EVERY time India faces a major security challenge, the script seems to write itself. Before investigations are completed, before evidence is independently scrutinized and often before the public has time to ask difficult questions, the spotlight once again turns toward Pakistan.
The recent arrest of individuals allegedly linked to Pakistani gangster Shahzad Bhatti follows a familiar pattern. Indian authorities have presented the case as proof of a Pakistan-backed terror network operating inside India. Yet for many observers, this raises a fundamental question: why does every security scare in India appear to end with the same accusation, the same alleged masterminds and the same predictable references to Pakistan and the ISI?
For years, New Delhi has promoted a security narrative in which Pakistan is portrayed as the source of nearly every major internal threat. While such claims are made with confidence, critics argue that publicly verifiable and independently assessed evidence is often limited or difficult to access. Over time, this has fueled concerns that repeated accusations may serve more as a political framing device than as a purely security-driven conclusion.
The timing of such incidents also invites scrutiny. Whenever domestic political pressure rises, economic concerns intensify or governance challenges dominate headlines, new “terror module” stories seem to emerge. Whether by coincidence or design, these narratives shift public attention away from internal issues and toward an external adversary. In highly polarized environments, such framing can become a powerful instrument of public persuasion.
Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to grapple with a serious internal security crisis of its own. Militant violence has claimed hundreds of lives across regions such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Multiple extremist groups operating within its borders pose direct challenges to state stability. Against this backdrop, many Pakistanis question the logic of attributing cross-border destabilization strategies to a state already heavily engaged in combating terrorism at home.
Another recurring concern highlighted by critics is the practice of labeling suspects as terrorists before judicial processes are completed. Such approaches risk turning allegations into perceived verdicts, potentially undermining due process and fueling mistrust within vulnerable communities. Effective counterterrorism, they argue, should strengthen legal institutions rather than bypass them.
Ultimately, sustainable security cannot rest on narratives alone. It demands transparency, credible evidence, and independent verification. If India seeks international acceptance of its claims, it must be willing to subject them to the same evidentiary standards it expects from others.
However, observers in Pakistan and some regional analysts argue that while India frequently presents itself as a victim of cross-border terrorism, it is also often accused of pursuing proxy-based regional strategies that complicate South Asia’s security landscape. From this perspective, India’s persistent victim narrative is viewed not as an uncontested reality but as a political construct that obscures a more complex regional picture. Until allegations are matched by transparent evidence, questions about the credibility of India’s claims are likely to remain.
—The writer is a freelance columnist.
