Will There Be An End To The Indian Authored Terrorism Script

On February 12, 2025, another round of cross-border fire rattled the heavily militarized Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. Pakistani sources confirmed at least four casualties, while the Indian side accused Pakistan of “unprovoked firing.” The latest escalation follows the deaths of two Indian soldiers in an improvised explosive attack, bringing back into focus the decades-old conflict in the world’s most militarized zone.

As February 14 approaches, it brings a grim reminder of the 2019 Pulwama attack—an event that catalyzed a dangerous spiral, leading to India’s Balakot airstrikes and Pakistan’s swift retort. That crisis moment also saw India engaging in a global lobbying campaign to place Pakistan under increasing pressure by leveraging platforms like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). India’s narrative, intertwined with the global “war on terror” framework, framed Pakistan as a “terrorist hub,” although negotiations with the ‘designated terrorists’ were also underway, and India sought to align its diplomatic efforts with international counterterrorism strategies. This strategy gained traction in Western circles, pushing Pakistan into the spotlight for alleged links to militant groups. But in 2025, with the world having moved past the “war on terror” paradigm, where does that narrative stand?

For over two decades, India leveraged the post-9/11 global security framework to shape its discourse on Kashmir. The U.S.-led “war on terror” provided a convenient template: equate Kashmiri resistance with terrorism, link it to Pakistan, and use this alignment to gain international support for its policies. The message was clear—Pakistan was to be seen as a rogue state exporting terrorism, while India positioned itself as a victim.

However, that global alignment no longer exists. With Donald Trump back in the White House for his second term, American foreign policy has pivoted sharply towards “America First” once again. Trump’s non-interventionist approach and transactional diplomacy have left India without the external validation it once enjoyed. Just recently, when pressed about Bangladesh, Trump dismissed it as India-Bangladesh’s matter saying, “I will leave Bangladesh to the Prime Minister” as Modi during his US visit brought questions on the role of the “US deep state” in the affairs of Bangladesh. President Trump said, “Well, there was no role for our deep state… This is something that the Prime Minister has been working on for a long time and has been working on it for hundreds of years. Frankly, I’ve been reading about it, but I will leave Bangladesh to the Prime Minister.”

If Kashmir, a recognized disputed territory, follows the same logic in Washington’s calculus, where does that leave India’s global campaign of framing Pakistan as per the lens of Indian authored terrorism script?

Also See: All Eyes on Kashmir: Has Pakistan Lost Kashmir? Let’s Talk Facts, Not Fiction

The Post-9/11 Playbook: How India Used the War on Terror For the Indian Authored Terrorism Script

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the world’s focus shifted to transnational terrorism, presenting India with a strategic opportunity to reframe its decades-long occupation of Kashmir as a counterterrorism campaign. Armed resistance within the valley was systematically branded as Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, placing incidents like the November 1999 Badamibagh Headquarter Attack, 2001 Srinagar Legislative Assembly bombing, 2003 Akhnoor attack, 2005 Srinagar Passport Office bombing (in a high-security zone near Bakshi Stadium), 2016 Uri Indian Army base attack, and 2019 Pulwama bombing under the global war on terror umbrella.

The real game-changer was the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, for which Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) was blamed. The timing was critical—occurring just months after 9/11, it allowed India to align itself with the U.S.-led war on terror, justifying Operation Parakram, a massive Indo-Pak military standoff. With Washington fully committed to its counterterrorism doctrine, India leveraged global anti-terror sentiments to frame Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, resulting in heightened diplomatic and military pressure on Islamabad.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks became India’s most potent diplomatic weapon. This single event shifted global perceptions, portraying Pakistan as the epicenter of international jihadist networks. The narrative further gained traction with the 2016 Pathankot attack, which played a key role in Pakistan’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey-listing, increasing Western pressure on Islamabad.

Throughout this period, Washington increasingly aligned with New Delhi—a shift driven by U.S. strategic interests rather than purely counterterrorism concerns. India’s counterterrorism framing helped cement its status as a key U.S. ally, while Pakistan faced diplomatic isolation under the shadow of FATF and accusations of state-sponsored extremism.

Despite India’s successful diplomacy, a crucial distinction remained—the difference between attacks in disputed territory of Kashmir (a region with a documented struggle for self-determination) and those in mainland India.

Attacks in Kashmir: India labeled them as “cross-border terrorism,” despite the well-documented indigenous roots of Kashmiri resistance.
Attacks on Indian Mainland: These became the centerpiece of India’s global case against Pakistan.

However, post-26/11 Mumbai, a major shift occurred. Groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, constantly blamed by India, recalibrated their tactical and strategic approach. No major attacks on Indian soil took place after 2008. Instead, internal insurgencies within India began to gain more prominence:

Manipur: Insurgencies like the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and Kuki Liberation Army have been fighting for autonomy, fueled by ethnic and political grievances. Violent clashes with Indian forces have escalated in recent years.
Naxalite Movement (Maoists): The People’s War Group operates across Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh. With an estimated 10,000 active fighters, the insurgency persists despite extensive military operations, driven by economic deprivation and land rights issues.
Assam: The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) has been fighting for Assam’s independence since the 1980s, using guerrilla warfare and bombings. The insurgency is fueled by ethnic tensions and perceptions of cultural erosion.
Nagaland: The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) has been demanding independence since the 1950s, using terrorist tactics and negotiations with the Indian government. Peace talks have been ongoing, but the insurgency is far from resolved.
Kashmir: While external actors like Pakistan have been accused of supporting insurgent groups like Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammad, the region has seen an increase in local-led resistance movements since 2008, driven by self-determination aspirations.

These insurgencies have exposed India’s internal vulnerabilities, and the narrative that Pakistan was the primary source of terrorism beyond Kashmir lost credibility. Economic inequality, ethnic autonomy, and marginalization became recognized as key drivers of internal violence in India. This undermined India’s terrorism narrative, as the claim that Pakistan was exporting terrorism beyond Kashmir became increasingly difficult to sustain.

From 2008 to 2019, India amplified the “cross-border terrorism” rhetoric in Kashmir. The 2019 Pulwama attack was New Delhi’s last major opportunity to sustain this momentum. However, Pakistan’s “Swift Retort” after India’s Balakot airstrikes reshaped the regional military calculus, proving that Islamabad would not allow unilateral actions to go unanswered.

2025: The Global War on Terror is Over – Now It’s Just India, Pakistan, and Kashmir

Fast forward to today, and the geopolitical landscape looks starkly different. With the global war on terror effectively over, India has lost its most potent diplomatic leverage. The U.S., once an eager ally in counterterrorism efforts, is now led by a president whose priority is clear—America First. Global security concerns are no longer Washington’s burden.

We can observe this shift in events like the Gaza-Israel war, the ongoing situation in Syria, where Ahmed al-Sharaa, a designated global terrorist, remains untouched after the U.S. removed its bounty on him, and the Afghan Taliban, who were once declared a global terrorist group, seated at the negotiation table with the U.S, and are now the interim rulers of Afghanistan post U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. The former stance—”We do not negotiate with terrorists”—has evolved into pragmatic engagement, despite these groups being on designated terrorist lists. Regardless of who was in office, Biden or Trump, negotiations have taken place.

What Does This Mean for Kashmir?

If the U.S. has redefined its approach, could we see a similar shift when it comes to the Indian Authored Terrorism Script in the Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK)? Consider this: on 5 February 2025, Hamas leaders were seen sharing a stage with Kashmiri leadership in Kotli, Azad Kashmir. Also, recently the calls calling Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) a “base camp”, were also made.

What implications does this have for the region, especially in the context of India’s efforts to suppress Kashmiri resistance? With billions invested in quelling this movement, could it be that India is losing Kashmir?

Trump’s priorities in 2025 lie elsewhere—domestic economic growth, countering China’s economic rise, and reducing America’s foreign military entanglements. Even in the Middle East, the U.S. focus has shifted from counterterrorism to energy and economic diplomacy. In this scenario, where does India’s terrorism mantra stand?

India’s Terrorism Narrative in a Changing World

If the war on terror is no longer the cornerstone of global diplomacy, what happens to India’s long-standing campaign to portray Pakistan as the global epicenter of terrorism? Without a receptive international audience, does this narrative hold any weight beyond New Delhi’s own echo chamber?

India’s terrorism rhetoric, once amplified by a shared global concern, is facing a shrinking resonance in an era that prioritizes economic diplomacy and national interests over counterterrorism alliances. As global priorities shift, the question remains: How long will India’s terrorism narrative continue to dominate international discourse?

Kashmir in 2025: The Unfinished Business

With international backing diminishing, the Kashmir issue is now back to its original state—a bilateral (or rather trilateral) dispute involving Pakistan, India, and China. The underlying issue remains unchanged: Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint, and its people continue to resist what they perceive as settler colonialism. After the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, India has doubled down on demographic engineering, attempting to alter the Muslim-majority identity of the region through new domicile laws. This has fueled renewed local resistance, intensifying the very conflict New Delhi sought to suppress.

Yet, the real shift is the international indifference. Without the umbrella of counterterrorism rhetoric, New Delhi can no longer use global sympathy as a shield for its policies in Kashmir. The old playbook is outdated.

Where Does the Terrorism Debate Go From Here?

With the global war on terror buried, the old vocabulary of “cross-border terrorism” may still echo in Indian media and political rhetoric, but its effectiveness as a diplomatic tool is fading. Instead, India faces hard realities:

Kashmir remains a dispute recognized by international law. The war on terror allowed India to blur this distinction, but now that cover is gone.
Pakistan is no longer on the defensive. With no major attacks on Indian soil since 26/11 and no global war on terror to be used against it, Islamabad can shift its narrative to human rights, self-determination, and settler colonialism.
The international community is disengaged. With Trump focused on America First, and global priorities shifting to economic recovery and great power competition, India’s terrorism narrative has lost its core audience.

As 2025 unfolds, the question remains: If India can no longer rely on the ‘Pakistan is a terrorist hub’ narrative, what next? Will it engage in meaningful diplomacy, or will it double down on repression in Kashmir? Will Pakistan capitalize on this shift and push the Kashmir issue more aggressively on human rights platforms?

And most importantly, with India, Pakistan, and China all nuclear-armed, how long can the world afford to ignore Kashmir before another Pulwama-style event pushes South Asia to the brink?

One thing is certain—without the war on terror as a backdrop, Kashmir is once again at the center of the chessboard, and this time, there is no external referee.