Pakistan Army Chief’s statement: Was that a hint?

The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam where 26 innocent Hindus were brutally targeted and killed, appears to be more than an isolated act of violence — it is the chilling consequence of a sustained ideological indoctrination. Claimed by ‘The Resistance Force’, a Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked group, the attack aligns disturbingly with the provocative rhetoric of Pakistan Army Chief’s address for the conclave of Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad, who invoked the divisive two-nation theory and glorified martyrdom as a duty across generations. His emotionally charged speech delivered on April 16, framing Pakistan’s identity in direct opposition to Hindus, dangerously serves as both justification and a rallying cry for terror outfits, fueling an unending cycle of hate and bloodshed. Following is a glimpse of the venom he spilled against Hindus of Bharat.

Instilled division based on religious identity

“You have to narrate Pakistan’s story to your children so that they don’t forget it when our forefathers thought we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life.”

Resurrected the partition line

“Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different, that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation,” he added.

Evoked martyrdom to justify future confrontation

“Our forefathers, they have sacrificed immensely, and we have sacrificed a lot for the creation of this country, and we know how to defend it”

Conditioning generations for an unending ideological struggle

“Please don’t forget the story of Pakistan, and don’t forget to narrate this story of Pakistan to your next generation, so that their bond with Pakistan never weakens, whether it is the third generation, or the fourth generation, or the fifth generation, they know what Pakistan is for them”

What does ‘Chief’ of any nation’s army have to do with ‘religion’?

What does the Chief of any nation’s army have to do with religion — especially in matters of national security? In Pakistan, an Islamic state by constitution, the military is expected to protect the country, not propagate religious narratives. Yet, the recent speech by Pakistan’s Army Chief was laced with references to Islamic identity, the two-nation theory, and an ideological struggle against Hindus. Why was the head of a professional military force suddenly invoking religion so passionately?

And then, almost immediately, a horrific terror attack in Kashmir follows, targeting Hindus. The sequence is too pointed to be ignored. It raises serious concerns about how religious rhetoric from a top military official in an Islamic state could embolden extremist elements. The fact that at least two of the terrorists held for their inhumanity belong to Pakistan cannot be overlooked. When national identity is framed in opposition to another faith, it risks becoming a justification for violence — and the consequences, as seen in Pahalgam, are tragically real.

‘The Resistance Force’ and linkages with Pakistan

Lashkar-e-Taiba linked ‘The Resistance Force’ had immediately claimed responsibility for the heinous act from Pahalgam. The Front is a relatively new terror outfit that has emerged as a key player in the militancy landscape of Kashmir, particularly after the abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A in August 2019.

The group first declared its existence on 12 October 2019 via the encrypted messaging app Telegram, claiming responsibility for a grenade attack at Srinagar’s Lal Chowk that injured eight civilians. TRF has since positioned itself as part of a new wave of indigenous terror, appearing to counter the relative peace and developmental progress in the region.

Despite a decline in overall violence — such as reduced infiltration attempts, suicide bombings, and stone-pelting —TRF represents a concerning evolution in Pakistan-backed proxy warfare. Officials regard the group as a strategic attempt to revive terrorism under a rebranded banner. TRF has specifically targeted minority communities, issuing threats and claiming responsibility for brutal civilian killings, which underscores its growing influence and lethal intent in the Kashmir Valley.

TRF was formed as part of Pakistan's broader effort to rebrand and restructure its terror operations in Kashmir in response to increasing international scrutiny. With Pakistan facing persistent pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and being retained on the grey list due to its support for terror financing, its intelligence agency — the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — adopted a new strategy to distance itself from globally recognized jihadist groups.

TRF was created to serve as a proxy outfit that could operate under a less overtly religious and less controversial image. Unlike traditional terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (“Army of the Pure”) or Hizbul Mujahideen (“Party of Holy Fighters”), TRF was deliberately named using English, with a non-religious and non-sectarian identity. This rebranding was aimed at portraying the group as an indigenous, secular resistance movement to avoid scrutiny and appear more legitimate on the global stage.

Despite its projected image as a secular and indigenous movement, The Resistance Front (TRF) has exhibited clear patterns of religiously motivated violence. A notable example occurred on 7 October 2021, when TRF’s so-called ‘Shaheed Gazi Squad’ carried out a targeted attack at a government school in the Sangam area of Srinagar. The attackers identified individuals based on their religious identity before killing Supinder Kaur, a Sikh school principal, and Deepak Chand, a Hindu teacher. This incident demonstrated that, contrary to its non-sectarian branding, TRF’s operational tactics are driven by sectarian motives.

While TRF was formed to appear distinct from earlier jihadist groups and potentially gain broader legitimacy, its actions reveal a focus on communal targeting. In the evolving post-Article 370 environment, where some youth feel politically alienated, TRF seeks to exploit these sentiments — fostering radicalism and religious polarization under the guise of resistance, thereby expanding its recruitment and operational reach.

Source: ORF

Pakistan Deep State’s “Propaganda”

A paper titled “The Threat of Transnational Terrorist Groups in Kashmir”, as it goes on discussing the impact of abrogating Article 370 on Kashmir mentions, “The government in Delhi has purportedly taken such a historic step to change the separatist narrative to an economic-development narrative while creating a new political leadership through local self-governing bodies. India’s central government hopes to attract investment, create jobs, and make militancy irrelevant by fully integrating Kashmir into India. However, in local popular perception, Article 370 was a symbol of Kashmir’s unique cultural and religious identity. Its abrogation has generated many fears. Local Muslims fear that the Modi government will bring outsiders into Kashmir who might occupy their lands, change the demography, and exploit the natural resources of the state. Most such fears appear to be based on ignorance or are the result of malicious propaganda emanating from Pakistan’s deep state, local politicians, or from Islamist organisations. Over the last 30 years, religious radicalisation has turned out to be the biggest threat to ‘Kashmiriryat’.” (Source: Perspectives on Terrorism , Vol. 14)

The fact that despite the Indian government’s efforts to deradicalize the youth of the region by providing them opportunities to reap the benefits of development projects initiated in J&K, there have been forces functioning across the border and also from within the nation, working persistently to minimize the impact of ‘vikas’ in the region. These forces need to be identified and their anti-national plans demand serious action.

How does the world define ‘terrorism’?

So far it seems pretty clear of how the Pahalgam terror attack has a thin lining of Islam to it. Now the question is whether the world is going to speak about it or is it going to maintain a hush about it, as usual? How the world perceives ‘terrorism’ plays an important role for every nation that is fighting terrorism, which is why it matters. Let us look at some globally accepted traditional definitions of terrorism that are as follows:

1. United Nations – Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004)

"Terrorism" includes criminal acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the public, intimidate a population, or compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

2. European Union – Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002)

Terrorist offenses are intentional acts that seriously damage a country or international organization, when committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a government or international organization to perform or abstain from any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures.

3. United States – Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR §0.85)

“Terrorism” means the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

4. United Kingdom – Terrorism Act 2000

“Terrorism” means the use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international organization or to intimidate the public, made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. The actions involve serious violence, damage to property, endangering life, or creating serious risks to public safety.

5. NATO Definition

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

This provides an insight of how the world views terrorism. All these international bodies define ‘terrorism’ in its most fundamental nature, however, none of it completely resonates with the practical implications of the issue. Considering the several parameters that are referred by terrorists to justify their acts of terror, religion too is an important one. And the fact that no other religion has been so largely involved in armed acts of terror as much as Islam, cannot be denied. At least presently India is not in a position to deny this & the Pahalgam tragedy is an alarming call for the same.

The world needs to define “Terrorism” with a more practical approach to find a concrete solution to the issue. This is undisputedly the biggest lesson learnt from the Pahalgam Tragedy.