The attack on a tourist site in Pahalgam, IIOJK, is yet another classic example of Indian false flag operations. India has been employing tactics to malign Pakistan’s international posture and brand the Kashmir freedom struggle as state-sponsored terrorism. The intensification of such operations has surged since the inception of the Modi-led BJP regime. India, despite its role as a transnational terrorism Launchpad, remains confident in externalizing its security challenges. Consistent with its previous trajectory, the Indian government unleashed a premeditated campaign blaming Pakistan, relying on emotionally charged narratives rather than verifiable facts. The timing of this coordinated campaign against Pakistan amid US Vice President J.D Vance’s India visit once again triggered a debate about the Indian attempt to defame Pakistan and to neutralize the Kashmir freedom struggle via pre-planned media blitz to overshadow the reality of the false flag operation. Another mounting concern is how the attackers could have managed to intrude LOC and travel 400 km undetected.
The Indian government is facing growing scrutiny over the discrepancies surrounding the official narrative regarding the attack. One of the major strings in the pearl is that Indian claims of eliminating attackers were not empirically backed, as no video or images of the bodies were released. The survivors of the attack revealed that the attackers were in Army fatigues, replicating the Chhatisinghpora and Nadimarg false flag operations. The incident’s most alarming aspect lies in the fact that the attack was carried out in broad daylight at a heavily fortified tourist location within Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK)—a region recognized as one of the most militarized zones globally. Reports estimate a striking civilian-to-soldier ratio of approximately 1:9, underscoring the extensive military presence. Given this high security density, the breach raises serious concerns about internal operational lapses or orchestration. Furthermore, the immediate attribution of blame to Pakistan by Indian media outlets—without preliminary investigation or forensic substantiation—suggests a coordinated narrative campaign. This pattern of swift media trials and accusatory rhetoric aligns with previous instances where such attacks have been used as strategic tools to construct a hostile external enemy, thereby deflecting attention from internal instability.A critical analysis of India’s suspected false flag operations indicates a recurring strategic pattern rooted in historical precedent.
“The history of Indian false flag operations can be traced to 1971, coinciding with the early operational years of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which was established in 1968. A notable early case was the hijacking of the Indian Airlines aircraft Ganga, an incident initially attributed to Pakistan by Indian media and official narratives. This narrative gained considerable international traction at the time, particularly in the context of the escalating tensions between the two states. However, this version of events was later contested by R.K. Yadav, a former officer of RAW, who in his 2014 publication Mission R&AW, acknowledged the agency’s direct involvement in orchestrating the hijacking as a strategic maneuver to ban Pakistani overflights into India—a move that significantly influenced the geopolitical dynamics leading up to the Indo-Pak war of 1971.”
India remained consistent in employing its covert operations over time. On March 20, 2000, in Chittisinghpura IIOJK 36 Sikhs were killed cold-bloodedly by gunmen in Army uniform. India without any verifiable evidence swiftly framed Pakistan behind the incident. It was a calculated move, strategically timed to coincide with the visit of US President Bill Clinton to defame Pakistan internationally. Later on, Lt Gen Gill (Retd), a member of the investigative team, acknowledged the involvement of the Indian army in the massacre in 2017. In December 2001, the Indian parliament was the target of another simulated attack. The attack was executed as it was high time for India to ripe an opportunity to brand Pakistan internationally with the 9/11 attack. Later on, a former home ministry official accused the Indian government behind the Parliament attack, and 26/11 was another well-known instance of false-flag operations. Once more, the goal was to deflect international attention from the horrors carried out by the occupational forces in IIOJK, subjugate the indigenous freedom struggle, and portray Pakistan as a state that supports terrorism. Elias Davidson in his book, “The Betrayal of India,” raised hundreds of questions, to which no Indian ever replied. The book concluded with major revelations exposing the Indian intelligence service’s involvement in the attacks.
The false flags remained one of India’s calculated moves strategically timed with international developments. The global war on Terror intensified in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq. To bring international condemnation to Pakistan and to derail the Kashmir freedom struggle, India planted the Nadimarg Massacre in March 2003. The massacre resulted in the killings of 24 Kashmiri Pandits carried out by gunmen in counterfeit military uniforms. Following the attack, Indian Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, a hardline Hindu chauvinist, immediately blamed Pakistan for the Nadimarg massacre, provocatively declaring that India’s “neighbour has a hand” in “every single terrorist act in Kashmir or elsewhere in the country.” In 2013, former Indian Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde exposed the connection between the ruling BJP and the extremist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), claiming that the latter was responsible for the explosions at Malegaon, Mecca Masjid, and Samjhauta Express.
Recent attack in Pahalgam must be viewed not in isolation, but as part of a broader continuum of state-driven narratives and covert operations that have historically served India’s strategic aims in the region—particularly in projecting internal unrest in IIOJK as a cross-border threat orchestrated by Pakistan. This pattern of manufactured justification has been observed repeatedly, especially during moments of diplomatic sensitivity or domestic political necessity.
The recurring absence of independently verifiable evidence, coupled with survivor testimonies that contradict official claims, undermines the credibility of India’s narrative. Incidents such as Chittisinghpora, Nadimarg, and Pahalgam exhibit clear similarities—not only in their operational design but in the timing and media handling that followed. Each has been leveraged to build a case for externalizing security failures and for discrediting the indigenous resistance movement in IIOJK.
Under the Modi-led BJP government, this strategy has gained a new dimension. False flag operations are no longer limited to information warfare; they now serve as pretexts for direct military engagement. The Balakot episode of 2019 is a striking case in point. Following the Pulwama attack, India launched an aerial strike inside Pakistani territory. In response, Pakistan not only intercepted the Indian aircraft but also carried out a measured retaliatory strike across the Line of Control, successfully downing an Indian MiG-21 and capturing its pilot, who was later returned in a gesture aimed at de-escalation. This sequence of events firmly established that any future Indian misadventure would not go unanswered and would be met with a robust, calibrated response.
Against this backdrop, the Pahalgam incident raises serious concerns. The heightened rhetoric from Indian officials, including declarations concerning Azad Kashmir and repeated unsubstantiated claims of infiltration, suggest a deliberate effort to build strategic justification for future action. Should this false flag be used once again as a rationale for kinetic escalation, it will almost certainly provoke a Pakistani military response. The historical precedent set by the post-Balakot retaliation should serve as a reminder to regional actors and the international community alike: South Asia cannot afford another manufactured crisis that pushes the nuclear-armed neighbors toward the brink.
India’s shift from multilateral dialogue to unilateral action echoes a deeper strategic transformation—one increasingly reliant on narrative control, coercion, and manufactured consent. In such an environment, the use of false flag operations, when combined with offensive military posturing, poses a grave threat to regional peace and stability.
Authors
Syeda Tahreem Bukhari, Associate Director at Center for International Strategic Studies AJK
Abdul Basit, Associate Research Officer at Center for International Strategic Studies AJK
