The international community has, for too long, accepted Pakistan’s victim narrative at face value. The reasoning has often been geopolitical.

Every time the world confronts Pakistan with evidence of its support for terrorism, it responds with the same script. It is a victim of terrorism, not a sponsor. Its neighbours are out to defame it. The groups operating from its soil are rogue actors, beyond state control. The script has worn thin. Operation Sindoor, in May 2025, demolished it.

The Indian airstrikes on the night of May 6 to 7, 2025, did not target shadowy hideouts in remote tribal regions. They targeted Bahawalpur, a city of nearly a million people in central Punjab, well within Pakistan’s settled and policed heartland. They targeted Muridke, the sprawling Lashkar-e-Taiba complex on the outskirts of Lahore. They struck nine sites in total, four in Pakistan proper and five in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The locations told their own story. These were not camps that Pakistan had failed to find. These were camps that Pakistan had built.

The Family Business of Terror

Consider the case of Jaish-e-Mohammed, the group whose Bahawalpur headquarters India struck on May 7. Jaish was founded in 2000 by Masood Azhar, a man Pakistan released from Indian custody in December 1999 in exchange for hostages on a hijacked plane. According to multiple accounts cited by Pakistani journalists and Western researchers, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate paraded Azhar through Pakistan after his release on a fundraising tour, and helped him stand up the new outfit.

Pervez Musharraf, who served as Pakistan’s president from 2001 to 2008, admitted in a 2019 interview that Jaish-e-Mohammed had carried out attacks in India on the instructions of Pakistani intelligence. This was not an Indian allegation. This was the former military ruler of Pakistan acknowledging that Pakistan’s spy agency had directed terror operations against a neighbouring country.

Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group whose Muridke complex India also struck, has a similar profile. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies has documented that Lashkar conducts its attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai siege, with the consent and support of the ISI. David Coleman Headley, the Pakistani-American operative who scouted the Mumbai targets, testified that he met with six different ISI officers during his time with Lashkar. American investigators identified one of them, known only as Major Iqbal, as having provided 25,000 dollars in cash and direct operational guidance for the attack that killed 166 people.

What the Strikes Revealed

If Jaish and Lashkar were really rogue outfits operating outside Pakistani state control, the strikes of May 7 should have produced confused and uncertain reactions. Pakistan should have struggled to identify what had been hit, who had died, and why. Instead, the response was immediate and revealing. Pakistan’s military leadership knew exactly what had been targeted, because the targets were on Pakistan’s books in all but name.

In September 2025, a senior Jaish commander named Masood Ilyas Kashmiri appeared at the group’s annual Mission Mustafa conference and openly admitted that Masood Azhar’s family had been killed in the Bahawalpur strikes. Ten members of the family died, including Azhar’s sister, her husband, a nephew, a niece, and five children. Four close aides also died. The location of the strike was Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah, the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed, sitting comfortably inside Pakistani territory, with a UN-designated terrorist living openly within its walls.

The picture this paints is unambiguous. Masood Azhar, listed as a global terrorist by the United Nations Security Council since May 2019, was not in hiding. He was at home, with his family, in a complex protected by the Pakistani state. His brother Abdul Rauf Asghar, also a UN-designated terrorist and the operational head of Jaish, was reportedly killed in the same strike. Pakistan’s posture of plausible deniability has rested for decades on the fiction that men like these are difficult to find. India’s strikes proved that the only people who found them difficult to find were Pakistan’s own authorities.

The Cost of the Charade

The international community has, for too long, accepted Pakistan’s victim narrative at face value. The reasoning has often been geopolitical. Pakistan was a frontline state in the Cold War. Pakistan was a partner in the war on terror. Pakistan held nuclear weapons that demanded careful handling. Each of these arguments contained a fragment of strategic logic. None of them justified the systematic protection of men who killed civilians in Indian cities and villages.

The cost of this charade has been borne by India and by the broader region. Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of terror groups has poisoned the entire South Asian neighbourhood. It has prevented the development of normal trade and travel relations. It has consumed resources that could have built schools and hospitals on both sides of the border. And, most tragically, it has cost thousands of innocent lives across decades of attacks that Pakistan’s intelligence services helped plan, fund, and execute.

Operation Sindoor changed the equation. By striking Bahawalpur and Muridke, India made plain what had always been true. The terrorist infrastructure attacking India operates from inside Pakistan, with the protection of the Pakistani state. The terrorist leadership lives in Pakistani cities, raises families in Pakistani neighbourhoods, and runs operations from Pakistani buildings. The fiction of state distance from these activities has collapsed.

The world now has a choice. It can continue to accept the Pakistani script of victimhood, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Or it can finally treat Pakistan as what it has long been: a state that uses terrorism as an instrument of policy, and that pays a price every time it does. India has decided which path it will follow. The international community must now decide which path it can credibly continue to ignore.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

and CNSS

On 18 November 2025, while presenting the 2026 budget in Ankara’s parliament, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan once again raised the Kashmir issue, urging international intervention and dialogue under global oversight. The statement sparked little surprise not because it was benign, but because it fits a familiar pattern.

Over the past decade, Turkey has consistently used major global platforms, from the UN General Assembly to the OIC to national parliamentary debates, to position itself as a defender of Muslim causes worldwide, with Kashmir serving as a recurring rhetorical centerpiece.

Fidan’s remark was not an impulsive comment on a routine parliamentary day. It was another installment in Ankara’s long game of narrative diplomacy; a strategic campaign to shape how conflicts are perceived worldwide through emotional, identity-based framing rather than balanced geopolitical reasoning.

Soft Power and Narrative Warfare: A defining feature of Turkey’s foreign policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been the deployment of soft power instruments: universities, think-tanks, diaspora groups, cultural bodies, and civil-society platforms, to construct and amplify narratives sympathetic to Ankara’s ideological and geopolitical positions.

These platforms allow Turkey to frame complex conflicts such as through simplified moral binaries: oppressed versus oppressor, victim versus aggressor, without any reference to state-sponsored terrorism.

Indeed, reports by independent fact-checkers such as DFRAC identified media organisations based in Turkey (and in Gulf-region media-ecosystems including Qatar) as active participants in anti-India disinformation efforts: suggesting that this campaign extends well beyond South Asia and aims to shape perceptions among Muslim audiences globally.

Turkey is now being described as ‘the new Dubai’ for anti-India influence operations, indicating that as Gulf states tightened their cooperation with India, Ankara repositioned itself as a hub for media, NGO-sponsored, and diaspora-led narrative outreach targeting Indian Muslims and the broader Muslim world.

This narrative strategy has been particularly visible in Turkey’s activism on Kashmir. Conferences, public lectures, solidarity campaigns, and academic delegations in events hosted by Istanbul university, Institute for Strategic Thinking (SDE) and Ankara-based thinktank ESAM have frequently depicted Kashmir not as a multifaceted political and security challenge but as a humanitarian catastrophe demanding global intervention.

Such narratives often mirror Pakistan’s long-standing line, while omitting crucial realities: cross-border terrorism, Pakistan-sponsored insurgency, and decades of targeted violence against civilians and security forces.

A Narrative Vacuum Waiting to Be Filled: A core factor enabling the spread of these narratives is the limited global understanding of India’s internal security landscape including Kashmir and left-wing extremism. In the absence of nuanced knowledge, simplified and emotive accounts travel faster and take deeper root.

Soft-power messaging thrives on precisely this gap; as American political scientist (late) Joseph Nye observed, “power is the ability to get others to want what you want.” In today’s world, what others believe is often more consequential than what is objectively verifiable.

By mobilizing academic and civil-society voices as independent moral arbiters, Turkey gains plausible deniability, allowing state-aligned narratives to be projected through apparently neutral channels. When repeated across respected international platforms, these positions accumulate what political scientists call normative legitimacy; the power to define what is seen as “just,” “acceptable,” or “morally right.”

Once embedded, such perceptions can influence diplomatic decisions, resolutions in multilateral bodies, and broader public opinion.

Why does It Matter for India and India’s Options?

India cannot afford complacency. External narratives have domestic consequences when they shape expectations, policy environments, and diplomatic costs. Allowing another state to repeatedly frame Kashmir as an international dispute rather than an internal constitutional question risks legitimizing external interference in India’s sovereign domain.

Moreover, narrative asymmetry creates a structural disadvantage when one side dominates the language of morality and human rights, the other risks being cast defensively, forced to justify rather than articulate. Emotional rhetoric consistently outpaces empirical analysis, and global politics increasingly rewards speed, sentiment, and symbolism.

This is not about silencing criticism; democracies must welcome scrutiny. But critique must be grounded in full context, not curated fragments that erase terrorism, glorify violence, or recast insurgents as liberators. A debate divorced from reality becomes political theatre rather than principled engagement.

The answer is not reactionary counter-propaganda. It is strategic narrative engagement: building credible visibility in global academic and diplomatic spaces, fostering research partnerships, investing in international outreach, and supporting evidence-based scholarship. India must tell its story with clarity, not defensively, but assertively, through transparent, well-structured public diplomacy.

India must also insist on transparency regarding funding and affiliations in international think tanks and civil-society organizations participating in discourse on South Asian conflicts. Legitimacy cannot be built upon undisclosed interests.

Conclusion

In an age where perception competes with reality, narrative power has become a strategic asset. Words can move resolutions, shift alliances, and determine how conflicts are judged before facts are even examined. When a budget-session remark in Ankara becomes global talking-point ammunition, it signals that narrative warfare is no longer peripheral: it is geopolitical statecraft.

India cannot allow others to define its story. If we do not articulate our truth with coherence, evidence, and confidence, we risk being defined by those whose agendas are anything but impartial. The choice before India is clear: shape the narrative or be shaped by it.

Centre for National Security Studies (CNSS) is a well-known thinktank in the area of National Security Studies, under Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore (India).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Addressing the people during his visit to Bhutan, PM Modi expressed heartfelt condolences to the families of those affected.
He said that no one responsible for the incident would be spared, and assured the public that India’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working tirelessly to uncover the truth.

The Prime Minister emphasized that such acts of violence will never weaken India’s unity or its determination to fight against terrorism.
He noted that the incident serves as a reminder of the need for continued vigilance and cooperation between citizens and authorities to maintain peace across the country.

Police officials have launched a full investigation under India’s anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and other relevant criminal statutes.
Security forces are conducting coordinated operations to identify those behind the blast, ensuring that every lead is followed with precision and care.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Raja Banthia confirmed that forensic teams are examining evidence collected from the site.
The area around the historic Red Fort has been secured, and experts are analyzing materials to determine the cause and intent behind the explosion.

Despite the tragic loss of life, India’s leadership and citizens have displayed remarkable courage and calm.
Markets, metro stations, and nearby areas are gradually returning to normal, demonstrating Delhi’s resilience and spirit in the face of adversity.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh praised the quick response of the Delhi Police and the National Security Guard.
He highlighted that the government is taking every necessary step to ensure the safety of people and prevent such incidents in the future.

PM Modi’s strong message underscores his government’s zero-tolerance approach toward terrorism.
He assured citizens that India’s security systems are stronger than ever, with modern technology, enhanced intelligence sharing, and rapid-response mechanisms in place to counter any threat.

The Prime Minister’s visit to Bhutan also showcased India’s diplomatic strength and commitment to regional peace.
While attending the 70th birthday celebrations of Bhutan’s former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, Modi reaffirmed India’s friendly ties and shared vision for regional stability.

He stated that even as India faces challenges at home, its spirit of cooperation and humanity remains strong.
His message from Bhutan resonated with millions of Indians who see his leadership as a symbol of hope, stability, and national pride.

Citizens across India have expressed their trust in the government’s ability to deliver justice and maintain peace.
Social organizations, local leaders, and communities are offering support to victims’ families, highlighting the nation’s unity in times of crisis.

India’s history of overcoming adversity is a testament to its enduring strength.
From natural disasters to security threats, the nation has consistently shown that courage and compassion define its people.

This tragedy has once again reminded everyone of the importance of standing together as one nation.
It also reinforces the belief that no act of terror can shake the foundations of India’s democracy or disrupt its path toward progress.

As investigations continue, PM Modi’s message remains clear — India will never tolerate threats to its security or integrity.
The government, the armed forces, and the citizens stand united in ensuring that peace, justice, and resilience prevail.

By invoking Arab Spring rhetoric and courting Pakistani connections, Wangchuk inadvertently echoes a playbook that has devastated entire regions.

Sonam Wangchuk, the Ladakhi educationist and activist once celebrated as the inspiration behind Bollywood’s “3 Idiots,” has lately transformed from a reformist voice into a figure of controversy. Known for founding the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), he became the face of local agitation for statehood and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule.

His hunger strike earlier this year won him significant attention but also drew criticism for what the government described as “provocative” remarks.

When addressing young Ladakhis, Wangchuk invoked the imagery of Gen-Z protests and explicitly compared them with the Arab Spring uprisings. The consequences were immediate: four people died and over 80 were injured in violent clashes, exposing how quickly peaceful calls can spiral when rhetoric crosses a line.

For a man under investigation by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged violations of India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and questionable foreign links—including a controversial trip to Pakistan on February 6 this year—the comparison to the Arab Spring raises troubling questions.

Why Invoke the Arab Spring?

The Arab Spring has become a cautionary tale. Initially romanticized as a youth-driven democratic wave, it was later revealed to have been supported—if not orchestrated—by a complex network of foreign funding, non-governmental organizations, and the American Deep State. What began in Tunisia spread like wildfire across Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, toppling regimes but leaving behind smoldering wreckage.

The Middle East paid the heaviest price: once-stable nations descended into civil war, terrorism flourished, and millions were displaced. A decade later, Libya remains fragmented, Syria devastated, Yemen on the brink of collapse, and Egypt still grappling with the aftermath of political upheaval.

For Arab societies, the term “Arab Spring” is no longer synonymous with reform—it is shorthand for chaos, foreign meddling, and broken states.

It is against this backdrop that Wangchuk’s casual invocation of the Arab Spring appears not just reckless but deeply revealing. Why would an Indian activist, championing local grievances, align his rhetoric with one of the most foreign-manipulated regime change projects in modern history?

The Pakistan Connection and Exploitation of Influencers

Equally significant is the timing of Wangchuk’s visit to Pakistan on February 6, 2025. Islamabad has long used the cover of cultural exchange, intellectual dialogue, and activism to infiltrate Indian discourse.

Pakistan’s intelligence playbook thrives on cultivating influencers—artists, reformists, journalists, and social media personalities—who can shape narratives at home and abroad.

The method is subtle but consistent: present Pakistan as a victim of geopolitics, project grievances against India, and amplify dissenting voices within Indian society. From Bollywood exchanges in earlier decades to digital influencers today, Pakistan has perfected the art of weaponizing “soft” platforms for hard outcomes.

Take, for instance, Indian influencer Jyoti Malhotra, who has come under scrutiny for her connections with Pakistan-linked forums. Malhotra’s participation in dialogues hosted by organizations with shadowy funding raised eyebrows in New Delhi, reinforcing how cross-border platforms can be misused to normalize Pakistani positions.

Wangchuk’s visit, therefore, cannot be seen in isolation—it fits a troubling pattern of Indian intellectuals being courted, celebrated, and occasionally manipulated across the border.

Honey Traps, Cultural Fronts, and the Old Game of Taqiyyah

Pakistan’s tactics are not confined to polite cultural dialogues. Honey trapping—luring targets into compromising situations—has been a frequent tool of its intelligence services, ensnaring not only soldiers but also politicians and journalists. The aim is simple: extract information, secure leverage, and influence narratives.

Beyond espionage, Pakistan routinely uses the language of arts, reforms, activism, and cultural exchange as a facade. NGOs, student forums, and peace-building seminars are often the velvet glove over the iron fist of propaganda. By elevating select Indian voices who echo their lines, Pakistani handlers create echo chambers that undermine India from within.

This duplicity is best understood through the Shiite concept of Taqiyyah—a doctrine allowing concealment of true intent under threat. While theologically nuanced, Pakistan’s statecraft has weaponized it in the crudest form: presenting a peaceful, reformist face abroad while quietly sponsoring militancy, terrorism, and subversion at home.

For decades, Islamabad has perfected this Janus-faced approach—smiling in dialogue while plotting in deception. Wangchuk’s entanglement, whether naïve or deliberate, risks making him another pawn in this strategy.

Lessons from the Region: A Warning to India and the World

The Wangchuk episode must not be viewed in isolation but against the broader regional backdrop. South Asia has already witnessed a series of regime-change operations influenced by external forces.

In Bangladesh, foreign-backed campaigns have repeatedly destabilized governments, while in Nepal, Gen-Z protests often reflected wider geopolitical contestations.

Sri Lanka’s economic collapse triggered protests that bore unmistakable signs of external manipulation, and in Pakistan, the cycle of elite capture and engineered street movements has become a recurring pattern.

Now, whispers of a similar attempt in India cannot be dismissed lightly. By invoking Arab Spring rhetoric and courting Pakistani connections, Wangchuk inadvertently echoes a playbook that has devastated entire regions.

For Generation Z and Millennials in India, the message must be clear: protest is a democratic right, but it must be indigenous, accountable, and free from foreign agendas. Imported slogans, borrowed narratives, and externally funded movements rarely serve the people—they serve the puppeteers.

For the international community, particularly in the West, it is time to acknowledge the scars of the Arab Spring and resist the temptation of engineering similar experiments elsewhere. Stability, not chaos, should be the benchmark of global engagement.

Sonam Wangchuk’s journey from an educational reformer to a controversial agitator illustrates the thin line between activism and manipulation. By evoking the Arab Spring, traveling to Pakistan, and operating under the shadow of foreign funding, he has raised questions that go far beyond Ladakh’s statehood.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Executive Editor of TV9 Network Aditya Raj Kaul posted, “Funeral prayers for Terrorist Yaqub Mughal, head of Bilal Terror Camp in Pakistan. Pakistan ISI and Pakistan Police present in the funeral.”

The claim has prompted reactions from a wide spectrum of users. Arjun, a prominent commentator, accused the Pakistani state of open endorsement, stating, “The State of Pakistan publicly endorsing terrorism by giving state funeral to slain terrorists. Shameless subhumans.”

Similarly, Ratnish wrote, “They have gathered for the funeral of a terrorist and then want us to believe they don’t support terrorism. Imagine having any kind of sympathy for this terrorist nation.”

Rashmi, another X user, pointed to a recurring pattern, saying, “First they shelter terror groups and then they play victim. So typical.”

Zahack Tanvir, Founder of Milli Chronicle London, also highlighted the alleged presence of state officials: “Funeral prayers held for terrorist Yaqub Mughal, chief of Bilal Terror Camp in #Pakistan. Shocking presence of ISI and Pakistan Police officials at the ceremony raises fresh questions about state support for terror networks.”

The funeral comes at a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, during which India reportedly struck multiple terror infrastructure targets across the border.

Daniel Bordman, a senior correspondent for National Telegraph, summarized the ongoing situation: “India hit multiple terror targets in Pakistan… Expect Pakistan to play victim and claim total victory.”

Though the official confirmation of the attendees remain unclear, the incident has amplified calls for greater scrutiny of Pakistan’s alleged dual role in counterterrorism and support for militant entities. The controversy once again casts a shadow over Islamabad’s global narrative of being a victim of terrorism, as critics argue the state continues to harbor and legitimize extremist elements within its borders.