Kashmir: Why was India so quick to blame Pakistan?

After the serenity of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in Indian-held Kashmir was shattered last week by a brutal attack, the urgent need is not only collective mourning but honest reflection. But regrettably, the result so far mirrors a pattern where accountability is misdirected and convenient narratives are uncritically accepted.

The Pahalgam attack is, at its core, a grave security failure – one that unfolded not in a remote zone but in a heavily militarised area with plentiful surveillance and said to be under firm Indian control. According to Indian media reports, the attackers operated for an extended period, reportedly questioning victims before executing them. If these reports are accurate, the assailants had ample time, were organised, and showed no fear of interruption.

A number of analysts, including Abhijnan Rej in The Interpreter, have sought to contextualise the attack within Kashmir’s long-standing turbulence. But it was also a failure of the Indian security apparatus.

This is not an isolated lapse. The incident, like the Pulwama attack in 2019, once again exposes the glaring vulnerabilities in India’s intelligence and response mechanisms. In both cases, advance warnings were reportedly overlooked. In any other democratic setting, such systemic failures would prompt thorough parliamentary inquiries, institutional reckoning, and reform. Officials would be held publicly accountable. Yet, in Kashmir’s case, instead of systemic introspection, political expediency prevails.

Within hours, Indian officials pointed the finger at Pakistan, invoking the name of The Resistance Front (TRF) and framing the attack as cross-border state-sponsored terrorism – a narrative that secures both international sympathy and domestic cohesion while deflecting from domestic lapses.

However, this raises more questions than it answers. The claims made by Indian officials are based on untraceable phone messages and anonymous sources, which do not satisfy evidentiary thresholds, and they are rejected by TRF itself, which has denied responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack. No independent international intelligence agency has demonstrated a direct link between Pakistan’s state machinery and these attacks. India has yet to present solid proof. What persists, instead, is a cycle of speculative blame-shifting – used more to absolve internal failings than to seek truth.

India needs to examine the growing fault lines within its own security and governance structure. It has to critically assess its over-militarisation and fractured intelligence apparatus. A deeper tension underlies the current unrest. Long before this attack, the people of Kashmir had endured sweeping human rights abuses under the guise of counter-terrorism. Hundreds have died in alleged fake encounters; protests have been met with pellet guns and curfews; and constitutional changes to curb the region’s autonomy facilitated the settlement of more than 83,000 non-locals. Critics argue this is an orchestrated attempt to change the region’s demographic profile – a sentiment increasingly reflected in the valley’s alienation and unrest.

The situation has worsened since the rise of the present government in India under the BJP. Human rights violations, curfews, communication blackouts, arbitrary detentions, and militarised policing have become routine. The war in Kashmir is not a war on terror. It is an occupation defined by systematic denial of dignity and agency to an entire population.

In the rush to control the narrative, India risks more than global credibility—it risks social cohesion at home and peace in the region. This pattern – tragedy followed by anti-Pakistan rhetoric, amplified by media and sanitised for global consumption – is not sustainable. It influences the public psyche, cultivates paranoia, and sows seeds of permanent hostility.

The events in Pahalgam were tragic – but allowing tragedy to fuel misdirected aggression risks deepening instability. The stakes in South Asia are too high to entertain one-sided narratives. We must reject selective outrage, challenge unilateral claims, and resist the reduction of complex tragedies into geopolitical scorecards. New Delhi must recognise that silencing Kashmiri voices and externalising blame do not equate to national security. Let the memory of these victims inspire not just mourning, but a sincere rethinking of regional policy. Now is a chance for India to confront its own failures and uphold Kashmir’s right to a plebiscite. Only by addressing root causes and a mutual departure from hostile posturing can we pave the way for lasting stability and a genuine campaign against the scourge of terrorism.