CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

Blog Post

CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies > Pakistan
A Terrorist Tech Review in Khorasan
Artificial Intelligence Cyber Security Defence Pakistan Terrorism
0
348

A Terrorist Tech Review in Khorasan

Broader implication is that counterterrorism efforts must adapt to an era of synthetic propaganda and AI-assisted operations. This means investing in new detection technologies, updating regulations for AI platforms, and perhaps rethinking how we monitor online terrorist communities without infringing on common people’s privacy. Rahul Pawa In June 2025, an unlikely tech column appeared in Voice of Khorasan, the English-language web terrorist propaganda magazine of ISIS-K (Islamic State Khorasan Province). Amid usual disillusions, Issue 46 featured a detailed comparison of popular AI chatbots; from OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bing AI to the privacy-focused Brave Leo and the Chinese bot dubbed “DeepSeek.” The tone resembled a consumer tech review, but the intent was deadly serious. The authors warned fellow jihadists about the risks of these tools, raising alarms about data privacy and surveillance. ChatGPT and Bing, they noted, might log user data or even expose a terrorist’s IP address, a potential death sentence for an terrorist on the run. They cautioned that generative AI could churn out false information or even mimic someone’s writing or speaking style, making it a double-edged sword for propaganda. After weighing the platforms, the magazine gave its endorsement: Brave’s Leo AI, integrated into a private web browser and requiring no login, was deemed the safest option for terrorists seeking anonymity. In essence, ISIS-K selected the chatbot that asks for the fewest questions in return, a chilling reminder that even terrorists prize privacy features. This surreal scene, a terrorist group rating AI assistants illustrates how terrorist organisations are eagerly probing the latest technology for their own ends. If Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate is producing in-house reviews of chatbots, it is because they see potential tools for propaganda, recruitment, and even operational support. And ISIS-K is not alone. Across the ideological spectrum, violent terrorists are experimenting with generative AI, ushering in a new chapter in the long history of terrorists exploiting digital media. From jihadists in remote safe houses to far left extremist cells in Western suburbs, terrorists are testing how AI can amplify their hateful messaging and help them evade detection. It’s a development that has counterterrorism officials on high alert, and for good reason. For decades, terrorist groups have been early adopters of new media. In the late 1990s, Al-Qaeda circulated grainy VHS tapes and CD-ROMs with lectures by Osama bin Laden. By the mid-2010s, ISIS perfected the art of online propaganda: slickly edited videos, encrypted chat channels, and multilingual web magazines reached recruits worldwide at the click of a button. The Islamic State’s media operatives earned a dark reputation as “innovators” in digital terror, leveraging YouTube, Twitter, and Telegram in ways governments struggled to counter. Now, generative AI is the latest technology wave and once again, terrorists are riding it. What’s different today is the power and accessibility of these AI tools. Modern generative AI can produce content that is startlingly realistic and tailored to an audience’s biases or emotions. This opens troubling possibilities for propaganda. Terrorist groups can now generate fake images, videos, and even interactive dialogues at scale, with minimal resources. In recent months, terrorists have used AI-created images and videos to stoke sectarian hatred and amplify conflicts. During the Israel counter strike on Hamas in 2023, for example, Hamas-linked propagandists circulated doctored visuals, including fabricated pictures of injured children and fake photos of Israeli soldiers in humiliating situations to inflame public emotion and spread disinformation. These AI-manipulated images blended seamlessly into the online information ecosystem, making it harder to separate truth from fabrication in the fog of war. ISIS and its offshoots have likewise ventured into deepfakes. Islamic State’s media affiliates reportedly published a “tech support guide” in mid-2023 instructing followers how to securely use generative AI tools while avoiding detection. Not long after, ISIS-K began unveiling AI-generated propaganda videos. Following a 2024 attack in Afghanistan, ISIS-K released a video bulletin featuring a fictitious news anchor, generated by deepfake technology calmly reading the group’s claims of responsibility. The video looked like a normal news broadcast, complete with a professional-looking anchor, except it was entirely fabricated by AI. In another case, after an assault in Kandahar, an ISIS-K propagandist created a second deepfake “Khurasan TV” clip, this time with a Western-accented avatar as the presenter. The goal is clear: lend terrorist propaganda a veneer of credibility and polish that previously required a studio and camera crew. Instead of grainy cellphone martyr videos, we now see digital avatars delivering the jihadists message in high definition, potentially fooling viewers (and automated content filters) that would dismiss overtly violent footage. As one security analyst observed, this marks a stark upgrade from the early 2000s when terrorist videos were rudimentary and “prioritised the message over higher production values” , today’s AI-crafted terror content can closely resemble legitimate media broadcasts. Why are terrorist groups so keen on generative AI? The answer lies in what these tools promise: speed, scale, personalisation, and a degree of deniability. A large language model can produce terrorist propaganda texts in multiple languages almost instantaneously, allowing a group like ISIS-K or al-Qaeda to tailor messages to different ethnic or national audiences without a large translation team. AI image generators can churn out endless visuals for memes, posters, or fake “news” proof, enabling agitators to flood social media with content that algorithmic moderation hasn’t seen before, thereby evading detection by hash-based filters that flag known terrorist photos. As Adam Hadley of Tech Against Terrorism warned, if terrorists manipulate imagery at scale with AI, it could undermine the hash-sharing databases that platforms use to automatically block violent content . In effect, generative AI offers terrorists a way to boost volume and variety in their online output, potentially staying one step ahead of content moderation efforts. Just as importantly, AI lowers the barriers for creating sophisticated lies. Misinformation and conspiracy theories can be mass-produced with ChatGPT-like models, which excel at mimicking authoritative tone or even an individual’s speech patterns. ISIS-K’s magazine explicitly noted this danger that AI can “create false information or mimic specific speech patterns”

Read More
Radicalised Khalistanis, a Canadian Problem
Canada Khalistan Pakistan Security Sikh
0
442

Radicalised Khalistanis, a Canadian Problem

For years Canada’s mainstream parties have courted Sikh immigrants to win votes. Now, they pander to Khalistani extremists for political gains. Rahul Pawa As Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Canada for the G7 summit, an unsettling scene greeted international media: young children brandished “Khalistan” flags and even defaced a Hindu temple in Surrey with secessionist graffiti. These images of toddlers taught to chant separatist slogans sparked outrage in India and around the world. Spokesman Sudeep Singh of the revered Patna Sahib Gurudwara, the birthplace of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji warned that “the way children were used in the protests is highly condemnable”. Similarly, Sikh seminary leader Sarchand Singh Khyala condemned the videos as “spreading hatred by brainwashing children”. Dressed-up flags and violent symbols at public parades horrify many Sikhs abroad who see these stunts as political theatre, not Sikhism. Mainstream Sikh leaders make the same point: Khalistanis in Canada are a tiny fringe, not the Sikh community. In late realization of sorts, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has emphasized, “many supporters of Khalistan in Canada… do not represent the Sikh community as a whole.” Leading Sikh voices echo this. Jasdip Singh Jassee of Sikhs of America reminds Americans that “the vast majority of Sikhs globally, including in the US and Canada, do not support separatist agendas.” In India, religious seats like Takht Patna Sahib and Damdami Taksal have publicly denounced the protests. Their message is unequivocal: the Khalistan protesters are not Sikh martyrs. Patna Sahib’s spokesman notes that all of Sikhism’s pending issues are being resolved in India, so “there should not be such protests” against PM Modi “no Sikh can tolerate this.” In fact, these Khalistani stunts run directly counter to Sikh teachings. Sikhism emphasises service and harmony not hate or violence. Provincial Sikh leaders emphasise, “Sikhs have protected mandirs (Hindu temples)” as their sacred Dharmic duty. Yet last April in Surrey, vandals scrawled “Khalistan” on the pillars of Shree Lakshmi Narayana Mandir. This hate-crime – denounced by the temple as “an attack on a sacred space” would deeply sadden ordinary Sikhs. Jasdip Jassee said it was “disgusting” that extremists chose Diwali (a Sikh-protected festival) to vandalise a mandir, calling it “shameful” and against Sikh values. Similarly, Damdami Taksal (a mainstream Sikh seminary) has openly criticised Canadians who use children to insult India’s PM, saying these pro-Khalistan people “are spewing venom against India”. These Sikh authorities unanimously emphasise that Khalistan is not a Sikh cause and certainly not one worth teaching to children. On the contrary, Sikhism is deeply Dharmic and Indian. From the Punjabi heartland to global diaspora Sikhs celebrate their faith’s founder Guru Nanak and their tenets of service (seva) and protection.  India’s own armed forces and civil institutions reflect Sikh contributions: for example, Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh (a Sikh) was made India’s first Air Force Field Marshal, and Sikh generals have led the Army in multiple wars. Sikh entrepreneurs, scholars and saints likewise uplifted Indian society. For modern Sikhs, the idea of carving out a separate nation feels alien only a “microscopic” minority even entertains it. A former Punjab Chief Secretary notes that hardcore Khalistani ideologues are “not even one per cent” of Sikh population while many others view Khalistan more as a business or polarising narrative. Polls agree Punjab elections show pro-Khalistan candidates picking up well under 1 – 2 per cent of votes in Sikh-majority districts. In short, the Khalistan idea has virtually no grassroots support back in India; it lives on only in select pockets abroad. So why does the Khalistan fringe loom so large in Canada? The answer lies in Canadian diaspora politics and foreign meddling. For years Canada’s mainstream parties have courted Sikh immigrants to win votes, often ignoring their excesses. Observers note a growing consensus among all Canadian parties to pander to Khalistan sympathies for electoral gain. Minister S. Jaishankar put it bluntly: by giving radical Sikhs impunity, “the Canadian government… is repeatedly showing that its vote bank is more powerful than its rule of law.” Veteran broadcaster Terry Milewski described it as a dirty deal: Canadian MPs attend Sikh parades and “look the other way” at posters of terrorists, in exchange for “10,000 votes… because the people of the gurdwaras will vote as we tell them”. In such a climate, small separatist groups found refuge on Canadian soil under the banner of free speech. Worse, intelligence services have cynically empowered them. Indian officials repeatedly assert that Pakistan’s ISI funds the Khalistani network in Canada. Union Minister Hardeep Puri openly called protestors “kiraye ke tattu” (mercenaries on hire) whose demonstrations were staged “from the neighbouring country [Pakistan] where they get funding.”  Security analysts back this up, several top analysts observe that these activists have their own underworld and are often involved in deadly gang rivalries and are essentially “helping Pakistanis spend whatever remains of their money”. Indeed, he warns that Sikh extremists in Canada “will continue to be funded and fuelled by the ISI”. Put bluntly, this looks less like a grass-roots Sikh movement than a criminal-intelligence network. It is a problem imported into Canada by a hostile state, not spawned by Sikh communities. The political consequences in Canada have been dramatic. In the 2025 federal elections, Jagmeet Singh, NDP leader who long voiced support for Sikh protesters, saw his party collapse. Singh lost his own seat and announced he would step down as leader. Earlier, in September 2024, Singh had even “ripped up” his confidence-and-supply deal with Trudeau’s “Liberals”, erasing the government majority he once helped engineer. Meanwhile Trudeau’s gamble backfired. As Sikh ally Singh turned on him, Trudeau’s Liberals barely clung to power under newcomer Mark Carney. By early 2025 Trudeau himself resigned as a result of his Khalistan miscalculation. In short, Ottawa’s flirtation with diaspora extremism not only frayed Canada-India ties, it torpedoed the careers of Western politicians. Against this turmoil, Sikhs have reaffirmed their core values. Sikh institutions wasted no time republishing lessons of unity. Damdami Taksal’s Sarchand

Read More
India Emerges Global Power Through Sindoor
Pakistan Terrorism
0
524

India Emerges Global Power Through Sindoor

Biggest losers were Pakistan, Turkey & China that sided with the terror state. Bharat came thumbs up, foreign media cut sorry figure. N. C. Bipindra After India’s Operation Sindoor on Pakistan and its terror hubs to avenge Pahalgam terror victims, the overwhelming assessment of global strategic affairs community, military experts and international media is that New Delhi has had a decisive victory over Islamabad. As India began its precision military strikes on nine terror infrastructure sites inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, initially global media and think-tanks went overboard to declare an Indian defeat. Their claims were based on unverified Pakistan social media handles’ propaganda that Islamabad was successful in shooting down the Indian Air Force fighter jets. But these claims turned out to be untrue as Operation Sindoor progressed over four days during May 7 – 10, 2025. Now, a post-operation diagnosis has placed their trust in the Indian military declarations that India indeed struck specific targets based on undisputable pieces of evidence provided by Indian establishment. Pakistan, on the other hand, has failed miserably to provide any proof – technical data, satellite images, or otherwise – to back its claims. The New York Times had to grudgingly acknowledge the superiority of the Indian military operations in a piece written on May 14, 2025. Many international media outlets have been running interviews with military experts and analysts to back Indian assertions that they struck at precise locations, resulting in over 100 casualties among the Pakistanis. They have also shown satellite images provided by the Indian government and other international space technology firms to back their judgment on Operation Sindoor. India had struck at nine terror sites inside Pakistan and their occupied territories, apart from taking out 11 military infrastructure sites, including air bases, their runways, hangars, ammunition dumps, and air defence assets in the four-day military operations. Pakistan’s major reliance on Chinese military equipment has proved to be a disaster. Pakistan has been unable to back its claims of shooting down five Indian combat aircraft or bombarding Adampur air base, or even taking out Indian military assets such as the S-400 air defence system. This has resulted in the international community and media backing down on their initial claims, most of which was unnamed sources traced back to unverified social media posts. In the fog of war, news is a casualty. The fragmentation of news is a strategic victory. Untruths become the weapon of mass destruction. News becomes an instrument of war itself. As India woke up to the merciless killing of 26 innocent civilians at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, the media world saw an emotionally weak nation unable to bear the loss. There were no words of solace, no newsprint to waste on sympathy. There was an unspoken rejoicing. What a harsh domain the global media had become! As India responded with military strike on 7 May 2025 on nine terror camps deep inside Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Western media was unable to bear the emergence of a New India that had zero tolerance for terror. What followed was the unleashing of untruths and half-truths that beat their misplaced standards of post-truth. Brandon J. Weichert, a so-called national security editor for the American platform National Interest, rushed in on May 8, 2025, to claim that Pakistanis had won the battle with India during the latter’s Operation Sindoor. It hadn’t even been 24 hours since the Indian military operations had begun, and Brandon jumped into deliver his verdict. Operation Sindoor’s military campaign went on for three more days. Post the cessation of military operations by India, Brandon has yet to revise his assessment or claims. So much for his ethics and credibility! His first article was tweeted by Indian-origin Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia, who too is unrepentant on peddling Pakistan propaganda. The Pakistani line was followed by Chinese official state media such as the Global Times and China Daily, and their claims were countered by the Indian embassy in Beijing and by the Indian state-run Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check divisions. China’s concerns were real. Its entire arms export market was in line of fire. And probably this was the first time that Chinese arms were being tested in a real battle with an archrival in India. Lest we forget, China was in an eyeball-to-eyeball military confrontation with India till about six months ago in India’s Ladakh region, yet there were no real military battles that took place between them to force the use of heavier weapons. Under Operation Sindoor, India had ramped up on the escalation ladder by first targeting the terror infrastructure inside Pakistan, then shifting its strategic objective to take out Pakistani military assets. India had changed its warfare doctrine vis-à-vis terror groups supported, trained, armed, and funded by Pakistan forever. Indian Prime Minister Modi detailed New India’s approach to terror and their sponsors. India would follow a zero tolerance for terror strikes inside its territory. The nuclear war bogey would not threaten India from going after terror groups and their sponsors, thereby calling the nuclear weapons threshold bluff. And India would consider every terror attack on its citizens as an act of war, meaning Pakistan would face the Indian military might and fury in case another terror strike happened. The nuclear bluff from Pakistan was amplified by the Americans when President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed they had some alarming intelligence to intervene, thereby implying that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan was in the offing. India also indicated through Prime Minister Modi and the Ministry of External Affairs that they were not buying what the Americans were peddling. India also took a strong, long-term view of its qualms with Pakistan and its self-interest, by keeping the 1960 Indus Water Treaty in abeyance even after the cessation of military operations. This, again, is a strategically important position, as India has for years now wanted to renegotiate the treaty to provide its citizens the

Read More
Pahalgam to Ops Sindoor: A Case Study in India’s Counter-Terror Doctrine
Pakistan Terrorism
0
482

Pahalgam to Ops Sindoor: A Case Study of India’s Counter-Terror

On the morning of April 22, 2025, in the tranquil and scenic hills of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, a brutal and premeditated terrorist assault took place—one that fundamentally altered India’s national security posture. Twenty-six civilians, including women and children, were executed at point-blank range by Pakistan-backed terrorists after being identified based on their religious affiliation. Eyewitness accounts confirmed that the attackers interrogated the victims about their Dharma (faith) and segregated them before unleashing gunfire. This atrocity was not merely an act of terror—it was a calculated religious pogrom designed to fracture India’s communal harmony and provoke sectarian unrest. Indian government swiftly classified the attack as a gross violation of international humanitarian norms and an extension of Pakistan’s long-standing policy of proxy warfare with a deeply communal subtext.

Read More
Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025): India’s Military Response to Pakistan-backed Cross-Border Terrorism
Pakistan Terrorism
0
543

Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025): India’s Military Response to Pakistan-backed Cross-Border Terrorism

India has long accused Pakistan of using terrorism as a tool of state policy. Pakistani-based terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) are led by cadres who operate with impunity under Pakistani patronage. India routinely notes that these organizations are “Pakistan-based and supported”[1] and that top Pakistani military and civilian authorities tolerate – if not directly aid – their activities. In multiple public statements India has demanded that Pakistan “stop supporting terrorists and terror groups operating from their territory” and dismantle the infrastructure that enables them[2]. This longstanding dispute over Pakistan’s alleged state-sponsored terrorism has erupted in periodic crises over the past two decades.

Read More
India Needs Cognitive Warfare Plan
Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism
0
614

India Needs Cognitive Warfare Plan

Fighting enemy on information highway as on ground emerges a big challenge and opportunity for Bharat that’s declared war on terror. Rohan Giri In the wake of Operation Sindoor, India’s precision strike against cross-border terrorist camps in Pakistan, a disturbing counteroffensive has emerged—not on the battlefield, but in the information domain. The recent statement by Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist)—disguised as a call for peace—reveals a deeper, coordinated attempt to delegitimize India’s national security concerns. On the parallel, certain social media influencers and public figures have echoed narratives that align more with Islamabad’s propaganda machinery than with India’s democratic discourse. Convergence of disinformation, ideological proxies and cognitive warfare by deftly manipulating freedom of speech calls for deep dive analysis. Cross-Border Strikes to Cognitive Warzones Operation Sindoor was launched in response to brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians by Pakistan-backed jihadi groups in Pahalgam. Indian Armed Forces counter-terror operation—based on actionable intelligence— neutralised multiple terror hideouts along Line of Control (LoC) and deep into Pakistan. Even before the word was out on the operation, a parallel battlefront opened in the digital sphere. Assorted Left extremists who have lost the plot and support of people re-grouped under CPI(ML) had the gumption to cynically talk about “war mongering,” “mock drills,” and “jingoism” instead of outright condemnation of terrorists, their backers and handlers. Deliberate attempt has been made by CPI-ML to shift focus away from campaign against terror, victims of terror to a narrative of false equivalence placing India’s defensive response and Pakistan’s terrorism on same plane. This is not an isolated political position. It is an ideological posture with global resonance—amplified by social media handlers, YouTubers, and creators whose content is now being routinely picked up by Pakistani media to discredit India’s war against terror. Cultural Expression as Cover for Subversion For instance, Neha Singh Rathore, a content creator and folk performer came under legal scrutiny for provocative posts that allegedly promote communal disharmony. Rathore’s content—strategically laced with satire and emotion—has been widely shared across borders, especially in Pakistani outlets eager to highlight India’s “internal repression.” While art and dissent is at core of democracies like Bharat, Rathore’s content is not organically critical, instead ideologically consistent with Pakistan’s strategic communication goals. The timing, targeting and terminology in such digital content reflect more than personal opinion—they indicate agenda-setting behaviour. CPI(ML) and figures like Rathore are not merely engaging in protest; they are building parallel narratives that erode legitimacy of India’s campaign against terror. When these narratives go viral, they serve the psychological warfare strategies of hostile powers. Beijing in 1962 to Islamabad Today Maoist and marxist gangs have a long history of siding with foreign adversaries. During 1962 Sino-Indian War, segments of CPI openly supported China dismissing Indian territorial claims and branding national mobilization as bourgeois nationalism. Today, the same ideological model has evolved, more sophisticated, digitally native and far more dangerous. By refusing to condemn cross-border terrorism and attacking India’s right to respond, CPI(ML)’s latest statement resurrects this playbook. It leverages democratic tolerance to inject disinformation, exploit communal sensitivities and erode confidence of Indian populace in its institutions. The party’s warning against “war preparations” and “state violence” is couched in humanitarian concern but functionally serves to paralyze India’s right to strategic deterrence. This is not peace activism—it is information sabotage. Legal and Civic Clarity India’s commitment to free speech under Article 19 of Constitution remains robust. This freedom is not absolute. The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 152 replacing the colonial-era sedition law, rightly targets acts that threaten unity and integrity of nation including narrative warfare. In the digital era, narrative disruptors have become as strategically valuable to the enemy as traditional insurgents. Unlike overt enemies, these actors often present themselves as poets, comedians, journalists or social reformers. Their strength lies in ambiguity, their power in virality. Perception Wars and Legitimacy Battle International opinion is increasingly shaped by perception rather than policy. In this context, India’s counter-terror narratives must compete not only with traditional media but with decentralized content ecosystems that are vulnerable to infiltration, manipulation and illegal funding. When disinformation aligns with an adversary’s diplomatic strategy i.e., portraying India as an aggressor and the region as unstable, it not only undermines counterterrorism efforts but damages India’s geopolitical credibility in multilateral forums. Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) following Pahalgam Terror attack was a bold diplomatic move, signaling a shift in India’s engagement with Pakistan. But without narrative control, such moves risk being framed globally as escalatory rather than defensive. Strategic Culture of Narrative Resilience India needs more than military readiness; it requires a strategic communication plan that integrates law, policy and narrative discipline. This includes: CPI(ML) statement and online activism that follows it are not expressions of dissent—they are symptoms of a deeper vulnerability: India’s tolerance for internal ideological actors who camouflage sedition as satire. As India rises on the world stage, its battles will increasingly be fought in the cognitive domain. Winning them will require legal, civic, and strategic clarity. (Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content head at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Read More
Global Terror Factories Targeted During Operation Sindoor by India
Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism
0
456

Global Terror Factories Targeted During Operation Sindoor by India 

India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ on May 7, 2025, involved missile strikes on nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. India’s stated aim was to target and dismantle terrorist infrastructure used for planning and carrying out attacks against India, specifically mentioning groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM). India maintained that these strikes were “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” intended to avoid Pakistani military facilities and civilian casualties. Pakistan fake claimed that India targeted civilian areas, including mosques, resulting in significant civilian deaths and injuries. Reports from Pakistan mentioned a mosque being hit in Muzaffarabad, and a mosque complex struck in Bahawalpur, leading to casualties. India’s perspective, based on the provided information, is that these sites, irrespective of containing any religious structures, were legitimate military targets because their primary function was facilitating terrorism. They argue that the presence of religious or civilian structures might be a deliberate tactic to shield terrorist activities or gain legitimacy. India emphasized that intelligence confirmed these locations were actively used as recruitment, training, indoctrination, and operational hubs for terror groups responsible for attacks on Indian soil.

Read More
Brief - Pakistan Targets Sikhs, Gurdwara
Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Sikh Terrorism
0
451

Brief: Pakistan Targets Sikh Gurdwara

Pakistan’s army began an unprecedented campaign of cross-border small arms and artillery bombardments into Jammu & Kashmir almost immediately after April 22, 2025 Pakistan backed terrorist attack in Pahalgam (which killed 25 Tourists, after ascertaining their Hindu faith). By April 24, India had suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, and within hours Pakistan “resorted to unprovoked firing at various places along the LoC in J&K, starting from the Kashmir valley”.

Read More
Operation Sindoor: India’s justified calibrated kinetic strikes Against Terror
Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism
0
441

Operation Sindoor: India’s justified calibrated kinetic strikes Against Terror

An unbroken thread links India’s 21‑year struggle against cross‑border terrorism, from the 2001 Parliament attack to the 2016 “surgical strikes” and the 2019 Balakot air strikes, into the present moment. On  22  April  2025 five Lashkar‑e‑Taiba gunmen slaughtered twenty‑six mostly Hindu tourists at Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam, Anantnag district, after segregating the victims by religion.[1] Within twenty‑four hours New  Delhi’s Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) validated   “cross‑border linkages,” suspended the Indus Waters Treaty and ordered a graduated response “to bring the perpetrators and their sponsors to justice.”[2] Economic and diplomatic screws turned first: a blanket ban on Pakistani imports (2  May)[3] and reciprocal port closures (4  May)[4] reduced bilateral trade to zero and shrank the two High Commissions to skeletal staffs. Yet Pakistan army mortar fire persisted across the Line of Control, and Indian intelligence traced the Pahalgam cell to Lashkar training clusters in Pakistan and Pakistan‑occupied Jammy and Kashmir (PoJK). With public outrage mounting, the government authorised a justified calibrated kinetic strike, Operation  Sindoor.

Read More