Article: Pahalgam incident: How India spins tragedy into a warmongering opportunity
Humayun Aziz Sandeela
In the midst of grief and disbelief following the Pahalgamtragedy—where innocent tourists’ lives were cut short in a brutal assault—another, more calculated pattern emerges from the shadows: India’s historic reliance on false flag operations to bolster its strategic posture and manipulate international narratives.
On April 22, 2025, the serene Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir became the site of a devastating attack. Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists, resulting in the deaths of at least 28 individuals and injuring over 20 others. The victims included 24 Indian nationals from various states, two locals from Jammu and Kashmir, and two foreign tourists from Nepal and the United Arab Emirates.
Eyewitness accounts describe the assailants, dressed in military-style uniforms, emerging from nearby forests and targeting tourists.
This attack coincided with the visit of U.S. Vice President JD Vance to India, drawing parallels to the 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, where 35 Sikh villagers were killed during President Bill Clinton’s visit. The timing of both incidents has led to speculation about their motives and the potential for orchestrated events to influence international perceptions.
The April 2025 attack also came at a highly conspicuous moment: U.S. Vice President JD Vance was on a four-day diplomatic visit to India, focused on reinforcing defence and trade partnerships. Only days earlier, Vance praised the deepening strategic alliance between Washington and New Delhi, citing growing military cooperation and affirming shared interests in counterterrorism and Indo-Pacific security.
Apart from the offers from the US was the signing of a major defence deal, including the acquisition of 26 French Rafale fighter jets for the Indian Navy—a multi-billion-dollar step in India’s quest to modernize its military in light of growing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.
But the question arises: who benefits most from a terror attack like the one in Pahalgam, and at such a precise time?
Just like the Chattisinghpora massacre of 2000, carried out during President Bill Clinton’s visit—an incident later riddled with questions about India’s internal security apparatus—this new tragedy mirrors a troubling trend. Analysts and political observers are drawing parallels: creating chaos, blaming Pakistan, leveraging international sympathy, and walking away with enhanced defence support and geopolitical clout.
It’s a playbook that’s become painfully familiar.
Former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik’s damning confession about the 2019 Pulwama attack being a direct result of Indian intelligence and security failure—possibly even staged for electoral gains—lays bare the reality behind India’s so-called “war on terror.” Malik revealed how the Modi government suppressed actionable intelligence, choosing instead to weaponize tragedy for nationalist fervor and electoral mileage.
And now, with the Indian economy sputtering under inflation, joblessness, and unrest, Prime Minister Modi’s administration once again appears to be clutching for a lifeline—through fear, fire, and fighter jets.
As per the Telegraph while speaking in the north-west Indian city of Jaipur on April 22, Mr Vance said: “We want to work together more and want your nation to buy more of our military equipment, which of course we believe is the best in class.” He added: “American fifth generation F-35s, for example, would give the Indian air force the ability to defend your air space and defend your people like never before.” Mr Vance stressed the importance of the US and India working together to combat threats posed by Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific region, warning that a breakdown in relations could have dire consequences
On the contrary, the Rafale deal between India and France, which was already under intense scrutiny in domestic politics due to alleged corruption and favoritism in its earlier iteration, has now been expanded to include 26 naval variants—a move India justifies as part of its “defence preparedness”. But observers argue the timing is too convenient: a massacre blamed on “cross-border terrorism,” a U.S. dignitary present, and New Delhi playing the victim card to secure more military indulgence.
JD Vance, in a brief statement following the attack, condemned the violence and reaffirmed America’s “unwavering support for India’s fight against terrorism.” But the deeper concern remains: Will the U.S. continue to buy into New Delhi’s narrative at the cost of real accountability?
In the wake of the Pahalgam tragedy, Indian mainstream media has intensified its rhetoric, with prominent figures like Major (Retd) Gaurav Arya and Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami leading the charge. Their narratives, often aligning closely with government positions, have raised concerns about the role of media in shaping public perception and policy.
Major Gaurav Arya, a retired Indian Army officer and consulting editor for Republic TV, has been vocal in his criticism of Pakistan. In various appearances, including on Republic TV and his own platform, ‘Majorly Right,’ Arya has accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism and has advocated for strong retaliatory measures. For instance, in a video titled “Major Gaurav Arya Explains Cause & Dimensions of Attacks on Pakistan,” he discusses the need for decisive action against perceived threats from Pakistan.
Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Republic TV, has also been at the center of controversy. Leaked WhatsApp conversations between Goswami and ParthoDasgupta, the former CEO of the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), suggest that Goswami had prior knowledge of the 2019 Balakot airstrikes. In these chats, Goswami reportedly stated, “This attack we have won like crazy,” referring to the Pulwama incident.
These communications have fueled allegations that certain media figures are not only reporting on events but may also be complicit in shaping or even anticipating government actions, raising questions about the independence of the press.
The aggressive posturing by media personalities contributes to a climate of heightened nationalism and can influence public opinion, potentially swaying support for government policies, including defense procurements and foreign relations. The alignment between media narratives and government actions underscores the importance of critical media consumption and the need for journalistic integrity.
The interplay between media rhetoric and government policy in India, particularly concerning its stance on Pakistan, highlights the complex dynamics of information dissemination and public perception. As media figures take on roles that extend beyond reporting, their influence on national discourse and policy becomes increasingly significant, warranting scrutiny and a call for responsible journalism.
India’s warmongering ambition is not just a threat to regional peace—it also poses a strategic dilemma for its allies. In seeking to portray itself as a frontline state against terrorism and China, India manipulates perceptions with smoke and mirrors, using civilian tragedies to trigger defence windfalls.
If history is any guide, then the Pahalgam massacre isn’t just an act of terror—it’s a narrative device in a much larger and darker game. One that risks not only the lives of innocents but also compromises the integrity of international diplomacy and defence cooperation.
For the US, the time has come to ask difficult questions:Is it partnering democratically, or enabling a regime that weaponizes tragedy to serve its militarist ambitions?
The world owes it to the victims—not just to mourn—but to demand the truth.
