In a recent interview with Dutch broadcaster NOS, Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar advanced a familiar narrative—blaming Pakistan for terrorism, framing Kashmir as a non-negotiable internal matter, and claiming Indian military actions are defensive responses to cross-border threats. While this discourse plays well within India’s domestic political landscape, it is increasingly being viewed internationally as a strategic deflection mechanism, designed to obscure New Delhi’s own failings in human rights, regional diplomacy, and conflict resolution.
India’s attempt to externalize internal challenges, particularly those arising from unrest in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), reveals more about the fragility of its own governance model in restive regions than about any credible external threat. By invoking the trope of Pakistani-backed terrorism, India aims to delegitimize local dissent and sideline international attention from its human rights record. Jaishankar’s repeated emphasis on “cross-border terrorism” reflects India’s long-standing strategy of narrative securitization — portraying all opposition in Kashmir as externally driven terrorism, rather than acknowledging its endogenous and political nature. However, this oversimplification masks the deep-rooted socio-political alienation and systemic disenfranchisement that have fuelled unrest in IIOJK for decades.
More concerning is India’s unwillingness to allow third-party verification of its claims. Despite Pakistan’s repeated offers for international investigations and UN-led monitoring mechanisms, India has categorically rejected such transparency. If New Delhi’s accusations had merit, impartial investigation would serve its case. Its refusal to engage with such mechanisms undermines its own credibility and suggests that the narrative is more about controlling perception than confronting facts.
India’s so-called “responses” to terrorism—often unprovoked ceasefire violations and militarized rhetoric—have rarely been substantiated with evidence. These actions are frequently media-choreographed spectacles that serve to mobilize domestic nationalist sentiment rather than actual counterterrorism goals. In fact, independent observers and investigative journalists have raised questions about the authenticity of some of these incidents, labelling them potential false flag operations. While Jaishankar claims India is open to bilateral discussions on terrorism, this is a circular logic. India refuses to discuss broader issues, including Kashmir, until terrorism stops, while simultaneously blocking dialogue mechanisms. This has effectively institutionalized diplomatic deadlock.
Moreover, Pakistan has consistently called for comprehensive dialogue, including terrorism, trade, people-to-people contact, and above all, the Kashmir dispute—the most critical flashpoint between the two nations. India’s insistence on segmenting the dialogue, isolating terrorism, and ignoring Kashmir not only contradicts past agreements but also violates the spirit of the Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration, which committed both nations to resolve all outstanding issues bilaterally, including Kashmir.
Jaishankar’s assertion that Kashmir is an “integral part” of India is not only diplomatically inflammatory but also legally inaccurate. Kashmir’s status remains disputed under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 47, 51, 80, and 91, among others. These resolutions explicitly recognize Kashmir as an international dispute and call for a UN-supervised plebiscite to let the Kashmiri people decide their future. If there is any part of Kashmir under illegal occupation, it is IIOJK, not Pakistan-administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Unlike IIOJK, which is under the grip of 800,000 Indian troops, AJK has no comparable military presence, nor do its residents face the kind of draconian lockdowns, mass detentions, or communications blackouts that characterize life in Indian-controlled territory.
India’s policies, far from integrating Kashmir, have intensified alienation, pushed the local population toward radicalization, and created a perpetual security crisis. It is not Pakistan’s narrative but India’s own misgovernance that lies at the heart of the Kashmir issue. Ironically, while India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring insurgency, it has itself been implicated in supporting anti-Pakistan proxies such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Sindhudesh Revolutionary Army (SRA)—a fact increasingly acknowledged by international analysts and former Indian officials. Pakistan has provided dossiers, named operatives, and presented evidence at global forums, yet India maintains silence on its own covert subversion campaigns.
India’s accusations about Pakistan’s religious radicalism also ring hollow, especially when viewed against the backdrop of its own rising majoritarian Hindutva politics, hate crimes, and institutional marginalization of minorities. By accusing others of “extreme religious outlooks,” India attempts to deflect attention from domestic authoritarianism under the guise of regional security concerns.
India’s repeated invocation of terrorism, while ignoring Kashmir’s disputed status, amounts to strategic deflection — an effort to reframe a political crisis as a security issue. This tactic may offer short-term domestic dividends, but it undermines long-term peace and regional stability. Narratives alone cannot win wars — or peace. The international community is no longer swayed by jingoistic sloganeering. It is time India stops scapegoating Pakistan for its own failures, and starts engaging in diplomacy that reflects responsibility, legality, and accountability.