II. Pakistan’s Alleged Terror Activities Against India
India has consistently accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism to destabilize its territory, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and other regions. These allegations center on Pakistan’s military and ISI support for insurgent and terrorist groups, a charge Pakistan denies, claiming these are indigenous movements or non-state actors.
Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
Historical Context: Since the 1947 partition and the First Kashmir War, Pakistan has been accused of using irregular troops and militants to challenge Indian control over Jammu and Kashmir. This strategy was evident in 1947, 1965, and the 1999 Kargil War, where Pakistan allegedly sent infiltrators followed by regular forces.
Militant Groups: Groups like Hizbul Mujahideen, LeT, JeM, and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, based in Pakistan, are accused of conducting attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir. India claims these groups receive training, funding, and arms from the ISI. For example, the 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, was claimed by JeM.
Recent Incidents: The April 2025 Pahalgam attack, killing 26 tourists, was attributed to The Resistance Front (TRF), a LeT splinter group. India alleged “cross-border linkages” to Pakistan, which Pakistan denied, calling for an international investigation. India responded with Operation Sindoor, targeting nine terrorist sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
High-Profile Terror Attacks in India
2001 Indian Parliament Attack: Five Pakistani nationals attacked India’s Parliament, killing nine. India alleged ISI involvement, a claim Pakistan rejected.
2008 Mumbai Attacks: LeT executed a four-day assault, killing 166 people. David Headley, a key planner, testified to ISI involvement, and India claimed the attackers were in contact with Pakistani handlers. Pakistan denied state involvement but faced a UN ban on LeT’s affiliate, Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, which it has not fully enforced.
Other Incidents: The ISI has been linked to attacks like the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, 2006 Varanasi bombings, and 2007 Hyderabad bombings, though Pakistan attributes these to non-state actors.
Support for Separatist Movements
Khalistan Movement in Punjab: India accuses Pakistan of supporting Sikh separatist groups to revive the Khalistan movement, citing ISI funding and training. A Punjab MLA claimed this is retaliation for India’s role in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Former Pakistani army chief Mirza Aslam Beg endorsed using the Kartarpur corridor to assist Khalistan activists.
Northeast Insurgencies: Pakistan is alleged to have supplied arms to groups like the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), though evidence is less conclusive compared to Kashmir.
Strategic Objectives and Indian Responses
Pakistan’s Alleged Goals: India claims Pakistan uses terrorism as a “thousand cuts” strategy to weaken it economically, politically, and militarily, avoiding direct conventional warfare due to India’s superior strength.
Indian Countermeasures: India has responded with “surgical strikes” (2016), airstrikes (2019), and Operation Sindoor (2025) targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. Diplomatic measures include suspending the Indus Water Treaty and downgrading ties post-Pahalgam.
Escalation Risks: Both nations’ nuclear capabilities and frequent border skirmishes (e.g., 3,000 cross-border strikes in 2017) heighten the risk of escalation. India’s revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019 further strained relations.
III. Pakistan’s Perspective and Denials
Official Stance: Pakistan denies sponsoring terrorism, asserting that groups like LeT and JeM operate independently. It accuses India and Afghanistan of supporting anti-Pakistan groups like TTP and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), citing the 2016 arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav, whom Pakistan claims was an Indian spy. India denies this, calling Jadhav a retired naval officer abducted from Iran.
Domestic Terrorism: Pakistan highlights its own suffering from terrorism, with 971 fatalities in 2022, mostly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. It argues that its military operations and losses (e.g., in FATA) demonstrate commitment to fighting terrorism.
Geopolitical Context: Pakistan claims its actions are defensive, aimed at countering Indian hegemony and securing strategic depth in Afghanistan. It points to U.S. support for anti |Soviet mujahideen in the 1980s as a root cause of regional militancy, indirectly implicating Western policies.
IV. Critical Analysis
Evidence and Bias: India’s allegations are supported by testimonies (e.g., David Headley), UN designations, and FATF actions, but public evidence linking Pakistan’s state directly to attacks is often limited, fueling Pakistan’s denials. Indian media and political rhetoric may amplify the narrative, while Pakistan’s selective counterterrorism undermines its credibility.
Regional Dynamics: The India-Pakistan rivalry, rooted in Kashmir and partition, drives mutual accusations of terrorism. Afghanistan’s role in supporting TTP against Pakistan complicates the narrative, suggesting a cycle of proxy warfare.
Global Implications: Pakistan’s alleged support for groups like LeT and JeM risks isolating it diplomatically, as seen in U.S. aid suspensions and FATF scrutiny. However, its nuclear arsenal and strategic location limit international pressure.
Domestic Factors: Pakistan’s internal instability, including military dominance and radicalized segments of society, enables militant groups to operate, even if not always state-directed. Public opinion, per Pew polls, shows limited but notable support for groups like LeT (14% favorable in 2015), particularly among younger and educated cohorts.
V. Conclusion
Pakistan’s alleged role in global terrorism centers on its support for groups like the Taliban, LeT, and JeM, driven by strategic interests in Afghanistan and against India. Against India, Pakistan is accused of a decades-long campaign of proxy warfare, particularly in Kashmir, with high-profile attacks like Mumbai 2008 and Pahalgam 2025 escalating tensions. While evidence suggests ISI involvement, Pakistan’s denials and its own terrorism challenges highlight a complex picture. The lack of conclusive public evidence and mutual accusations of terrorism between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan underscore the need for diplomatic efforts to break the cycle of violence, though nuclear risks and entrenched rivalries make resolution elusive.
