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.

A commissioning ceremony for the first submarine, named Hangor, was held in Sanya, China, attended by President Asif Ali Zardari and Pakistan Navy chief Admiral Naveed Ashraf, the military said.

The statement did not specify the total number of submarines involved, but a Pakistani government official said the program includes eight submarines, with four to be built in China and delivered directly to Pakistan, while the remaining four will be produced domestically under a transfer-of-technology arrangement.

The official said the local production element would also allow Pakistan to potentially export submarines in the future through its defense manufacturing sector.Pakistan and China are long-standing strategic allies, and military cooperation between the two countries has expanded further since Islamabad’s conflict with India last year, particularly in air and naval defense systems.

The submarine induction follows Pakistan’s deployment of Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets, which Islamabad says were used operationally for the first time during the 2025 conflict with India.

Pakistan has said the aircraft formed part of its air operations in which Indian French-made Dassault Rafale fighter jets were shot down, a claim that has remained a major point of contention between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Admiral Ashraf described the submarine program as “an important milestone to bolster our maritime defense and modernize our fleet with cutting-edge technology.”He said the Hangor-class submarines, equipped with advanced sensors, modern weapons systems and air-independent propulsion technology, would strengthen Pakistan’s ability to preserve maritime stability and deter aggression in the region.

Air-independent propulsion allows submarines to remain submerged for longer periods without surfacing, significantly enhancing stealth and operational endurance.

The announcement comes after Pakistan conducted a series of missile tests in recent weeks, signaling continued military readiness amid persistent regional tensions.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since independence from British rule in 1947, and defense modernization remains central to strategic planning on both sides of the border.

Kondapalli further alleged that Chinese agencies had provided Pakistan with detailed satellite imagery of the Pahalgam region prior to the attack.

A leading Indian academic has alleged that Chinese technology and intelligence support played a role in a deadly militant attack in Kashmir earlier this year, raising questions over Beijing’s commitments to international counter-terrorism pledges.

In an interview with Indian news agency ANI, Professor Srikanth Kondapalli, a Chinese studies expert at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), said evidence recovered from the April 22 attack in Pahalgam pointed to direct Chinese involvement.

He alleged that satellite imagery, communication equipment, and diplomatic shielding at the United Nations Security Council all indicated what he described as Beijing’s support to Pakistan in matters of cross-border militancy.

The claims, if verified, could add a new dimension to the already fraught India-China-Pakistan triangle, where territorial disputes and security tensions have shaped much of South Asia’s geopolitics.

Huawei Device and Satellite Links

Professor Kondapalli said Indian security officials had recovered a Huawei phone from one of the militants killed in the Pahalgam attack. He claimed the device was connected to a Chinese satellite network and had been used to send messages to handlers in Pakistan shortly after the assault.

“On April 22nd, when the Pahalgam incident took place, one of the terrorists was carrying a Huawei phone with Chinese satellite connection. He was messaging back to Pakistan after the Pahalgam attacks. So, there is a Chinese role here,” the JNU scholar told ANI.

According to him, Indian authorities are “in possession of this device,” which he described as proof of direct technological involvement.

Kondapalli further alleged that Chinese agencies had provided Pakistan with detailed satellite imagery of the Pahalgam region prior to the attack. He said as many as 120 to 129 slides were shared, containing GPS coordinates and high-resolution mapping of the area.

“This is another incident where the Chinese were helping the Pakistani side, despite the counter-terrorism pledge with the Indians, also with the international community in the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization],” he said.

The UN Security Council Dimension

Beyond the battlefield, Kondapalli pointed to diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations Security Council’s 1267 Committee, which deals with global terrorist designations.

He said that Chinese and Pakistani representatives had pushed to delete the name of a militant group called The Resistance Front, which initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack.

“The fact that they took responsibility first two times indicates their role, and their name has been removed. Instead, the Baluch Liberation Army and the Majid Brigade were mentioned,” he argued.

The professor suggested that these moves undermined international efforts to hold accountable those directly linked to the attack.

He also referred to tensions within multilateral forums, claiming that the Tianjin Declaration—issued after the incident—had included watered-down references to the Pahalgam attacks under pressure from Pakistan, even as Russia had reportedly pushed for their inclusion.

Wider Security Context

Professor Kondapalli’s remarks fit into a broader pattern of accusations and suspicions shaping South Asian security discourse. He referenced earlier instances where China allegedly provided operational support to Pakistan, including during “Operation Sindoor”.

According to him, Beijing supplied military equipment such as JF-17 and J-10 fighter aircraft, Wing Loong drones, and HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems, which he described as “offensive in nature.”

Following the April 22 incident, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had called for an “impartial investigation” into the attacks. Kondapalli contrasted this with China’s refusal to allow outside probes into sensitive issues such as unrest in Xinjiang or the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“For India, it is not the time for investigation, it is time for action,” he said, arguing that repeated attacks traced to cross-border militants required decisive measures rather than dialogue.

Fragile Balances in South Asia

The Pahalgam attack and its aftermath highlight the fragile trust deficit between New Delhi, Islamabad, and Beijing.

While India and China are both members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where counter-terrorism is a stated priority, Indian analysts such as Kondapalli argue that Beijing’s actions suggest parallel alignments with Pakistan that undercut cooperative frameworks.

For New Delhi, the issue strikes at the core of its longstanding concerns about cross-border militancy and the security of Kashmir.

For Beijing, meanwhile, any suggestion of complicity carries international implications, particularly as China seeks to project itself as a responsible global power with a stake in peace and stability.

Neither China nor Pakistan has issued a formal response to Kondapalli’s claims. However, the remarks are likely to intensify debate over the interplay of technology, intelligence sharing, and great power rivalries in one of the world’s most sensitive flashpoints.

The truth is stark, data-backed, and irrefutable: India is building lives in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan is destroying them in PoJK.

In the ongoing war of narratives between India and Pakistan over Jammu & Kashmir, facts have finally caught up with fiction. While Pakistan peddles a tired tale of prosperity in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), the truth tells a dramatically different story, one of neglect, repression, and economic decay on its side, and of transformation, investment, and democratic inclusion in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

Budgetary Commitment: India’s Investments Leave Pakistan Behind

Let’s begin with the basics—money.

The development budget for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in 2025–26 stands at a remarkable ₹1,12,310 crore (USD 12.9 billion), reflecting India’s strong financial commitment to the region’s growth. In sharp contrast, the Annual Development Programme for Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) amounts to just PKR 49 billion (USD 1.77 billion).

On a per capita basis, the disparity is even more striking: India allocates approximately USD 1,032 per person in J&K, while Pakistan spends only USD 393 per person in PoJK.

India’s per capita investment in J&K is nearly three times what Pakistan spends in PoJK. That alone exposes the hollowness of Pakistan’s claims of parity or superiority in developmental efforts. These aren’t just numbers; they represent hospitals built, schools upgraded, roads constructed, and lives improved.

Education: A Tale of Two Systems

India has placed a strong emphasis on educational excellence in Jammu & Kashmir, transforming the region into an emerging hub of academic and professional institutions. Today, J&K is home to nine state universities, two central universities, and four Institutes of National Importance—including IIT Jammu, IIM Jammu, NIT Srinagar, and NIFT Srinagar.

The region also boasts eleven medical colleges, fourteen engineering colleges, and two AIIMS campuses—one operational in Samba and another upcoming in Awantipora. In stark contrast, Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) lags far behind with only seven universities and four medical colleges. Compounding the problem are chronic shortages of qualified faculty, poor remuneration, and mismanaged institutions—conditions that render PoJK’s education system ill-equipped to prepare its youth for the future.

The contrast is equally severe in terms of job creation. In PoJK, youth are either absorbed into the government sector or pushed into the Pakistan Army’s Northern Light Infantry. Meanwhile, in J&K, expanding industry, tourism, and startups are opening up new avenues for educated youth, with the support of central government schemes like Startup India, Digital India, and the Industrial Development Scheme for the UT.

Healthcare: Pakistan’s Neglect, India’s Transformation

Healthcare is another area where Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir is significantly ahead of its Pakistani-occupied counterpart. With a total of 5,534 health institutions—comprising 4,433 government and 1,101 private facilities—J&K maintains a doctor-patient ratio of 1:1658, reflecting a relatively robust healthcare infrastructure.

In stark contrast, PoJK has only 73 hospitals and health centres, with an alarming doctor-patient ratio of 1:4916, exposing the deep neglect and systemic healthcare crisis in the region under Pakistani control.

J&K’s Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is 23, three times better than PoJK. In 2023, J&K was declared #1 in India for IMR reduction, slashing it by 8 points in one year. AIIMS, district hospitals, telemedicine, and Ayushman Bharat cards are bridging the last-mile health delivery gap.

By contrast, PoJK residents have to protest for basic access to emergency care, suffer under dilapidated facilities, and rely on non-local doctors due to persistent staff shortages.

Freedom, Democracy & Governance: J&K Joins India; PoJK Remains Pakistan’s Colony

Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, Jammu & Kashmir has been fully and firmly integrated into the constitutional and political framework of India. The region now enjoys full representation in both houses of the Indian Parliament, participates in the nationwide electoral process, and benefits from central welfare schemes on par with other Indian states.

Additionally, the implementation of Panchayati Raj has empowered local governance, bringing decision-making closer to the grassroots and strengthening democratic institutions in the Union Territory.

Meanwhile, PoJK and GB are not even listed in Article 1 of Pakistan’s own Constitution. Their legal status is determined by the highly dubious Karachi Agreement of 1949, signed behind closed doors without any GB representation. PoJK is run via an ‘interim constitution,’ and GB via an executive order, not a law passed by any legislature.

Worse, PoJK’s constitution bans anyone from even questioning its accession to Pakistan. Section 4(7)(3) of the 1974 Act makes any political expression against Pakistan’s claim a punishable offence. This is not democracy, it’s colonialism in disguise.

Discrimination, Repression, and Sectarian Violence

While J&K thrives in a secular, pluralistic democracy, where Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians co-exist, PoJK and GB are trapped in systemic discrimination.

In Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), religious persecution and sectarian discrimination remain deeply entrenched. Since Ahmadis, are constitutionally declared as non-Muslims in Pakistan, they face daily persecution and systemic exclusion from public life.

In Gilgit-Baltistan, Shia Muslims—despite forming the majority—suffer from state-backed discrimination, targeted killings, and institutional bias. Sectarian violence is alarmingly common, and authorities have repeatedly failed to ensure basic law and order in key areas such as Gilgit, Skardu, and Chilas.

Enforced Disappearances and Suppression of Dissent

While Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir enjoys a vibrant media landscape, active political debate, and the freedom to protest without fear, Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) have become zones of repression for activists and dissenters. Journalists, students, and political figures routinely disappear without a trace, often without any official explanation.

The United Kashmir People’s National Party (UKPNP) and the Awami Action Committee have consistently raised concerns about enforced disappearances and custodial killings. In a chilling incident from May 2025, two young men from PoJK, Zarnosh Naseem and Jibran Naseem, were executed by Pakistani forces and falsely branded as “terrorists,” further intensifying public outrage and highlighting the climate of fear and impunity in the region.

Such acts have triggered widespread unrest. In both 2024 and 2025, mass protests swept across PoJK and GB demanding lower electricity tariffs, subsidised flour, and basic governance. Islamabad responded not with reform, but with detentions, intimidation, and media blackouts.

Infrastructure and Connectivity: A World Apart

India is rapidly connecting Jammu & Kashmir to the rest of the country through a modern transport revolution. The recently inaugurated Chenab Bridge, now the world’s highest railway bridge, stands as a symbol of engineering excellence and integration.

Simultaneously, the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra-Srinagar expressway is progressing at a swift pace, promising seamless travel and economic connectivity. Jammu & Kashmir now boasts over 1.4 lakh kilometers of road network—more than any region with similar terrain—significantly enhancing mobility, trade, and access to essential services.

Meanwhile, in PoJK and GB, poor road infrastructure, irregular power supply, and limited internet access have crippled economic activity. Tourism, which flourishes in Indian J&K, is negligible in PoJK due to insecurity and lack of facilities.

Natural Resources: Looted by Pakistan, Denied to Locals

Despite their mineral richness, PoJK and GB have no control over local resources. Coal, uranium, water, and timber are all exploited by Pakistan’s elite and military-industrial complex. Locals get no royalties, no jobs, and no say.

In Indian J&K, recent policy changes have encouraged local entrepreneurship in mining, horticulture, handicrafts, and IT, with transparent auction processes and guaranteed revenue sharing with panchayats and district bodies.

A Contrast That Can No Longer Be Denied

It’s no longer a contest between two narratives—it’s a contrast between two stark realities. On one side is Jammu & Kashmir: democratic, rapidly developing, and increasingly integrated with the world’s fastest-growing major economy. On the other side lie Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan, where people are denied basic rights, exploited by the Pakistani state, and left to languish under military domination and a string of broken promises.

Pakistan must stop using PoJK as cannon fodder for its failed Kashmir policy. The world must now call it out for what it is, an occupying force in a region it neither nurtures nor understands.

The truth is stark, data-backed, and irrefutable: India is building lives in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan is destroying them in PoJK.

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

The Pakistani military had launched missiles and drones aimed at at least 15 Indian cities, including Jammu, Jaisalmer, and Pathankot. However, India’s robust defense apparatus, including the S-400 missile system and advanced drone countermeasures, successfully intercepted the threats, averting significant damage or casualties.

As a defensive measure, blackouts were imposed in key Indian border cities—Srinagar, Jammu, Rajouri, Amritsar, Jalandhar, and Bhuj—to prevent visibility to enemy drones and safeguard civilians.

In a calibrated response, India deployed kamikaze drones and neutralized a Pakistani air defense system in Lahore, striking deep within Pakistani territory. Other military targets, including air defense radars in Sialkot and Islamabad, were also engaged.

The Indian Ministry of Defence confirmed, “In response to an unprovoked and unsuccessful attack by the Pakistani military, our armed forces have taken precise and measured action to ensure deterrence and defense.”

The confrontation follows Wednesday’s Operation Sindoor, during which India struck nine high-value terror targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), including in Bahawalpur, a known hub for the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terror group. The operation was carried out after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam killed Indian security personnel and civilians.

Pakistan, for its part, resorted to ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu & Kashmir—a familiar escalation tactic—but Indian border forces responded swiftly and effectively to protect civilian populations.

Analysts warn that while India’s response remains tactical and targeted, the situation remains volatile.

“There is clearly a shift in India’s posture,” said a regional security analyst. “The Indian government is signaling that attacks on its soil will not go unanswered.”

As night fell across the subcontinent, both sides remained on high alert. Yet the scars of recent violence, especially the Pahalgam attack, remain fresh—fueling public support in India for a firm and decisive response.

Whether this marks a turning point in Indo-Pak relations or a dangerous step toward broader conflict, one thing is certain: the region stands at a fragile crossroads, with diplomacy and restraint now more critical than ever.

Umar Shareef

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack has once again tested the patience and resolve of the Indian nation. The aftermath has taken us to the brink of yet another war-like situation between India and Pakistan. In response to the brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians, the Indian government launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military strike aimed at dismantling Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

According to reports, the Indian Air Force targeted 14 locations, including the JeM camps in Bahawalpur—reportedly killing 13 individuals associated with the terror outfit, some of them family members of the group’s chief, Masood Azhar. This decisive retaliation is a reflection of India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism, particularly those sponsored or sheltered across the border.

But what followed was telling.

In retaliation, Pakistan shelled the border town of Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir. The victims were not military targets—they were civilians. Among the dead were Kashmiri Muslim children and women. These were our own people. This act by the Pakistani army reflects not strength, but a moral bankruptcy that has long plagued its strategic outlook. Instead of countering India’s military moves tactically, Pakistan chose to engage in indiscriminate shelling, targeting those who had no weapons, no uniforms, and no role in the military operations—just ordinary Indian Muslims.

This isn’t the first time Pakistan has committed such atrocities. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we’ve seen this script before. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the Pakistani army reportedly killed over 300,000 Bengalis, according to the Bangladesh Genocide Archive. Most were Muslims. Many women were raped. Entire villages were wiped out. And yet, Pakistan continues to cloak itself in the garb of Islamic righteousness while violating every ethical and humanitarian code Islam prescribes.

This duality is not just deceptive—it is dangerous.

To the leaders of the Islamic world, I pose some hard questions:

Is Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor consistent with Islamic ethics?

Can the killing of Muslim children in Poonch be justified under any circumstances?

Is this the conduct of an “Islamic Republic”?

As an Indian Muslim, I say this with clarity and conviction: India is my homeland. It is a sovereign, pluralistic, democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. Our Constitution protects us, and our armed forces include us.

I was deeply moved watching a recent press conference where Colonel Sophia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Ambassador Vikram Misri stood united, explaining the strategic aims of Operation Sindhoor. It was a portrait of unity: a Muslim woman in uniform, a Sikh diplomat, and a Hindu officer—this is the India we live in, and this is the India we love.

Let no one tell us we do not belong.

The Qur’an commands us clearly: “And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make peace between them. But if one oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah…” – Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9)

This is not a call to bloodshed—it is a call to justice. We fight oppression, not people. We fight terrorists, not civilians. And when peace is offered, Islam commands us to accept it. But if one side continues to shelter groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or The Resistance Front, who actively undermine regional stability, then standing by and doing nothing is not an option.

Yes, Operation Sindoor may have caused some collateral damage. No life lost is ever trivial. But the mission had a clear objective: dismantle terror networks—not harm civilians. India’s action was measured and targeted. Pakistan’s was indiscriminate and vengeful.

As Indian Muslims, we draw our strength from both faith and patriotism. We are heirs to the legacy of Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the “Lion of Nowshera,” who laid down his life defending Kashmir in 1948. We remember Captain Haneefuddin, who fought bravely in the 1999 Kargil War. These are our heroes, our martyrs—Muslims who defended India against Pakistani aggression.

It is critical to understand that Islam encourages peaceful coexistence. When the Prophet Mohammed established the state of Madinah, he created a pluralistic charter involving Muslims, Jews, and pagans. He taught that alliances with non-Muslims are not just permissible, but necessary in the cause of justice and societal harmony. The story of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, who sought refuge with the Christian King of Abyssinia, is a powerful reminder that justice transcends religion.

We Indian Muslims face many challenges—from Pakistani propaganda to the rise of far-right elements at home. Yet, we stand firm. We will not be pawns in foreign agendas. We will not be deceived by narratives that seek to divide us.

We say with dignity: Inqilab Zindabad. Hindustan Zindabad. Victory to India.

We may critique our government or hold differing political opinions, especially with regard to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is our democratic right. But our nation is not defined by any one party. India is defined by its people, its Constitution, and its unity in diversity.

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror. And peace cannot be preserved if Pakistan continues to target civilians and shelter jihadist outfits.

India reserves the right to protect itself. Under Public International Law, every sovereign nation has the right to eliminate threats to its people. That is what Operation Sindoor was about—and that is what justice demands.

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.