Pages

Showing posts with label Pahalgam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pahalgam. Show all posts

Friday, September 26, 2025

The Pahalgam Attack: Unraveling the Kashmir Flashpoint



The Pahalgam Attack: Unraveling the Kashmir Flashpoint 

A Tourist Haven Turned into a Killing Field

On April 22, 2025, Pahalgam—one of Kashmir’s most scenic tourist destinations—witnessed a brutal terrorist attack that left at least 26 people dead, most of them domestic tourists from across India. Gunmen opened fire indiscriminately, creating chaos in a town usually associated with the Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage and trekking routes.

Initial reports linked the strike to The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant outfit active in Jammu and Kashmir. Although TRF later issued a denial, Indian investigators arrested several “overground workers” (OGWs)—locals accused of providing logistical support, including a teacher and a Kulgam resident. No foreign operatives have been publicly named, but New Delhi has stressed the external dimensions of the assault.

The UN Security Council condemned the killings but stopped short of assigning blame. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor in May 2025, striking alleged terrorist infrastructure across the Line of Control. Pakistan retaliated, further escalating tensions in an already volatile region.


Pakistan’s Denials and Credibility Problem

Islamabad was quick to deny involvement, calling Indian accusations a “false flag” operation aimed at justifying cross-border aggression. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif and later Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif at the UN General Assembly demanded independent investigations—something India categorically rejected.

Historical Pattern of Denial

Pakistan’s stance fits a recurring pattern. During the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2019 Pulwama bombing, Pakistani leaders initially denied involvement, only for subsequent evidence to link groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) back to Pakistani soil or elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The TRF Connection

TRF is widely viewed by intelligence agencies as a front for LeT, itself a UN- and US-designated terrorist organization with a long history of operations against India. Neutral think tanks like the Lowy Institute and Chatham House point to Pakistan’s “credibility deficit,” noting how militant safe havens persist even as Islamabad denies responsibility.

For Pahalgam specifically, however, no smoking gun—such as intercepted orders or captured operatives directly implicating the Pakistani state—has been made public. This leaves Pakistan room for plausible deniability, though international observers remain skeptical.


India’s Claim: Orchestration from the Top

India has gone further, alleging that the Pahalgam attack was greenlit at the highest levels of the Pakistani military. The evidence cited includes a speech by Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Syed Asim Munir, delivered in Queens, New York, just days before the attack.

According to Indian officials, Munir’s remarks—emphasizing Pakistan’s distinct identity from Hindus—were incendiary and served as a dog whistle for anti-Hindu violence. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar tied this rhetoric directly to the timing of the assault.

Weighing the Credibility

  • Incitement: The timing lends plausibility. History shows militant spikes often follow provocative rhetoric from Pakistani leaders.

  • Direct Orchestration: Stronger evidence is still classified or circumstantial. Some Pakistani dissidents allege Munir used the attack to strengthen his case for promotion to Field Marshal. Yet neutral analysts, such as those at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), caution that India’s swift blame without full transparency risks undermining credibility.

India’s subsequent military response underscores how seriously it viewed the speech-attack nexus, even if full proof has not been shared publicly.


TRF and the Lashkar-e-Taiba Umbrella

Origins and Evolution

TRF emerged in 2019 after India revoked Article 370. Styling itself as an indigenous Kashmiri movement, it avoids overt Islamist rhetoric but is widely seen as a LeT proxy.

LeT itself dates back to the late 1980s, co-founded with the support of Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, and nurtured by ISI patronage. Responsible for the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai massacre, LeT is designated a terrorist group by the UN, US, India, and others.

Evidence of TRF-LeT Nexus

  • Official Recognition: In July 2025, the US formally designated TRF as an LeT proxy.

  • Investigative Findings: India’s NIA uncovered financial transfers, phone intercepts, and digital footprints linking TRF directly to LeT handlers in Pakistan.

  • Shared Infrastructure: TRF operations mirror LeT tactics, including civilian-targeted strikes and recruitment pipelines.

TRF initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam massacre but quickly retracted under pressure, widely interpreted as an attempt by Pakistani handlers to minimize diplomatic fallout.


Pakistan as Both Sponsor and Victim of Terror

A key paradox emerges: while India accuses Pakistan of exporting terrorism, Pakistan itself claims to be a victim. Both assertions carry truth.

Pakistan as a Terror Exporter

  • Harboring Groups: Camps run by LeT, JeM, and others continue to operate from Pakistani territory, with training and logistical support alleged to involve the ISI.

  • Proxy Strategy: By using groups like TRF, Pakistan maintains deniability while sustaining the insurgency in Kashmir.

Pakistan as a Victim

  • Domestic Attacks: Pakistan has suffered devastating violence from the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Islamic State–Khorasan (ISKP), and sectarian outfits. Suicide bombings have targeted schools, shrines, and even military installations.

  • Casualty Toll: Since 2001, tens of thousands of Pakistanis—including civilians, soldiers, and policemen—have died in terrorist incidents.

Pakistan as a Counterterror Ally

  • US Partnership: Pakistan has provided bases, intelligence, and logistical support for US operations in Afghanistan. Its cooperation helped capture or kill al-Qaeda operatives, though often under pressure.

  • Blowback: Groups once fostered for regional leverage, like the Afghan Taliban, have spawned offshoots (e.g., TTP) that now target Pakistan itself.


Reconciling the Contradictions

Can Pakistan simultaneously harbor, suffer from, and fight terrorism? The evidence suggests yes:

  1. State Sponsorship and Strategic Use: Pakistan uses groups like LeT/TRF as tools against India.

  2. Unintended Consequences: Parallel militant ecosystems—especially the TTP—turn their guns on Pakistan, causing heavy internal casualties.

  3. Selective Counterterrorism: Pakistan cooperates with the US against al-Qaeda and ISKP while tolerating or even nurturing India-focused militants.

This duality reflects what scholars call Pakistan’s “double game”: leveraging militancy for foreign policy aims while struggling to control its blowback at home.


Broader Implications

The Pahalgam attack crystallizes the enduring dangers of proxy warfare in South Asia.

  • For India: It reinforces the need for vigilance against Pakistan-based groups and underscores the difficulty of achieving peace in Kashmir without accountability across the border.

  • For Pakistan: It highlights the unsustainable contradiction of fighting some terrorists while supporting others.

  • For the World: It demonstrates how militant ecosystems transcend borders, creating regional instability with global consequences.

Without independent investigations or greater transparency from both sides, narratives will remain polarized. What is clear, however, is that militancy thrives in the ambiguity between denial, sponsorship, and victimhood—a space Pakistan has long occupied, and one that continues to endanger both South Asian security and international peace.



पहलगाम हमला: कश्मीर के तनावपूर्ण हालात का खुलासा

पर्यटक स्थल बना मौत का मैदान

22 अप्रैल 2025 को कश्मीर के प्रसिद्ध पर्यटन स्थल पहलगाम में हुए आतंकी हमले ने पूरे भारत को झकझोर दिया। बंदूकधारियों ने अंधाधुंध फायरिंग की, जिसमें कम से कम 26 लोग मारे गए—ज्यादातर पर्यटक, जो देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों से आए थे।

शुरुआती रिपोर्टों ने इस हमले के लिए कश्मीर में सक्रिय संगठन द रेज़िस्टेंस फ्रंट (TRF) को जिम्मेदार ठहराया। हालांकि TRF ने बाद में जिम्मेदारी से इंकार कर दिया, लेकिन भारतीय एजेंसियों ने कई “ओवरग्राउंड वर्कर्स” (OGWs)—स्थानीय सहयोगियों—को गिरफ्तार किया, जिनमें एक शिक्षक और कुलगाम का निवासी शामिल थे। विदेशी आतंकियों का नाम अभी तक सामने नहीं आया है, पर भारत का दावा है कि इसमें सीमा पार की साजिश शामिल थी।

संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद ने हमले की निंदा की, लेकिन किसी देश पर सीधे आरोप नहीं लगाया। इसके बाद भारत ने मई 2025 में ऑपरेशन सिंदूर शुरू कर पाकिस्तान-अधिकृत क्षेत्रों में आतंकी ठिकानों पर कार्रवाई की। पाकिस्तान ने जवाबी हमले किए, जिससे तनाव और बढ़ गया।


पाकिस्तान का इंकार और उसकी विश्वसनीयता की समस्या

इस्लामाबाद ने तुरंत जिम्मेदारी से इंकार कर दिया और कहा कि यह भारत की “फॉल्स फ्लैग” साजिश है, ताकि सीमा पार कार्रवाई को जायज़ ठहराया जा सके। रक्षा मंत्री ख्वाजा आसिफ और बाद में प्रधानमंत्री शहबाज़ शरीफ़ ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र महासभा में स्वतंत्र जांच की मांग की—जिसे भारत ने ठुकरा दिया।

इनकार का इतिहास

यह रुख नया नहीं है। 2008 मुंबई हमला और 2019 पुलवामा धमाके के समय भी पाकिस्तान ने शुरुआती दौर में जिम्मेदारी से इंकार किया था, लेकिन बाद में सबूत सामने आए जिन्होंने लश्कर-ए-तैयबा (LeT) और जैश-ए-मोहम्मद (JeM) जैसे संगठनों को पाकिस्तान की ज़मीन और आईएसआई से जोड़ा।

TRF का संबंध

TRF को व्यापक रूप से LeT का मुखौटा संगठन माना जाता है। LeT पहले से ही संयुक्त राष्ट्र और अमेरिका सहित कई देशों द्वारा आतंकी घोषित है। लोवी इंस्टीट्यूट और चैथम हाउस जैसे थिंक टैंक पाकिस्तान की “विश्वसनीयता की कमी” की ओर इशारा करते हैं, क्योंकि वहां आतंकी ढांचे के होने से इंकार किया जाता है, जबकि वे सक्रिय रहते हैं।

हालांकि पहलगाम हमले के मामले में अभी तक कोई पक्का सबूत (जैसे इंटरसेप्टेड आदेश या पकड़े गए ऑपरेटिव) सार्वजनिक नहीं हुआ है। इससे पाकिस्तान को “प्लॉज़िबल डिनाएबिलिटी” का मौका मिलता है, लेकिन संदेह बना रहता है।


भारत का दावा: साज़िश सेना के शीर्ष स्तर से

भारत ने और आगे बढ़कर दावा किया कि यह हमला पाकिस्तान की सेना के शीर्ष स्तर पर रची गई साजिश थी। सबूत के तौर पर भारतीय अधिकारियों ने पाकिस्तानी सेना प्रमुख जनरल सैयद आसिम मुनीर का एक भाषण पेश किया, जो हमले से कुछ दिन पहले न्यूयॉर्क के क्वींस में दिया गया था।

भारतीय विदेश मंत्री एस. जयशंकर ने कहा कि मुनीर का “हम हिंदुओं से अलग हैं” वाला बयान भड़काऊ था और उसने आतंकियों के लिए “डॉग व्हिसल” का काम किया। भारत का मानना है कि यह राज्य प्रायोजित आतंकवाद का हिस्सा है।

विश्वसनीयता का आकलन

  • उकसावे का सबूत: समय की नज़दीकी से यह दावा मज़बूत लगता है। अतीत में भी पाकिस्तानी नेताओं के भड़काऊ बयानों के बाद घाटी में हिंसा बढ़ी है।

  • सीधी साज़िश: अभी तक सीधा और ठोस सबूत सामने नहीं आया। कुछ पाकिस्तानी असंतुष्टों का दावा है कि मुनीर ने खुद को “फील्ड मार्शल” पदोन्नति दिलाने के लिए यह हमला करवाया। लेकिन CSIS जैसे न्यूट्रल थिंक टैंक चेतावनी देते हैं कि भारत के तत्काल आरोप बिना पारदर्शिता के कमजोर पड़ सकते हैं।

भारत की जवाबी कार्रवाई से यह साफ होता है कि उसने भाषण और हमले के बीच गहरे संबंध को गंभीरता से लिया।


TRF और लश्कर-ए-तैयबा की छतरी

उद्भव और विकास

TRF अगस्त 2019 में धारा 370 हटाए जाने के बाद सामने आया। यह खुद को “स्थानीय प्रतिरोध आंदोलन” बताता है, पर अंतरराष्ट्रीय एजेंसियां इसे LeT का नया चेहरा मानती हैं।

लश्कर-ए-तैयबा की स्थापना 1980 के दशक में ओसामा बिन लादेन और अब्दुल्ला अज़्ज़ाम के समर्थन से हुई थी। यह संगठन 2001 संसद हमले और 2008 मुंबई हमले के लिए बदनाम है।

TRF-LeT संबंधों के सबूत

  • अंतरराष्ट्रीय मान्यता: जुलाई 2025 में अमेरिका ने TRF को LeT का प्रॉक्सी घोषित किया।

  • जांच: भारत की NIA ने फंडिंग, कॉल रिकॉर्ड और डिजिटल सबूतों से TRF को सीधे LeT से जोड़ा।

  • इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर: TRF की रणनीति और भर्ती LeT जैसी ही है।

पहलगाम हमले के बाद TRF ने पहले जिम्मेदारी ली, फिर दबाव में बयान वापस ले लिया—जिसे भारतीय अधिकारी पाकिस्तानी हैंडलरों का दबाव मानते हैं।


पाकिस्तान: प्रायोजक भी, शिकार भी

यहां एक विरोधाभास है—भारत कहता है पाकिस्तान आतंक फैलाता है, जबकि पाकिस्तान खुद को आतंक का शिकार बताता है। दोनों में सच्चाई है।

प्रायोजक के रूप में पाकिस्तान

  • LeT, JeM जैसे संगठनों के ठिकाने पाकिस्तान में सक्रिय हैं।

  • TRF जैसे समूह “प्रॉक्सी” के रूप में काम करते हैं, जिससे पाकिस्तान को सीधी जिम्मेदारी से बचाव का मौका मिलता है।

शिकार के रूप में पाकिस्तान

  • घरेलू हमले: तहरीक-ए-तालिबान पाकिस्तान (TTP), इस्लामिक स्टेट-खुरासान (ISKP) और सांप्रदायिक संगठन पाकिस्तान में लगातार हमले करते हैं।

  • मृत्यु दर: 2001 से अब तक हजारों पाकिस्तानी नागरिक और सैनिक आतंकी हिंसा में मारे गए हैं।

आतंकवाद विरोधी सहयोगी

  • अमेरिका के साथ साझेदारी: पाकिस्तान ने अल-कायदा और ISKP के खिलाफ अमेरिका की मदद की, इंटेलिजेंस और लॉजिस्टिक सपोर्ट दिया।

  • बूमरैंग असर: जिन संगठनों को पहले रणनीतिक उद्देश्य से पाला गया, वही बाद में पाकिस्तान पर ही हमला करने लगे।


क्या सब सच हो सकता है?

हां। पाकिस्तान तीनों भूमिकाओं में है:

  1. राज्य प्रायोजक: भारत के खिलाफ आतंकियों का इस्तेमाल करता है।

  2. शिकार: घरेलू आतंक से हजारों जानें गईं।

  3. सहयोगी: अमेरिका के साथ मिलकर कुछ संगठनों से लड़ता है।

इसे विद्वान पाकिस्तान की “डबल गेम” रणनीति कहते हैं—कुछ आतंकियों को पालना, कुछ पर कार्रवाई करना, और अंततः अपने ही देश पर उसका दुष्परिणाम झेलना।


व्यापक निहितार्थ

  • भारत के लिए: यह घटना दिखाती है कि पाकिस्तान आधारित आतंकी ढांचे खत्म किए बिना कश्मीर में स्थायी शांति संभव नहीं।

  • पाकिस्तान के लिए: “दोहरी नीति” लंबे समय तक टिकाऊ नहीं है।

  • दुनिया के लिए: यह प्रॉक्सी युद्धक्षेत्र सिर्फ दक्षिण एशिया ही नहीं, बल्कि वैश्विक सुरक्षा के लिए खतरा है।

जब तक स्वतंत्र जांच या दोनों देशों से पारदर्शिता नहीं आती, तब तक बयानबाज़ी और आरोप-प्रत्यारोप ही चलते रहेंगे। लेकिन साफ है कि आतंकवाद पाकिस्तान की पोषित अस्पष्टता में पनपता है—और यही अस्पष्टता दक्षिण एशिया की स्थिरता और वैश्विक शांति दोनों को खतरे में डाल रही है।



Here’s a concise, side-by-side timeline (2001–2025) of major terror attacks in India and Pakistan. Each entry notes casualties, who claimed responsibility or was officially blamed, immediate denials/acceptance, and cross-border fallout.


Comparative Timeline: Major Terror Attacks (2001–2025)

India-focused incidents

Date Location & casualties Claimed / Attributed Immediate stance (denial/acceptance) Cross-border fallout
Dec 13, 2001 Indian Parliament, New Delhi — 14 dead (incl. 5 attackers) JeM; India also blamed LeT. LeT denied involvement. Triggered the 2001–02 India-Pakistan standoff (Operation Parakram): ~500k–800k Indian troops mobilized; months of crisis. (Wikipedia)
Oct 29, 2005 Delhi serial bombings — 62 dead, 210+ injured LeT (under “Islamic Inquilab Mahaz”); IM also suspected. Pakistan-based culpability alleged; no major public Pakistani acceptance. Heightened security/diplomatic strain before Diwali; no overt cross-border strikes. (Wikipedia)
Jul 11, 2006 Mumbai suburban trains — 209 dead, 700+ injured LeT & Indian Mujahideen (later court proceedings and acquittals for some accused in 2025 complicated attribution). Pakistan links alleged; Islamabad denied. Strong international pressure on Pakistan; intelligence cooperation upticks. (Wikipedia)
Feb 18, 2007 Samjhauta Express (India–Pakistan train) — ~68–70 dead (mostly Pakistanis) Attribution contested over years (LeT vs. Hindu extremist network). 2019 special NIA court acquitted four accused; case unresolved. Serious diplomatic friction but also resolve to keep talks going in the moment. (Wikipedia)
Nov 26–29, 2008 Mumbai 26/11 — 170+ dead, 300+ injured LeT (Kasab captured; extensive evidence). Pakistan initially resisted link, later took some action on LeT figures under pressure. Massive global pressure on Pakistan; sustained India–Pakistan chill. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Jan 2, 2016 Pathankot Air Force base — 7 Indian troops killed JeM/UJC linked. Pakistan condemned; denied state role; US pressed Pakistan to act on groups. Dialogue wobble; limited engagement urged by US to continue. (Wikipedia)
Sep 18, 2016 Uri Army base — 18 soldiers killed India blamed Pakistan-based militants. Pakistan rejected culpability. India announced “surgical strikes” across LoC; Pakistan denied any such incursion. (TIME)
Feb 14, 2019 Pulwama, J&K (CRPF convoy) — 40 dead JeM claimed; bomber local Kashmiri. Pakistan condemned; denied role. India’s Balakot airstrikes inside Pakistan; aerial skirmishes followed. (Wikipedia)
Apr 22, 2025 Pahalgam — ≥26 tourists killed TRF initially linked; later denial. Pakistan denied involvement, called for probe. India launched strikes on sites in Pakistan on May 7, 2025; Pakistan retaliated; worst fighting in decades. (Reuters)

Pakistan-focused incidents (Pakistan as victim)

Date Location & casualties Claimed / Attributed Immediate stance (denial/acceptance) Cross-border or geopolitical fallout
Sep 20, 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel — 55 dead, 266 injured Widely tied to al-Qaeda/TTP networks; public case lists “unknown” perps. Pakistan condemned; pursued militants; later US strike (2017) killed Qari Yasin, linked to attack. Highlighted Pakistan’s internal war; US–Pakistan CT cooperation persisted. (Wikipedia)
Jun 8, 2014 Karachi Airport — 36 dead (incl. 10 attackers) TTP & Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan claimed. Pakistan vowed crackdown; launched intensified ops (e.g., Zarb-e-Azb). Elevated Af-Pak militant cross-border concerns, foreign fighter (IMU) nexus. (Wikipedia)
Dec 16, 2014 Peshawar Army Public School (APS) — ~150 dead (132 children) TTP Pakistan vowed National Action Plan; rare political–military consensus vs. TTP. Marked turning point in domestic CT posture; global condemnation. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Aug 8, 2016 Quetta hospital — 70–94+ dead Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (TTP faction); IS also claimed. Pakistan blamed TTP/JuA networks. Intensified Baluchistan CT operations; legal fraternity targeted shook civil society. (Wikipedia)
Jul 13, 2018 Mastung election rally — 149 dead ISKP/ISIL claimed. Pakistan condemned; security surged for polls. Elevated ISKP threat in Pakistan; international concern around election security. (Wikipedia)
Jan 30, 2023 Peshawar Police Lines mosque — 80+ dead TTP faction (Jamaat-ul-Ahrar) claimed; TTP central later denied. Govt blamed TTP despite denial. Renewed pressure on Afghan Taliban re: TTP sanctuaries; Kabul–Islamabad strains. (Wikipedia)
Mar 26, 2024 Shangla/Besham (Dasu Dam convoy) — 5 Chinese + 1 Pakistani killed Suspected TTP/affiliates; no formal claim; Pakistan later blamed planning from Afghanistan. Pakistan condemned; pledged compensation; China pressed for results. China–Pakistan security coordination tightened; Kabul–Islamabad friction over blame. (Reuters)
Jul 14, 2021 (context) Dasu bus attack (Chinese workers) — 13 dead (9 Chinese) Pakistan later tied plot to TTP; bomber linked to Afghanistan. Islamabad condemned; courts issued death sentences to two convicts; mastermind later killed in Afgh. Beijing pressed for accountability; guarded CPEC posture. (Wikipedia)

Patterns: denial, attribution, and cross-border consequences

  • Attribution & Denial Loops:

    • In India-focused attacks (2001 Parliament, 2008 Mumbai, 2016 Uri, 2019 Pulwama, 2025 Pahalgam), New Delhi typically attributes responsibility to Pakistan-based LeT/JeM/TRF, while Islamabad denies state links, sometimes disputing group culpability or demanding “actionable evidence.” (Wikipedia)

    • In Pakistan-focused mass-casualty attacks (APS Peshawar, Karachi Airport, Mastung, Peshawar Police Lines, Besham/Shangla), TTP/ISKP or allied factions claim or are blamed; Islamabad accepts victim status and pursues domestic CT action—while at times alleging Afghan-based facilitation. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

  • Cross-border Fallout:

    • Crisis escalations followed marquee India-focused attacks: Operation Parakram (2001–02), “surgical strikes” (2016), Balakot airstrikes & dogfights (2019), and May 2025 India–Pakistan strikes after Pahalgam. (Wikipedia)

    • Great-power pressure (US, China) routinely pushes for de-escalation; after killings of Chinese nationals in Pakistan (2021 Dasu; 2024 Shangla), Beijing became a direct stakeholder in Pakistan’s internal security posture. (Reuters)

  • Contested Cases & Reversals:

    • Samjhauta Express (2007) illustrates how attribution can evolve: initial theories pointing to Pakistan-linked actors later collided with a domestic prosecution against Hindu extremist suspects—ultimately ending in acquittals (2019) for lack of evidence. (Wikipedia)



तुलनात्मक टाइमलाइन: प्रमुख आतंकी हमले (2001–2025)

भारत में प्रमुख हमले

तिथि स्थान व हताहत जिम्मेदार / आरोपित तत्काल स्थिति (इनकार/दावा) सीमा-पार असर
13 दिसम्बर 2001 भारतीय संसद, दिल्ली — 14 मृत (5 हमलावर सहित) जैश-ए-मोहम्मद; भारत ने LeT को भी दोषी ठहराया LeT ने इनकार किया 2001–02 भारत-पाक तनाव (ऑपरेशन पराक्रम): ~5–8 लाख भारतीय सैनिक तैनात
29 अक्तूबर 2005 दिल्ली बम धमाके — 62 मृत, 210 घायल LeT (इस्लामिक इंकलाब महाज नाम से); इंडियन मुजाहिदीन संदेहास्पद पाकिस्तान आधारित संलिप्तता कही गई; इस्लामाबाद ने नकारा दिवाली से ठीक पहले सुरक्षा व कूटनीतिक तनाव
11 जुलाई 2006 मुंबई लोकल ट्रेन ब्लास्ट — 209 मृत, 700 घायल LeT व इंडियन मुजाहिदीन पाकिस्तान लिंक का आरोप; इस्लामाबाद ने इनकार किया वैश्विक दबाव बढ़ा, इंटेलिजेंस सहयोग बढ़ा
18 फरवरी 2007 समझौता एक्सप्रेस (भारत–पाक ट्रेन) — ~68–70 मृत (अधिकांश पाकिस्तानी) प्रारंभिक रूप से LeT; बाद में हिन्दू उग्रवादी संदेह 2019 में सभी आरोपी बरी; केस अनसुलझा गम्भीर कूटनीतिक तनातनी, पर वार्ता जारी रखने की कोशिश
26–29 नवम्बर 2008 मुंबई 26/11 — 170+ मृत, 300 घायल LeT (अजमल कसाब पकड़ा गया) पाकिस्तान ने पहले इनकार, बाद में दबाव में LeT पर कुछ कार्रवाई भारत–पाक रिश्ते दशकों तक जमे रहे; पाकिस्तान पर भारी वैश्विक दबाव
2 जनवरी 2016 पठानकोट एयरबेस — 7 भारतीय जवान शहीद जैश-ए-मोहम्मद / यूनाइटेड जिहाद काउंसिल पाकिस्तान ने निन्दा की; राज्य भूमिका नकारी अमेरिका ने पाकिस्तान से आतंकी समूहों पर कार्रवाई का दबाव बनाया
18 सितम्बर 2016 उरी आर्मी बेस — 18 जवान शहीद भारत ने पाकिस्तानी आतंकियों को दोषी ठहराया पाकिस्तान ने आरोप नकारे भारत ने “सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक” की घोषणा; पाकिस्तान ने इनकार किया
14 फरवरी 2019 पुलवामा, J&K (CRPF काफिला) — 40 शहीद जैश-ए-मोहम्मद ने दावा किया पाकिस्तान ने निन्दा की; संलिप्तता नकारी भारत ने बालाकोट एयरस्ट्राइक किया; हवाई मुठभेड़ हुई
22 अप्रैल 2025 पहलगाम — ≥26 पर्यटक मारे गए TRF पर आरोप; बाद में उसने इनकार किया पाकिस्तान ने संलिप्तता नकारी, स्वतंत्र जाँच मांगी भारत ने 7 मई 2025 को पाकिस्तानी ठिकानों पर हमले किए; पाकिस्तान ने पलटवार किया

पाकिस्तान में प्रमुख हमले (पाकिस्तान पीड़ित के रूप में)

तिथि स्थान व हताहत जिम्मेदार / आरोपित तत्काल स्थिति सीमा-पार / कूटनीतिक असर
20 सितम्बर 2008 इस्लामाबाद मैरियट होटल — 55 मृत, 266 घायल अल-कायदा/TTP नेटवर्क पाकिस्तान ने आतंकी पीछा शुरू किया अमेरिका–पाक CT (काउंटर-टेररिज्म) सहयोग जारी
8 जून 2014 कराची एयरपोर्ट — 36 मृत TTP व इस्लामिक मूवमेंट ऑफ उज़्बेकिस्तान पाकिस्तान ने कठोर कार्रवाई की ऑपरेशन ज़र्ब-ए-अज़्ब शुरू हुआ
16 दिसम्बर 2014 पेशावर आर्मी पब्लिक स्कूल (APS) — ~150 मृत (132 बच्चे) TTP पाकिस्तान ने नेशनल एक्शन प्लान लाँच किया आतंकी नीति में मोड़; वैश्विक निन्दा
8 अगस्त 2016 क्वेटा अस्पताल — 70–94 मृत जमात-उल-अहरार (TTP गुट); IS ने भी दावा किया पाकिस्तान ने TTP को दोषी ठहराया बलूचिस्तान में CT अभियान तेज़
13 जुलाई 2018 मस्तुंग चुनाव रैली — 149 मृत ISKP/ISIL पाकिस्तान ने निन्दा की चुनाव सुरक्षा पर वैश्विक चिंता
30 जनवरी 2023 पेशावर पुलिस लाइन्स मस्जिद — 80+ मृत TTP गुट (जमात-उल-अहरार) ने दावा, TTP ने बाद में नकारा सरकार ने TTP को जिम्मेदार ठहराया अफगान तालिबान पर दबाव; इस्लामाबाद–काबुल तनाव
26 मार्च 2024 शांगला/बेशाम (दासू डैम काफिला) — 5 चीनी + 1 पाकिस्तानी मृत संदेह TTP/सहयोगियों पर; पाकिस्तान ने अफगानिस्तान से लिंक बताया पाकिस्तान ने निन्दा की; चीन ने दबाव डाला बीजिंग–इस्लामाबाद सुरक्षा सहयोग गहरा हुआ
14 जुलाई 2021 (सन्दर्भ) दासू बस हमला (चीनी मजदूर) — 13 मृत (9 चीनी) पाकिस्तान ने TTP को दोषी ठहराया पाकिस्तान ने जिम्मेदारों पर मुकदमा चलाया चीन–पाक संबंधों में तनाव, CPEC सुरक्षा पर असर

पैटर्न: इनकार, जिम्मेदारी और सीमा-पार असर

  • जिम्मेदारी व इनकार का चक्र:

    • भारत पर हमले (2001 संसद, 2008 मुंबई, 2016 उरी, 2019 पुलवामा, 2025 पहलगाम) में भारत ने LeT/JeM/TRF को दोषी ठहराया; पाकिस्तान ने बार-बार इनकार किया।

    • पाकिस्तान पर हमले (APS पेशावर, कराची एयरपोर्ट, मस्तुंग, पेशावर मस्जिद, शांगला) में TTP/ISKP ने जिम्मेदारी ली या आरोपित हुए; पाकिस्तान ने खुद को पीड़ित के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया।

  • सीमा-पार असर:

    • भारत पर बड़े हमलों के बाद संकट गहराया—2001–02 तनाव, 2016 सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक, 2019 बालाकोट, 2025 भारत–पाक हमले

    • पाकिस्तान पर विदेशी/ट्रान्सनेशनल हमलों (जैसे चीनी मजदूरों की मौत) के बाद चीन सीधा दबाव डालने लगा।

  • विवादित मामले:

    • समझौता एक्सप्रेस (2007) में जिम्मेदारी लगातार विवादित रही—पहले पाकिस्तान लिंक बताए गए, बाद में हिन्दू उग्रवादी संदेह; अन्ततः 2019 में सबूतों के अभाव में बरी।



mmm

Friday, May 09, 2025

India Pakistan: Strikes, Counterstrikes

Technologies The Indian Army Has Unleashed
A New Pakistani Army Under Civilian Supremacy
Will the Pakistani Army End Up with a Four-Front War?
India And Pakistan Should Deescalate
Tit-for-Tat Scenarios and De-escalation Roadmap for Operation Sindoor Using Game Theory


The escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, have led to a series of strikes and counterstrikes, rooted in the long-standing conflict over Kashmir. Below is a detailed chronology of the events, strikes, and counterstrikes, followed by an analysis of what is likely to happen next, based on available information and historical patterns.


Chronology of Strikes and Counterstrikes Post-Pahalgam Attack
1. Pahalgam Terror Attack (April 22, 2025)
  • Event: Five armed militants attacked non-Muslim tourists in Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam, Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 civilians (25 Indians, mostly Hindus, and one Nepali national). The attackers used M4 carbines and AK-47s, targeting tourists in a deliberate attempt to create communal discord. The Resistance Front (TRF), believed by India to be an offshoot of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), initially claimed responsibility but later retracted the claim. India alleged the attack was orchestrated by LeT operatives, including Hafeez Saeed and Saifullah Kasuri in Pakistan, with one attacker, Hashim Musa, a former Pakistani paramilitary officer.
  • Indian Response (Non-Military):
    • April 23: India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a 1960 water-sharing agreement, citing Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism. The Wagah-Attari border was closed, halting cross-border movement.
    • April 25: India expelled Pakistani diplomats, suspended visas for Pakistani nationals, and banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels for “provocative” content. Pakistan reciprocated by closing its airspace to Indian flights and suspending trade.
    • April 27: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, identifying digital traces linking the attack to safe houses in Muzaffarabad and Karachi, and alleging involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
    • April 28: India demolished homes of suspected militants in Kashmir and intensified counter-terror operations, including raids in Bandipora.
  • Pakistani Response: Pakistan denied involvement, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif calling for a “neutral, transparent, and credible investigation.” Pakistan accused India of “baseless allegations” and warned that any water diversion would be an “act of war.”
  • International Reaction: The U.S., U.N., and others urged restraint. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the attack and reaffirmed counterterrorism cooperation with India.
2. Pre-Strike Escalation (April 23–May 6, 2025)
  • Ceasefire Violations: Pakistan violated the Line of Control (LoC) ceasefire multiple times, with small-arms fire reported in Kupwara, Uri, and Akhnoor sectors from May 2–3. India responded proportionately.
  • Indian Military Preparations: Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the armed forces “complete operational freedom” to respond, holding high-level security meetings with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. The Indian Navy conducted test missile strikes on April 27 to demonstrate readiness.
  • Pakistani Warnings: On April 30, Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar claimed “credible intelligence” of an imminent Indian strike within 24–36 hours, vowing a “befitting response.”
  • Civil Defense Measures: India conducted mock drills in 244 districts on May 7, while Pakistan shut over 1,000 religious schools in its Kashmir region for 10 days, fearing escalation.
3. India’s Operation Sindoor (May 7, 2025)
  • Event: India launched Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory military operation targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir (PoJK) between 1:05–1:30 a.m. on May 7. The operation was described as “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” avoiding Pakistani military facilities.
  • Targets:
    • Pakistan-administered Kashmir: Muzaffarabad (LeT camp, 30 km from LoC), Kotli, and Bagh.
    • Mainland Pakistan: Bahawalpur (Jaish-e-Mohammad headquarters, 100 km from the border), Muridke (LeT base), Ahmedpur Sharqia, and Shakargarh in Punjab; Sialkot (two camps, 6–18 km from the border).
  • Technologies Used:
    • Rafale jets armed with Scalp cruise missiles and HAMMER precision-guided munitions for long-range, high-accuracy strikes.
    • Loitering munitions (kamikaze drones) developed by a Bengaluru-based firm with Israeli collaboration, used for precision targeting.
    • Possible use of Su-30 jets with BrahMos missiles, Smerch, and Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers for ground-based strikes.
  • Indian Claims: The strikes destroyed terrorist infrastructure linked to LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Hizbul Mujahideen, responsible for the Pahalgam attack and other planned attacks. India claimed “considerable restraint” in target selection. Satellite images reportedly showed extensive damage to camps in Bahawalpur and Muridke.
  • Pakistani Claims: Pakistan reported 26–31 deaths (including a three-year-old girl) and 46–57 injuries, alleging India targeted civilian areas, including mosques, and not terrorist camps. Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif, claimed six locations were hit, not nine, and denied the presence of terror camps. Pakistan also claimed to have shot down five to seven Indian jets and 25 Indian drones, though these claims lack independent verification.
  • Indian Losses: Reports indicated two Indian aircraft may have crashed in Indian-administered Kashmir, with debris sighted, though India has not confirmed losses. Indian police reported seven civilians killed by Pakistani shelling in the region.
  • International Reaction: The U.N., U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and others urged de-escalation. U.S. National Security Advisor Marco Rubio called for open communication. China expressed concern, while Russia condemned terrorism but warned against escalation.
4. Pakistan’s Counterstrikes (May 7–8, 2025)
  • Event: Pakistan responded with artillery shelling and drone and missile attacks along the LoC and International Border, targeting Indian military and civilian sites.
  • Details:
    • May 7: Heavy shelling in Poonch district killed 12 civilians (including four children) and one soldier, with 57 injuries (42 in Poonch). India reported destroying multiple Pakistani posts in a counteroffensive.
    • May 8: Pakistan launched a “substantial” number of loitering munitions and missiles targeting 15 cities in northern and western India, including Jammu, Udhampur, Samba, Akhnoor, Nagrota, and Pathankot. India’s air defense systems, including Akash missiles, L-70 guns, Zu-23mm cannons, Schilka systems, and counter-UAS equipment, neutralized over 50 Pakistani drones and munitions. India also claimed to have destroyed a Pakistani air defense system in Lahore.
  • Indian Response:
    • India activated air defense systems in Jammu, with sirens and blackouts reported. The Indian Army reported thwarting attacks on military bases and civilian areas.
    • India used high-frequency jamming systems to disrupt Pakistan’s GNSS signals (GPS, GLONASS, Beidou), degrading their navigation and precision-guided munitions.
  • Pakistani Claims: Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif denied targeting civilian areas, stating that any Pakistani strike would be overt and globally known. Pakistan claimed India’s strikes hit civilian infrastructure, including the Neelum Jhelum dam, which India denied.
  • Civilian Impact: Schools in Indian-administered Kashmir were closed, and an Indian Premier League match in Dharamshala was halted due to security concerns. Protests erupted in Muslim-majority areas of Kashmir, condemning the violence.
5. Further Developments (May 8–9, 2025)
  • Indian Actions:
    • Prime Minister Modi chaired a high-level meeting to review national preparedness, focusing on civil defense, countering misinformation, and securing critical infrastructure.
    • India briefed the U.N. Security Council, alleging Pakistan’s complicity via TRF and LeT. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized India’s restraint and accused Pakistan of escalating via civilian-targeted attacks.
    • Security drills and blackouts continued in cities like Amritsar, with airports on high alert.
  • Pakistani Actions: Pakistan continued to condemn India’s strikes as an “act of war,” with its National Security Committee alleging civilian targets were hit. Pakistan opposed U.N. discussions on TRF’s role, despite the group’s initial claim of responsibility.
  • International Diplomacy: The U.K. Parliament debated the conflict, urging de-escalation. Iran expressed solidarity with India, while China offered to mediate.

Analysis of Likely Next Steps
Predicting the trajectory of India-Pakistan tensions is challenging due to the volatile nature of the conflict, nuclear deterrence, and international pressure. However, based on historical patterns, current dynamics, and expert analyses, the following scenarios are likely:
1. Short-Term Outlook (Days to Weeks)
  • Limited Tit-for-Tat Actions:
    • Both nations are likely to continue low-intensity skirmishes along the LoC, including artillery exchanges and drone incursions, as seen in May 7–8. India’s robust air defenses and Pakistan’s limited success in penetrating Indian airspace suggest these actions will remain contained.
    • Pakistan may attempt further drone or missile strikes to project strength domestically, but its claims of downing Indian jets lack verification and may be propaganda to bolster public support.
    • India could conduct additional precision strikes if intelligence indicates imminent threats, but these would likely remain targeted at terrorist infrastructure to avoid escalation.
  • Diplomatic Maneuvering:
    • India will continue its diplomatic offensive, briefing global powers and pushing for sanctions on Pakistan-based militants like LeT’s Hafeez Saeed, as it did post-Pulwama in 2019.
    • Pakistan will seek support from allies like China and Turkey, while denying terrorism allegations and calling for international investigations. China’s offer to mediate could lead to backchannel talks.
    • International pressure from the U.S., U.N., and others will intensify, urging both sides to avoid escalation. The U.S.’s strategic partnership with India and its interest in countering China may tilt its stance slightly toward India, but it will prioritize de-escalation.
  • Domestic Pressures:
    • In India, public outrage over the Pahalgam attack and political unity (evidenced by all-party support for Operation Sindoor) will sustain pressure on Modi’s government for a strong stance. However, Modi’s emphasis on “measured” actions suggests restraint to avoid broader conflict.
    • In Pakistan, the military’s narrative of defending against Indian aggression will rally domestic support, but economic constraints and internal political challenges may limit its ability to escalate significantly.
2. Medium-Term Outlook (Weeks to Months)
  • De-escalation through Diplomacy:
    • Historical precedents, like the 2019 Pulwama crisis, suggest that after initial strikes and counterstrikes, both sides may seek an “off-ramp” via diplomacy. In 2019, Pakistan’s release of an Indian pilot de-escalated tensions. A similar gesture, such as Pakistan handing over a wanted militant or India sharing evidence, could pave the way for talks.
    • Backchannel diplomacy, possibly facilitated by neutral parties like the U.A.E. or Qatar, could restore limited cross-border mechanisms, such as the LoC ceasefire agreed in 2021.
  • Continued Counterterrorism Operations:
    • India will intensify operations in Kashmir to capture or neutralize militants like Hashim Musa, with a focus on preventing further attacks. The NIA’s investigation may yield evidence strengthening India’s case against Pakistan internationally.
    • Pakistan may increase support for proxies like TRF to maintain pressure on India, though overt escalation risks international isolation.
  • Economic and Strategic Costs:
    • Pakistan’s economy, already strained, will face further challenges due to trade suspensions and airspace closures. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty could exacerbate water disputes, though India is unlikely to fully divert rivers in the near term due to international treaties.
    • India’s focus on critical infrastructure security and civil defense suggests preparation for prolonged tensions, but its economic resilience gives it an advantage.
3. Long-Term Outlook (Months to Years)
  • Stalemate with Periodic Flare-Ups: The Kashmir conflict’s intractability and nuclear deterrence make full-scale war unlikely. Both sides will likely revert to a tense stalemate, with periodic militant attacks and Indian counterstrikes, as seen post-Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019).
  • International Role: Sustained global pressure could lead to U.N.-led discussions on Kashmir, though both nations resist external mediation. China’s growing influence in Pakistan and India’s alignment with the U.S. may complicate regional dynamics.
  • Internal Dynamics:
    • In India, the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019 continues to fuel local unrest, which militants exploit. Addressing governance and economic issues in Kashmir could reduce militancy but faces political hurdles.
    • Pakistan’s military may use the crisis to consolidate domestic power, but economic woes and public fatigue with conflict could limit its adventurism.
4. Risks of Escalation
  • Miscalculation: A misjudged strike hitting civilian or military targets could spiral, as seen in the 2019 aerial dogfight. Both sides’ nuclear arsenals (India: ~160 warheads; Pakistan: ~170 warheads) enforce caution but heighten stakes.
  • Militant Actions: A major terrorist attack, especially if linked to Pakistan, could force India into broader retaliation, risking a cycle of escalation.
  • Cyber and Information Warfare: Both nations may escalate cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns, targeting critical infrastructure or public sentiment, which could prolong tensions without direct military conflict.

Conclusion
The Pahalgam attack triggered a cycle of Indian strikes (Operation Sindoor) and Pakistani counterstrikes, characterized by precision munitions, drones, and air defense systems. While both sides have shown restraint by avoiding military targets, civilian casualties and domestic pressures keep tensions high. In the short term, limited skirmishes and diplomatic posturing are likely, with international calls for restraint shaping outcomes. Medium-term de-escalation through backchannel talks is plausible, following historical patterns, but the underlying Kashmir dispute ensures periodic flare-ups. Both nations’ nuclear capabilities and global scrutiny make all-out war improbable, but miscalculations or further terrorist attacks remain key risks.

Pakistan’s Most Powerful Man Steps Out of the Shadows to Confront India The army chief, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, who usually works behind the scenes, has been shaping Pakistan’s tone in the crisis over Kashmir with his own tough talk.