NARRATIVE WARFARE: TERROR, TIMING, AND THE OPTICS OF U.S.-INDIA DIPLOMACY

Arundhati Roy has critically examined the Indian use of false flag operations and state-orchestrated violence in India, particularly in the context of Kashmir and broader national politics. Roy has questioned the official narrative surrounding the 2001 Indian Parliament attack.

In the aftermath of the 2019 Pulwama attack, Roy described it as a “massive intelligence failure.” She expressed skepticism about the clarity of the situation, noting the presence of “real terror groups,” “fake terror groups,” and “penetrator terror groups” in Kashmir. Her comments suggest a complex landscape where state and non-state actors’ roles are intertwined, raising questions about the authenticity and origins of such attacks.

Chattisinghpora Massacre (2000) and Pahalgam Terrorist Attack (2025)

The intersection of terrorism and diplomacy often reveals deeper geopolitical undercurrents than the events themselves might initially suggest. Two incidents, separated by a quarter-century, offer a compelling case study: the Chattisinghpora massacre of March 20, 2000, coinciding with President Bill Clinton’s visit to India, and the Pahalgam (Indian controlled Kashmir) terrorist attack of April 22, 2025, unfolding during VP JD Vance’s high-profile visit.

Chattisinghpora Massacre

In 2000, President Clinton’s trip was intended to mark a new chapter in U.S.-India relations, particularly following the 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests, which had strained ties with Washington. There was widespread expectation that the U.S. would raise pointed concerns over India’s nuclear proliferation posture and the escalating arms race in South Asia. However, on the very day of Clinton’s arrival, a massacre in Chattisinghpora, Indian controlled Kashmir, where 35 Sikh men were brutally murdered. It shifted the global narrative entirely. As The Guardian observed at the time, the attack “eclipsed US attempts to raise objections to nuclear proliferation.” The tragedy re-centered the global discourse around terrorism, reinforcing India’s victimhood and strategically dulling potential American critique. President Clinton kept himself at a distance from taking sides as India implicated Pakistan.

Two Attacks One Pattern

The parallels to 2025 are striking. During VP JD Vance’s four-day diplomatic visit, a terrorist strike in Pahalgam once again redirected international attention toward Kashmir. Within 24 hours, the Indian government unequivocally blamed Pakistani-based actors, despite a lack of concrete evidence. The rapid attribution raises questions not just about investigative due process, but about the potential instrumentalization of terror as a diplomatic tool.

These two cases underscore a consistent pattern: terrorist violence coinciding with American diplomatic engagements, particularly when those engagements might otherwise include challenging conversations on issues ranging from tariffs, India in violation of civil liberties and democratic backsliding to unresolved conflicts like Kashmir.

Coincidence or Narrative Engineering?

While it would be irresponsible to assert causation without direct evidence, the pattern of timing and response surrounding these attacks demands serious reflection. In both the 2000 Chattisinghpora massacre and the 2025 Pahalgam attack, we observe a recurring set of outcomes which deepens the geopolitical implications of the timing and response:

• Preemption of U.S. Foreign Policy Critique: The immediate emotional and political impact of terrorism redirected American attention away from difficult conversations, whether on nuclear proliferation in 2000 or democratic backsliding and civil rights concerns in 2025.
• Repositioning India as a State Under Siege: The attacks reinforce the narrative of India as a perennial victim of externally driven Islamist terrorism—thereby generating Western diplomatic sympathy and reaffirming the need for strategic partnership against global terrorism.
• Shift Toward Security-Centric Discourse: Diplomatic and media narratives pivot from political accountability or regional justice to counterterrorism cooperation, echoing the “war on terror” logic familiar in U.S. policy circles.
• Muffle Calls for Accountability: The Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, has dominated the headlines, shifting global focus away from the growing evidence of Indian involvement in insurgent activities in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Baluchistan.

India’s Threat of Escalation and the Israeli Model

But this time, the script goes further.

After the Pahalgam attack, There are emerging rhetorical and strategic signals that India may adopt a Gaza-style doctrine of retaliation, framing its response through the lens of preemptive defense and moral absolutism—a model increasingly normalized post-October 7, 2023. The implication is that civilian casualties and collateral damage may be rhetorically justified as the cost of eliminating terrorism, thus borrowing not only tactics but narrative immunity from international scrutiny.

In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, New Delhi floated the threat of revoking the Indus Waters Treaty, a foundational agreement with Pakistan since 1960. The threat is an escalation that weaponizes a lifeline treaty with Pakistan. The threat to leverage water as a geopolitical weapon is not only unprecedented, but also signals a move toward total strategic decoupling from Pakistan. It shifts the bilateral conflict from proxy and diplomatic warfare to a resource-based escalation, raising alarm among international mediators. At the same time, Indian media and officials increasingly echo the Israeli post-Gaza response doctrine—a framework that justifies disproportionate retaliation in the name of self-defense.

India isn’t just seeking sympathy; it’s preparing the stage to act with impunity.

Washington and Global Politics

Given the centrality of India in U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, Washington has shown increasing restraint in publicly questioning New Delhi’s domestic conduct. When such attacks occur during U.S. visits, they offer a strategic opportunity to reframe diplomatic conversations around shared concerns over terrorism and regional instability—effectively narrowing the agenda.

Strategic Logic of Timing and Retaliation

Together, these outcomes reveal a logic in which timing is not just incidental but potentially instrumental. The convergence of diplomatic visits and high-profile terror attacks serves to:

• Dramatize India’s security dilemma at the precise moment when American leaders are listening;
• Create urgency for alignment with India’s security posture, thereby short-circuiting any critical discourse on human rights or regional policy;
• Lay the groundwork for aggressive retaliatory policy under the protective cover of international solidarity.

This evolving doctrine—part deterrent, part narrative warfare—positions India not only as a victim-state but also as a decisive regional power unafraid to act unilaterally, much like Israel’s response to Hamas. In that sense, the post-terror strategic messaging becomes as important as the attack itself.

The Geopolitical Architecture of Intrigue: From Chattisinghpora to Pahalgam and the Transformation of Pakistan’s Military Posture

The convergence of terrorist attacks with high-profile U.S. diplomatic visits to India, as seen in Chattisinghpora (2000) and Pahalgam (2025), reveals a consistent geopolitical pattern—one in which timing, narrative control, and regional alignment play pivotal roles. These attacks not only redirect global attention from critical scrutiny of Indian policies but also create a stage on which India may assert increasingly unilateral retaliatory doctrines, echoing Israel’s posture post-October 7, 2023.

Yet to fully understand the regional implications of this pattern, one must examine the transformational shifts in Pakistan’s internal power structure, particularly following the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022.

The April 2022 Pivot: When Pakistan’s Military Folded. A Coup, a Realignment, and a Signal to Hegemons

To understand Pakistan’s current passivity, we must revisit April 2022, when General Qamar Javed Bajwa ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan under alleged U.S. pressure. The very next day, Pakistan’s new proxy government:

• Announced readiness to recognize Israel, breaking with a decades-long national stance.
• Signaled intent to normalize trade with India, despite worsening conditions in Kashmir and the treatment of Muslims in India.
• Suppressed all pro-Palestine protests—a move unprecedented in any Muslim-majority country.

These weren’t policy shifts; they were compliance signals.

The military establishment was now aligned not with the people of Pakistan—but with the interests of India, Israel, and the United States.

These moves—particularly the suppression of pro-Palestinian protests under the military’s directive—signaled something far deeper than political pragmatism. They marked the onset of a re-engineered geopolitical identity for Pakistan’s military, one increasingly aligned with Israeli and Indian strategic interests, and backed implicitly by American pressure.

The U.S. Pressure Playbook

The role of the U.S. is equally critical. Donald Lu, the Assistant Secretary of State, reportedly told Bajwa to remove Khan or face consequences. This kind of direct intervention reinforces the reality that Washington now favors military gatekeeping over democratic legitimacy—so long as it secures its Indo-Pacific and Israel’s vision.

That vision includes a compliant Pakistan and a rising India—regardless of how either achieves their posture.

A New Military Posture: The Era of Subordination

In this context, the current leadership under General Asim Munir must be understood not merely as an extension of Pakistani military tradition, but as part of a regional realignment that may inhibit Pakistan’s ability—or willingness—to respond to Indian aggression.

Today, under General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s military no longer acts as a sovereign deterrent force. It appears instead as a regional cog in a trilateral structure, serving:

• India’s need for narrative supremacy;
• Israel’s model of overwhelming retaliation without accountability;
• Washington’s interest in pliable regional actors.

This reorientation is deeply dangerous. Should India escalate, Pakistan’s army may not respond, not out of strategic restraint—but out of institutional capture. It now operates under the shadow of foreign interests, performing stability while surrendering sovereignty.

This emerging Indian architecture Intrigue, Not Deterrence

India’s military strategy of intrigue over conventional engagement aligns with historical precedent—Indian military doctrine has long emphasized narrative, intrigue, and calculated escalation, rather than overwhelming battlefield dominance.

• Israel’s model of asymmetric warfare and information dominance appears increasingly echoed in India’s posturing post-Pahalgam, including the threat of total war and civilian-targeted responses.
• Pakistan’s army, once conceived as a regional balancer, now appears as a subordinate node in a trilateral framework involving India, Israel, and the United States.

The Unintended Consequences

If India were to escalate its military actions against Pakistan—especially in the context of a revocation of the Indus Water Treaty, a decision that would devastate Pakistan’s water resources—the consequences could quickly spiral beyond the initial calculations. While India may perceive such actions as a show of strength, they would inadvertently expose it to deeper regional and international complexities that it may not be prepared to manage.

1. Pakistan’s Military Defeat and the Release of Imran Khan

The revocation of the Indus Water Treaty would not simply be an environmental or political issue—it would be an act of existential aggression against Pakistan’s very survival. Water scarcity is a strategic vulnerability for Pakistan, which already suffers from one of the most significant water stress crises in the world. By jeopardizing access to the Indus River, India would be imposing a direct threat to Pakistan’s agricultural backbone and its very future as a functioning state. The implications would be both domestic and geopolitical.

• Collapse of Pakistan’s Military Deterrence: The Pakistani military, traditionally a formidable force in the region, has lost the support of her people. With crisis of legitimacy within the Pakistani establishment, it cannot win wars. Furthermore, war is not an option because the Pakistan Army is subject to foreign institutional capture and risks losing its grip over its own people.
• Political Vacuum and the Return of Imran Khan: As the military falters in its traditional role as the protector of the state, Pakistan’s civilian leadership would find itself increasingly isolated. In this vacuum, Imran Khan’s popularity, particularly among the youth and opposition groups, could surge. His release from prison, orchestrated as a response to the military’s failures, would likely be seen as a symbolic reclamation of democracy—and a sharp repudiation of the military’s alignment with foreign interests, including those of India and the U.S.

In this scenario, Imran Khan could emerge not only as a political leader but also as a moral victor. Someone who represents the nation’s defiance against external pressures and the military’s missteps. His return to power would shift the internal balance of power and could significantly alter the trajectory of Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies.

• India’s Strategic Overreach: Finding Itself in Deeper Waters

While India might initially view the revocation of the Indus Water Treaty and the escalation of military actions as a tactical victory, these moves would likely pull it into deeper waters:

• Global Diplomatic Isolation: India can manage global and human rights groups condemnation, and countries that value the stability of international treaties. What India cannot manage is the return of Imran Khan.
• Economic Fallout and Regional Instability: It was long argued in India that a stable, but a weaker Pakistan was in the interest of India. Pakistan’s suffering would generate regional instability with far-reaching consequences. The economic collapse in Pakistan—fueled by a lack of water for irrigation, agriculture, and industry—would have a spillover effect on India.
• Revocation of Indus Water Treaty: The revocation of the Indus Water Treaty, risks deepening regional instability and pushing Pakistan to the brink. This, in turn, could set the stage for military failure, political upheaval, and the reassertion of Imran Khan—an outcome that would destabilize India’s carefully constructed narrative of regional dominance.
• India militarily cannot defend the Indian administered Kashmir. Under Imran Khan leadership, India will forego the Indian occupied Kashmir.
• China’s Strategic Alignment: Another major consequence of such aggression would be China’s involvement. Already a close ally of Pakistan, China would likely perceive India’s revocation of the Indus Water Treaty as a strategic maneuver aimed at undermining Chinese influence in the region. China could accelerate its military and diplomatic support for Pakistan, particularly in territorial disputes involving Kashmir. This would push India into a deeper confrontation not just with Pakistan but also with China—a two-front war India would be ill-prepared for, especially considering its own strategic vulnerabilities in the region.

Khan could then Capitalize on a Popular Mandate to:

• Reassert control over Pakistan’s foreign policy, particularly over issues related to Kashmir, India, and the region’s security architecture.
• Reinforce Pakistan’s alliances, particularly with China and other regional powers, while offer a friendship gesture to the U.S., refocusing on a more independent, self-determined strategy.
• Pakistan can rebalance the China—United States relationship. Recall, Pakistan facilitated U.S.-China rapprochement during the Nixon era.

This shift could lead to a regional pivot where Pakistan, despite its internal crises, presents itself as a resilient player determined to safeguard its sovereignty and natural resources—no longer beholden to external powers that seek to influence its strategic direction.

Conclusion:

A Region Rewritten by Timing and Allegiances

The Chattisinghpora and Pahalgam incidents, when viewed in isolation, may appear as unfortunate coincidences. But when connected to the April 2022 coup, the quiet alignment with Israel, and the muting of Pakistan’s traditional deterrence posture, a deeper architecture becomes visible—one in which intrigue replaces sovereignty, and where narrative management substitutes for genuine regional peace-building.

This emerging reality places Pakistan’s military command at a dangerous crossroads—no longer defined by its strategic autonomy, but as an actor performing within a script written elsewhere. In this script, India and Israel occupy the roles of regional hegemon and ideological compass, while U.S. pressure ensures continuity through selective reward and coercion.

Should India choose to initiate conflict—perhaps under the veil of another narrative-shifting attack—the expectation is not that Pakistan will respond with sovereignty, but with submission masked as restraint.

This is the new calculus of South Asian geopolitics: one shaped not by the clash of civilizations, but by the engineering of complicity.

The Logic of Timing in Geopolitical Communication

Whether organically timed or strategically leveraged, the recurrence of major terrorist incidents in Kashmir during key U.S. diplomatic visits reveals a pattern that serves specific narrative interests. It casts India not as a potential subject of scrutiny, but as a beleaguered democracy confronting persistent cross-border terrorism. In doing so, it shapes both international media framing and bilateral diplomatic tone in New Delhi’s favor.

In the age of geopolitics by perception, the timing of terror may carry more communicative power than the terror itself.

Bio: Mian Hameed is the author of MANIPULATION OF THE MIND: Our Children and Our Policy at Peril. He is a student of the U.S. and South Asia foreign policy. My articles do not present the conventional thoughts of the mainstream media. To read my work, click the Home link below.