Authority (NCA), which ensures the command, control, and security of the country’s nuclear assets. A diverse arsenal of missile systems—including the Shaheen, Babur, and Nasr series—capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads, serves as a powerful deterrent against full-scale conflict.
The Pakistan Army is among the most experienced military forces globally in counterterrorism operations. Notable campaigns such as Operation Zarb-e-Azb in 2014 successfully dismantled terrorist strongholds in North Waziristan. This was followed by Radd-ul-Fasaad, a comprehensive nationwide effort aimed at eliminating residual terrorist networks, promoting de-radicalization, and stabilizing areas affected by conflict.
The true strength of the Pakistan Army lies not only in its military hardware but in its discipline, morale, and unwavering dedication. A deep sense of patriotism and esprit de corps runs through its ranks. According to numerous public surveys, the Pakistan Army is regarded as one of the most respected and trusted institutions in the country. The nation’s defense ethos is strongly rooted in honoring its martyrs (shuhada) and veterans, whose sacrifices inspire future generations of soldiers with unmatched devotion and courage.
While Pakistan remains committed to peace and regional stability, it is equally prepared to respond decisively to any act of aggression. The country’s military doctrine is fundamentally defensive in nature—focused on deterrence rather than provocation. Pakistan has always advocated for peaceful resolution of disputes, particularly with India over Kashmir, but emphasizes that peace must be pursued from a position of strength and mutual respect.
Pakistan actively engages in military diplomacy and contributes to global peace through participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions, reinforcing its image as a responsible international actor.
India must take heed of Pakistan’s demonstrated resolve and capabilities. Despite India’s repeated aggressive posturing and military provocations, Pakistan’s defense forces—especially the Army—have shown exceptional resilience, strategic foresight, and preparedness. The 1965 Indo-Pakistan War stands as a testament to this. Sparked by the Kashmir dispute, India launched a large-scale offensive aimed at capturing Pakistani territory, including an attempted thrust towards Lahore. However, under the command of General Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s military mounted a formidable defense, using tactical innovation and bravery to repel the Indian forces and push them back across the international border.
Although the war concluded in a UN-brokered ceasefire without any significant territorial changes, Pakistan emerged with its sovereignty intact and its armed forces lauded for their heroism and effectiveness.
Similarly, the 1971 conflict, though remembered largely for the creation of Bangladesh, also underscored the volatility of misjudging Pakistan’s capabilities and strategic resolve. While India may have achieved tactical objectives in the east, the conflict further complicated the regional balance and exposed the risks of military overreach. In December 1971, India initiated a two-front military assault, directing attacks on both East and West Pakistan. In the eastern front, the Indian Army, supported by the Mukti Bahini insurgents in what is now Bangladesh, quickly gained ground. Meanwhile, in the western front, where most of Pakistan’s military forces were concentrated, the Pakistan Army mounted a strong resistance to India’s advances. Under the leadership of General Tikka Khan, Pakistan’s defensive efforts in the West successfully slowed the Indian military’s progress, despite the immense difficulties posed by fighting on multiple fronts. The war resulted in the loss of East Pakistan, but India’s military aggression against West Pakistan ultimately proved unsuccessful. The conflict concluded with the signing of the Tashkent Agreement in 1966, and the experiences from this war reinforced Pakistan’s determination to enhance its defense capabilities. A key example of India’s failed aggression came during the Kargil conflict of 1999, which, though limited in scope, had significant repercussions for both nations. In May 1999, Indian forces launched an operation to occupy the strategically vital Kargil region in Kashmir, assuming that Pakistan’s military was ill-prepared to defend the high-altitude area. However, Pakistan’s military had already infiltrated the region and established positions. Led by General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani Army swiftly counterattacked, successfully repelling the Indian forces and inflicting substantial losses. This demonstrated the tactical brilliance of Pakistan’s military, which was able to hold its ground in such challenging terrain. Under pressure from the international community, particularly the United States and other major powers, for de-escalation, India eventually retreated without achieving its military objectives. Pakistan’s resilience, combined with diplomatic efforts, ensured that India’s aggression failed.
A similar scenario unfolded in 2019, after the Pulwama attack, which India blamed on Pakistan. In response, India launched an airstrike on the Balakot region, claiming to have targeted a terrorist camp and causing significant casualties among militants. However, satellite images, international investigations, and independent observers later revealed that the strike had not caused any substantial damage and no evidence of a military camp or militant casualties emerged. In a swift and decisive reaction, Pakistan’s Air Force conducted a counterstrike, downing an Indian MiG-21 fighter jet and capturing its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. This highlighted Pakistan’s military readiness and its ability to defend against aggression. The international community condemned India’s reckless actions, while Pakistan’s military was praised for its professionalism in handling the situation. India’s airstrike failed to achieve its stated objectives, while Pakistan’s effective military and diplomatic response showcased the strength and effectiveness of its defense forces.
Pakistan’s military capabilities are a testament to its preparedness, tactical skill, and unwavering commitment to national defense. Over the years, Pakistan has developed a defense strategy based on deterrence, rapid response, and strong regional partnerships. Pakistan has continuously modernized its defense forces to address evolving security threats, including the development of indigenous technologies like the Shaheen and Babur missile systems, which have greatly enhanced its deterrence capabilities. Pakistan maintains a credible nuclear deterrent, supported by a full spectrum of delivery systems, including missiles with various ranges and payloads, providing a formidable deterrent against any major aggression from India. The defense doctrine of Pakistan is centered around deterrence, defense in depth, and rapid mobilization, integrating the Army, Air Force, and Navy into a cohesive and responsive force capable of addressing multi-domain threats effectively. Pakistan has built a sophisticated intelligence network to effectively counter any form of aggression, relying on surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence-sharing with trusted allies. The Pakistan Army has made significant investments in reinforcing its borders with India and Afghanistan. The strategic deployment of electronic surveillance, radar systems, and military forces along critical areas such as the Line of Control (LoC) and the international border ensures that Pakistan’s defenses remain robust and impenetrable. India should recognize these strengths of Pakistan and its military, taking into account the defeats India has faced in past conflicts.
The recent incident in Pahalgam appears to have been orchestrated to unfairly blame Pakistan and the Kashmiri freedom movement, attempting to label them as terrorists. India, by taking drastic actions such as canceling water treaties, closing borders, engaging in a smear campaign through the media, and expelling Pakistanis from India, seeks to portray itself as a victim and divert attention away from the dire poverty and human rights issues within its own borders. The world is well aware of who stands to benefit from staging such events. The international community recognizes India’s actions as those of a failed state that has resorted to terrorism. Recent instances of India’s involvement in violent incidents across the U.S., Canada, and Pakistan are clear examples of its troubling behavior.
The timing of the recent Pahalgam incident, which coincided with the visit of the U.S. Vice President to India, suggests that India intended to manipulate the situation to portray Pakistan and the Kashmir Freedom Movement as terrorist entities. Simultaneously, Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia aimed to convince the Kingdom not to support Pakistan or the Kashmir cause by labeling them as terrorist-linked. Kashmir has a history where, until now, no tourists have been harmed during the freedom movement, making this latest incident particularly suspicious and indicative of India using such tactics for the first time.
Moreover, this act appears designed to stoke further divisions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims within India and specifically in IIOJK. It is also notable that the incident took place approximately 400 kilometers away from the Line of Control (LoC), raising the question of how Pakistan could conduct an attack so far from the LoC in an area heavily monitored by Indian forces. The answer seems clear: India staged this attack to falsely blame Pakistan and the Kashmir Freedom Movement.
This event serves as a wake-up call for nationalist and anti-Pakistan elements to understand the stark contrast between the approaches of India and Pakistan. On one side, India and its military continue to stage such operations in an effort to malign the Kashmir movement and crush it. On the other hand, Pakistan and its military not only defend Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) but also continue to morally and diplomatically support the Kashmir cause on international platforms.
Following the Pahalgam attack, Indian forces on the LoC killed two civilians from Kashmir, claiming they were terrorists. However, the Indian government later rejected this assertion. Locals identified the two victims as locals, both around 60 years old, who had lived in the area for generations. Their families are well known in the region, and their only occupation was grazing cattle. Meanwhile, after the Pahalgam attack, the people of Kashmir took to the streets in protest against India’s false claims. They rejected the narrative put forward by Indian media, with many questioning the role of Indian intelligence agencies during the attack, suspecting they may have been involved in orchestrating it.
Incidents like the Pulwama and Pahalgam attacks serve as a reminder that such “dramas” are often India’s own manipulations. Whenever it comes to the welfare of its people, India consistently overlooks their needs and instead engages in harmful and divisive actions. Kashmir is calling for freedom from India and the Kashmiri people are peacefully fighting against India’s illegal occupation. The Pahalgam attack is yet another fabricated story that reveals India’s true intentions. Pakistan remains a peaceful nation, but India must remember that Pakistan has the right to defend every inch of its territory and to respond to any act of aggression.
