In the serene town of Pahalgam, nestled in the Himalayan ranges and long regarded as a haven for tourists, a sudden eruption of violence shocked the world. At least two dozen people lost their lives in a horrifying attack on a group of domestic tourists, an event that Indian authorities were quick to label a terrorist incident. The timing, location, and nature of the attack sparked global concern, especially given the upcoming visit of the U.S. Vice President to the region. Leaders from the United States, European Union, and Russia were swift in their condemnation, with former U.S. President Donald Trump posting a statement of solidarity with India, while European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen and Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed similar sentiments. However, beneath the surface of this rapid international reaction lies a more complex and politically strategic narrative – one that suggests this tragedy may be part of a larger pattern: India’s deliberate use of war hysteria to manipulate regional and global discourse.
Despite the gravity of the attack, there is a glaring absence of confirmed responsibility. Indian media and government officials swiftly pointed fingers at Pakistan, citing an alleged claim from “The Resistance Front,” a shadowy offshoot supposedly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Yet, this claim originated solely from Indian social media without any verification or evidence. According to credible outlets like the BBC, no militant group has officially claimed responsibility. This inconsistency is not new; India has a long record of jumping to conclusions after violent incidents, especially in Kashmir, without presenting concrete proof. It is part of a troubling trend where emotion-driven narratives are deployed to stoke nationalist fervor while simultaneously diverting attention from domestic failures in intelligence and security.
India’s strategy of cultivating war hysteria appears to be meticulously timed. The attack came just as Pakistan was experiencing a surge in diplomatic goodwill, particularly with the United States. Since Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, many in New Delhi expected a cooling of ties between Islamabad and Washington. However, this assumption has not materialized. Contrary to Indian hopes, Trump’s renewed tenure has not significantly strained U.S.-Pakistan relations. Instead, there have been visible signs of continued dialogue, cooperation on regional security, and discussions on trade and investment. These developments represent a setback for India, which has long tried to isolate Pakistan diplomatically on the global stage.
By portraying itself as a constant victim of cross-border terrorism, India seeks to reaffirm its position as a frontline state against extremism, hoping to win political leverage with global powers. At the same time, it actively destabilizes Pakistan through covert means, supporting separatist groups in Balochistan such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Youth Congress (BYC). Evidence of Indian involvement in funding and arming such movements has been surfaced on multiple occasions, and its hybrid warfare strategy extends beyond borders, incorporating disinformation, cyber propaganda, and now, as seen in Pahalgam, emotionally loaded spectacles of violence.
The Pahalgam incident, occurring in one of the most militarized regions of India, raises critical questions. How could such a large-scale attack on civilians happen in a heavily secured area without prior intelligence? How was blame assigned so quickly and publicly before investigations had even begun? These are not just procedural lapses but part of a systemic approach to generate war hysteria – a psychological operation to cast Pakistan as the perpetual aggressor. The narrative is then amplified by compliant media outlets, who push emotional coverage, bypassing journalistic scrutiny in favor of patriotic sensationalism. This creates a false sense of urgency and victimhood that is then exported to the international community through orchestrated diplomacy and public statements.
This tactic is not unprecedented. India has historically used similar strategies to achieve geopolitical aims. Incidents like the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pathankot base assault in 2016, and the Pulwama bombing in 2019 all followed the same script – immediate accusations, mass media campaigns, and emotional political rhetoric, often lacking substantiated evidence. In the case of Pulwama, leaked conversations from Indian media figures later revealed how the incident was manipulated for electoral gain and to justify military escalation.
By controlling the narrative, India seeks not just to demonize Pakistan but to silence calls for genuine resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It avoids addressing the core political issues in the region by shifting the discourse entirely to terrorism, thereby justifying prolonged militarization and harsh counterinsurgency measures. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s consistent call for dialogue and its condemnation of all acts of violence — including this most recent one – are either ignored or dismissed as insincere by Indian commentators and officials.
This episode also illustrates how India strategically uses timing to shape global conversations. With the U.S. Vice President’s visit scheduled, an incident like Pahalgam provided New Delhi with the perfect pretext to steer the American agenda away from broader regional issues toward a narrow counterterrorism framework that benefits India. The goal is simple: secure vocal condemnation of Pakistan, consolidate India’s global alliances, and present itself as a reliable partner in the “war on terror” while continuing repressive policies in Kashmir and fomenting unrest elsewhere.
The cost of this war hysteria, however, is borne by the people – the tourists who died in Pahalgam, the Kashmiris who live under occupation, and the broader South Asian region, which is constantly pushed toward instability by such inflammatory tactics. The international community must learn to discern between legitimate counterterrorism concerns and orchestrated propaganda. Diplomatic maturity demands that global leaders demand facts, not fear-driven narratives, before issuing statements that could alter the course of regional geopolitics.
In a time when the region needs de-escalation and mutual dialogue, India’s use of war hysteria as a foreign policy tool is not just dangerous but deeply irresponsible. It erodes trust, undermines peace efforts, and perpetuates a cycle of violence and misrepresentation. As the world watches closely, it must insist on accountability, transparency, and a commitment to justice rooted in truth – not tactics.
Author
