As Pakistan intensifies efforts to craft and export a hostile narrative against India—especially within Islamic countries—New Delhi’s foreign policy and strategic establishments are being challenged to respond with clarity, consistency, and credibility. From terrorism accusations to water disputes and nuclear rhetoric, Islamabad’s diplomatic toolkit is being wielded with renewed aggression, particularly during Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s ongoing visits to Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. Notably, Field Marshal Asim Munir—the first Pakistani army chief to accompany a Prime Minister abroad—has joined Sharif, a symbolic gesture aimed at projecting civil-military unity on Pakistan’s anti-India messaging.
Fabricated Accusations and Tactical Terminology
At the heart of Pakistan’s propaganda campaign is the claim that India is orchestrating terrorist activities on Pakistani soil through alleged proxies like the Balochi insurgents and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). These allegations were forcefully reiterated during a joint press conference on May 23 by Pakistan’s Interior Secretary and the Director General of the Inter Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), following the Khuzdar attack that killed several children.
The DG ISPR alleged that the attack was part of “Fitna al Hindustan”—a term newly coined by Pakistan to frame the Baloch insurgency as a heretical rebellion directed by India’s intelligence agency, RAW. The use of religious terminology like “Fitna” (an Arabic word suggesting rebellion against legitimate Islamic authority) reveals Pakistan’s intent to cast the Baloch resistance as not just political dissent, but as apostasy sponsored by an anti-Muslim Indian government. Similarly, the TTP is now referred to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” associating it with heresy in Islamic tradition.
These terms are calculated attempts to sway public and diplomatic opinion in the Islamic world. By giving the conflict a theological dimension, Pakistan aims to alienate India from sympathetic Muslim nations and simultaneously delegitimize the Baloch cause.
The Khuzdar Incident and Weaponized Propaganda
The Khuzdar incident marked a renewed push in Pakistan’s campaign. The DG ISPR claimed that India, frustrated by the “failure” of what he called “Operation Sindoor,” had activated proxies to launch a fresh wave of violence, now allegedly targeting even children. These accusations were backed by what Pakistan says is “irrefutable evidence,” which it claims has been shared with India—though no independent validation has surfaced.
India has categorically denied these claims and reaffirmed its position that it does not sponsor terrorism. It has identified Lashkar-e-Toiba’s affiliate, The Resistance Front, as the group behind the recent Pahalgam attack, a detail that Islamabad continues to ignore while accusing New Delhi of unprovoked aggression.
Water Wars and Nuclear Blackmail
Another repeated refrain in Pakistan’s rhetoric is India’s temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which Islamabad calls a violation of international obligations. However, New Delhi views this differently: Pakistan cannot expect to benefit from bilateral treaties while simultaneously supporting hostile actions and narratives against India.
Adding to this, Pakistan frequently invokes the specter of nuclear escalation, warning that any conflict between the two nations risks spiraling into nuclear war. Indian leaders have firmly countered this narrative, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently emphasizing that India will not yield to nuclear blackmail. Strategic experts in New Delhi argue that international focus must shift from the theoretical threat of escalation to the real and present danger of state-sponsored terrorism.
Diplomatic Offensive or Desperation?
Sharif’s diplomatic tour, accompanied by Field Marshal Munir, signals an unusual but deliberate show of force aimed at presenting a united front to the Islamic world. Parliamentary delegations are also being dispatched to major global capitals to reinforce this message. Yet, this approach could backfire, as it starkly reveals Pakistan’s increasing reliance on misinformation and religious sentiment to gain diplomatic leverage.
It is also important to note that Pakistan’s insistence on dialogue—provided it includes Jammu and Kashmir and the IWT—is out of step with India’s stated position. New Delhi has made it clear that any conversation must be focused solely on terrorism and the return of Indian territories under illegal Pakistani occupation.
India’s Strategic Response: Beyond Denial
While Pakistan’s narrative is not new, its recent packaging and presentation require India to recalibrate its strategic communication. Simply rebutting false claims is no longer sufficient. New Delhi must proactively expose Pakistan’s duplicity: championing international law while sheltering terrorist groups, invoking religion while suppressing minorities, and calling for peace while abetting violence.
Indian diplomats and strategic thinkers must also drive home a key point to the international community: in the era of hybrid warfare, terrorism is no longer a precursor to conflict—it is the conflict. Any serious discussion on peace must begin with dismantling terrorist infrastructure, not after a kinetic escalation.
As global powers remain preoccupied with larger geopolitical shifts, particularly following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent statements, India faces the challenge of keeping the spotlight on Pakistan’s state-sponsored extremism. But with consistent engagement, smart diplomacy, and strategic messaging, New Delhi can ensure that truth—and not propaganda—shapes the global discourse.
