In the volatile aftermath of India’s Operation Sindoor, a precision military strike that obliterated terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu-Kashmir (PoJK) following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack, Pakistan has unleashed a familiar weapon: a so-called dossier circulating in Telegram groups and WhatsApp chats.
This document, yet to be officially released by Pakistan’s government or military, is a masterclass in the country’s time-honoured tradition of propaganda, blending denial, deflection, and outright fabrication to paint India as the aggressor and Pakistan as the victim.
Designed for domestic consumption and to counter India’s global diplomatic outreach to 32 countries, the dossier accuses India of staging a “false flag” attack, labels its strikes as “unprovoked aggression,” and calls for a neutral probe—all while ignoring Pakistan’s well-documented role as a haven for terrorists. As India stands firm, the dossier reveals the depths of Pakistan’s propaganda machinery and its desperate bid to obscure the truth.
The Pahalgam Attack
The dossier’s narrative begins with the horrific Pahalgam attack, where 26 civilians, including 25 tourists and one Nepali national, were gunned down in a meticulously planned assault by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The attack, executed with chilling precision—most victims were shot at point-blank range—targeted Hindu civilians and non-locals, aiming to destabilise Jammu and Kashmir’s tourism industry.
TRF claimed responsibility almost immediately, leaving no ambiguity about its intent or origins. Yet, Pakistan’s dossier audaciously labels this as a “false flag” operation orchestrated by India for domestic political gain, a claim that mirrors its denials during past attacks like the 2008 Mumbai massacre and the 2019 Pulwama bombing.
India’s response, Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, was a masterstroke of military precision. Twenty-four missile strikes targeted nine terror camps in Muridke, Bahawalpur, and Muzaffarabad—known hubs of LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen—neutralising over 100 terrorists, including masterminds linked to the 1999 IC 814 hijacking and Pulwama attack. Backed by real-time intelligence, including intercepts and drone footage, the operation avoided civilian and military targets, adhering to India’s commitment to surgical counter-terrorism. The dossier, however, seeks to rewrite this narrative, accusing India of aggression while ignoring the undeniable evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in fostering terrorism.
The False Flag Playbook
Pakistan’s claim that the Pahalgam attack was a “false flag” operation is not a new tactic. Since its inception, Pakistan has honed the art of playing the victim, deflecting blame for its role in sponsoring terrorism. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, where 10 LeT terrorists killed 166 people, offer a striking parallel. The attackers wore Hindu religious symbols like the kalawa to disguise their origins, and Pakistan initially denied any connection, claiming the perpetrators were non-state actors or Indian operatives.
It was only after Mumbai Police ASI Tukaram Omble’s heroic capture of Ajmal Kasab, coupled with local Pakistani media tracing his family to Faridkot, that Islamabad grudgingly admitted his nationality years later. The Pahalgam dossier’s omission of TRF’s immediate claim of responsibility and its targeting of Hindu civilians echoes this pattern of denial, attempting to malign India’s Hindu community while shielding Pakistan’s terror proxies.
The dossier’s reliance on Indian voices, leftist journalists and commentators like Satyapal Malik, Karan Thapar, Siddharth Varadarajan of The Wire, Ajay Shukla, and Sankey Upadhyay of The Red Mike is another calculated move. These figures, known for their critical stance against the Indian government, have portrayed the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor as overreaches, providing Pakistan with ammunition to amplify its narrative. Their social media posts and reports, extensively cited by Pakistani media and the Directorate General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), illustrate how internal dissent can be weaponised to undermine India’s global credibility.
Reframing Precision Strikes as Aggression
The dossier’s accusation that Operation Sindoor constituted “unprovoked aggression” is a deliberate misrepresentation. India’s strikes targeted well-documented terror infrastructure in Muridke (LeT’s Markaz Taiba), Bahawalpur (JeM’s Markaz Subhan Allah), and Muzaffarabad—locations far removed from civilian neighbourhoods. Pakistan’s attempt to portray Hafiz Abdur Rauf, a US Treasury Department-designated global terrorist, as an “innocent preacher” backfired when the DG ISPR inadvertently displayed his national ID, confirming his terrorist status. Such blunders expose the dossier’s lack of credibility, as Pakistan struggles to whitewash its role as a safe haven for groups like LeT and JeM.
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, India’s right to pre-emptive self-defence against active terror threats is indisputable, particularly when non-state actors operate under state protection. Pakistan’s attempt to equate India’s surgical strikes with aggression ignores international norms, a tactic it ironically employs to deflect scrutiny from its own actions. The dossier’s claims are further undermined by India’s transparency, having shared drone footage, intercepts, and intelligence with allies, contrasting sharply with Pakistan’s reliance on unverified infographics and rhetoric.
The Hypocrisy of Demanding a Neutral Probe
Pakistan’s call for a “neutral third-party probe” into the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor is a hollow gesture given its history of evading accountability. For years, Pakistan languished on the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) grey list for failing to curb terror financing, shielding figures like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, the masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The dossier conveniently ignores that one of the camps destroyed in Operation Sindoor trained Ajmal Kasab and David Headley, underscoring Pakistan’s role as a terror hub.
India’s evidence-sharing with allies and public briefings stands in stark contrast to Pakistan’s lack of timestamped satellite imagery or credible documentation, rendering its probe demand a cynical ploy to delay accountability.
Media Manipulation and CGI Fantasies
The dossier accuses Indian media of fueling “war hysteria,” a charge that ignores the DG ISPR’s production of fantastical CGI videos claiming to show Pakistani forces downing Rafale jets and destroying S-400 systems. Indian media reports, grounded in TRF’s public statements, local ground reports, and intelligence inputs, have presented a factual account of the conflict.
Pakistan, by contrast, offers no verifiable evidence, relying instead on flashy infographics and unverifiable images of damaged mosques, alongside absurd claims of targeting BrahMos missile sites with long-range artillery. The dossier’s selective outrage against Indian media conveniently sidesteps Pakistan’s own propaganda machinery, which thrives on distortion and denial.
Glorifying Operation Bunyanum Marsoos
In a theatrical flourish, the dossier glorifies Pakistan’s Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, a supposed “measured response” to India’s strikes. It claims Pakistan hit 26 Indian targets, downed drones, Rafales, and MiGs, and destroyed BrahMos storages, all while avoiding civilian harm. These assertions are laughable, as Pakistan’s retaliatory strikes on May 7–9 were largely intercepted, with no confirmed damage to Indian assets.
The claim of restraint is a facade, designed to salvage Pakistan’s military image domestically while equating its ineffective counterattacks with India’s precise anti-terror operation.
Weaponising Civilian Optics
Pakistan’s tactic of embedding military assets in civilian areas has long been a shield for its terror proxies, allowing it to exploit collateral damage for propaganda. The dossier’s images of damaged mosques and alleged civilian deaths lack timestamps, coordinates, or credible sourcing, undermining their authenticity. India has consistently maintained that its strikes targeted verified terror hubs, a claim backed by shared intelligence.
Pakistan’s use of religious sites as operational bases, coupled with official attendance at terrorists’ funerals—such as those of Masood Azhar’s family members, ten of whom were reportedly killed—exposes its hypocrisy. The dossier’s attempt to portray India as the aggressor ignores the systemic issue of Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism.
Framing India as the Villain
The dossier’s final irony is its accusation that India habitually violates international law. Coming from a nation that has harboured UN-sanctioned terrorists and faced global isolation for its terror financing, this claim is audacious. India operates under intense scrutiny, sharing evidence to justify its actions, while Pakistan’s history of double-dealing, evident in its FATF grey-listing and shielding of 26/11 masterminds undermines its credibility. The dossier’s attempt to frame India as a serial violator is a desperate bid to whitewash Pakistan’s own sins.
A WhatsApp Forward, Not a Document
Pakistan’s dossier is not a credible report but a propaganda tool, crafted for domestic consumption rather than international scrutiny. Circulated in Telegram and WhatsApp groups, it aims to sustain the facade of victimhood while deflecting from Pakistan’s bloodstained hands. As India’s delegations engage 32 countries to expose Pakistan’s role in terrorism, the dossier serves as a stark reminder of Islamabad’s reliance on denial, deflection, and defamation. In a world where fake news outpaces facts, Pakistan’s propaganda machinery churns on, but the truth of Operation Sindoor and Pakistan’s complicity, remains undeniable.
Comments