India has repeatedly staged false-flag operations to malign Pakistan and divert global attention from its own internal failures. The April 2025 Pahalgam attack has reignited long-standing suspicions regarding India’s use of false-flag tactics to frame Pakistan. The attack was executed by men dressed in military uniforms, who mainly targeted non-Muslim male tourists. Within minutes, Indian media and officials pointed fingers at Pakistan, despite the lack of credible evidence or any claim of responsibility. The swiftness of the blame game, coupled with the mysterious escape of the attackers, raised red flags among neutral observers. Pakistan, in response, strongly condemned the violence and demanded an impartial international investigation, but its voice was largely ignored in the international discourse. This incident, like many before it, fits a pattern that Pakistan and some global analysts have repeatedly flagged.

History offers several examples of similar operations that have had far-reaching consequences. The 2019 Pulwama suicide attack is one of the most glaring instances. It occurred just weeks before India’s national elections and was immediately blamed on Pakistan-based militants. The Indian government used it as a pretext for airstrikes in Balakot, deep inside Pakistan. However, independent analysts, journalists, and satellite imagery confirmed that the damage was minimal, with no evidence of a militant training camp being hit. Pakistan even allowed foreign journalists and diplomats to visit the site, all of whom reported no signs of any such camp. These facts point towards a narrative that was crafted more for political gains than based on ground realities. The Pulwama-Balakot sequence proved highly beneficial for the ruling Indian party, fueling nationalist fervor and sweeping them back to power.

Going further back, the 2000 Chattisinghpora massacre, where 35 Sikhs were killed in Kashmir during President Bill Clinton’s visit to India, also bore the hallmarks of a staged operation. While initially blamed on Pakistani militants, subsequent investigations and reports from human rights organizations revealed serious inconsistencies in the official Indian version. Some eyewitnesses and local groups accused Indian security forces of fabricating the incident to influence international opinion during the high-profile visit. These past operations reveal a consistent strategy of manufacturing or manipulating attacks to justify aggressive posturing towards Pakistan while simultaneously earning global sympathy.

The Uri attack in 2016 followed a similar script. An Indian army base was attacked, and without conducting a thorough investigation, India held Pakistan responsible. This resulted in so-called “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control, which were widely questioned by military experts for their lack of transparency. No international observer was allowed to verify the strikes, and Pakistan categorically denied them. Once again, the timing was crucial—India was under pressure domestically due to social unrest and economic downturns, and such a narrative helped shift public attention. These recurring incidents have fostered a sense of skepticism in Pakistan and among independent analysts who believe that India uses such tactics to shift focus from its domestic issues and to isolate Pakistan diplomatically.

Another alarming aspect is the role of Indian media in amplifying these narratives without questioning their authenticity. As soon as an incident occurs, there is a barrage of emotionally charged headlines pointing fingers at Pakistan, often accompanied by doctored footage or unverified claims. This propaganda machinery plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and silencing voices of reason within India. It also puts tremendous pressure on Pakistan to defend itself in a hostile media environment, even before any investigation can take place. Such media behavior not only endangers bilateral relations but also poisons the atmosphere for peace and diplomacy.

Despite numerous appeals by Pakistan for joint investigations and third-party mediation, India has consistently rejected such proposals. This resistance to independent scrutiny casts doubt on the credibility of India’s claims. In contrast, Pakistan has often taken proactive steps by inviting international observers and journalists to visit disputed sites, as it did after the Balakot strikes. These gestures underscore Islamabad’s call for transparency and dialogue, in stark contrast to New Delhi’s strategy of secrecy and unilateral accusations. Moreover, such openness bolsters Pakistan’s stance that it has nothing to hide and is genuinely committed to regional peace and stability.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, India’s response has been predictably aggressive. It suspended the Indus Waters Treaty talks, heightened troop deployment in Kashmir, and expelled Pakistani diplomats. These knee-jerk reactions, without the backing of hard evidence, reflect a broader strategy of pressure and escalation rather than cooperation. This approach does little to reduce tensions and instead fuels a dangerous arms race and mistrust in the region. Given the nuclear capabilities of both nations, such reckless behavior could have catastrophic consequences. The need of the hour is not blame games but fact-based dialogue and joint efforts to investigate and resolve such incidents.

The recurring pattern of false-flag operations allegedly conducted by India undermines the credibility of its claims against Pakistan. These incidents often coincide with internal political turmoil, diplomatic failures, or key elections in India, suggesting calculated timing and motive. Pakistan, on the other hand, continues to advocate for peace and transparency, calling for neutral investigations to establish facts rather than narratives. The international community must take a balanced stance and hold all parties accountable, ensuring that such dangerous tactics do not become normalized. Until that happens, the region will remain caught in a cycle of suspicion, hostility, and missed opportunities for peace.