Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam Attack: How India’s Internal Faultlines Undermine Its Global Messaging (2025)

On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, striking nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack that killed 26 people. At a briefing, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, flanked by two women armed forces representatives, declared that the Pahalgam attack aimed to ignite communal strife. His call for unity went viral, but more than Misri’s message of unity—which many sane Indians have been voicing with fear and risk since April 22—it was the presence of Colonel Sofia Qureshi at the briefing that hit more headlines. While many hailed it as “real India,” some commentators pointed out how this secular tokenism and these optics cannot hide or change the daily reality of discrimination and violence faced by Muslims in India.

The inclusion of Sofia Qureshi or Vikram Misri’s secular message in the briefing is reassuring indeed, but more importantly, it serves a purpose for India’s international posturing in countering Pakistan; those who say more or less the same thing internally are targeted as anti-nationals, and their patriotism remains perpetually suspect. Consider how ordinary Kashmiris and Muslims across India reacted to Pahalgam.

In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, a wave of solidarity and anger swept Kashmir. Kashmiri politicians, civil society, trade unions, and the local Muslim clergy called for a total shutdown. There were candlelight marches and public demonstrations across the Kashmir valley. The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution unequivocally condemning this wanton massacre. Furthermore, many Kashmiris came forward to help the distressed tourists.

An equally strong wave of condemnation from Muslims across India followed. Muslim politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi were among the first to acknowledge the anti-Hindu nature of the massacre. Friday prayers at mosques across India saw protests.

But none of this prevented certain Indian TV news anchors from exploiting the tragedy. They found a new opportunity to further their decade-long, polarising, communal agenda—even as most eyewitness interviews from Pahalgam showed that local Kashmiris saved tourists’ lives, sheltered them in their homes, fed them, and carried victims to hospitals without charging a single rupee. Some tourists even slammed the media for this polarisation.

One anchor cut off an eyewitness who was praising the Kashmiri man who saved his life. Another anchor even went so far as to blame the Supreme Court for allowing elections in Kashmir. There are multiple videos of far-right YouTubers bullying Muslims and Kashmiris.

Alarmingly, this polarising social media and TV rhetoric was quickly followed by intense anti-Muslim boycott campaigns, hate rallies, and physical attacks targeting Kashmiri students and Muslim workers. Law enforcement failed to deter far-right leaders from vandalism and fear-mongering under the slogan “Dharm dekha, jaati nahi” (“Terrorists checked religion, not caste”).

Also Read | Sofia Qureshi is the symbol; Fathima carries the rubble

Several cryptic threats went viral on Meta platforms, urging Hindus to arm themselves against Muslims. One image showed axes, swords, and machetes with the caption: “Gold is too expensive. Hindus, it’s time to buy iron. You will need it very soon.” Another read: “It is needed to cut big fruits like coconut, muskmelon, watermelon, etc. It is also used to cut trees and tree branches. It is also helpful to fight with suddenly intruding wild animals. Please buy it and keep it with you.”

Hate campaigns

Since the Pahalgam attack, several revenge videos of vandalism and assault emerged, but none as chilling as the video from Agra, in which a Hindu extremist claimed responsibility for shooting two Muslim men. Police quickly clarified the video was fabricated, but the damage was done. According to police, one Muslim man was killed in a separate incident, unrelated to the video. The perpetrator reportedly sought notoriety. Later reports suggested that the attackers intended to record the murder to vitiate public order.

A Muslim man from Kerala was lynched in Mangaluru after being falsely accused of pro-Pakistan sloganeering during a cricket match. In Uttarakhand, there was a fresh wave of violence against Kashmiris and local Muslims. While police have contained the attacks, they have done little to restrict the online mobilisation driving this incitement.

Such incitement and rampant violence warranted a decisive response from both central and State leaderships. Yet, no warnings were issued to the extremists who exploited the tragedy to attack Muslims with impunity. It is unlikely these emboldened vigilantes will stop without intervention from those they are trying to please. The government had feebly advised the media to refrain from sensationalist, source-based reporting on military affairs—which only skyrocketed after Operation Sindoor.

If TV anchors are to be believed, we are already Akhand Bharat. Even if the advisory on sensational reportage failed, no similar advisory has been issued regarding communal narratives on TV media. They have continued to poison the public sphere with fake news. Several channels presented a civilian killed in Pakistani shelling as the National Investigation Agency’s most wanted terrorist killed in Indian missile attacks on Pakistan terror camps.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Minister have made appeals for harmony or even condemned these attacks and vilification campaigns.

And when Himanshi Narwal, the wife of Lieutenant Vinay Narwal who was killed in Pahalgam, refused to let her grief be weaponised to justify retaliatory attacks on Muslims, she was attacked. Himanshi appealed for communal harmony and asked people not to target Kashmiris and Muslims. This triggered a wave of sexualised slander, doxxing, and abuse from right-wing influencers. One may recall how the same influencers turned her into a Ghibli-fied, AI-generated poster child for communal propaganda just after the attack. But the moment she spoke her mind, she was vilified and dismissed.

So there is little urgency to curb retaliatory hate speech and violent acts, which actually undermine India’s integrity and unity, but critics say that there is an ongoing targeting of citizens, activists, and influencers who question the government over security lapses in Pahalgam or who warn against communal revenge campaigns.

And then there is mass censorship. Even as Pakistan has lifted the blanket ban on X accounts in response to the growing escalation between the two countries, on May 8, X banned over 8,000 Indian users in the country following Indian government orders. This includes many news sites like Maktoob, a platform that reports on minority rights in India, and several journalists. The government of India even banned the official account of X Global Affairs, which informed about the bans. This ban was lifted after X deleted the tweet in which it objected to the bans and said that most requests did not specify which law these accounts had violated. It started with a ban on the YouTube channel of 4 PM news and was followed by FIRs on influencers questioning security lapses, and now a ban on The Wire’s website.

For instance, the Uttar Pradesh Police registered FIRs against the poet Neha Singh Rathore and the satirist Madri Kakoti (popularly known as Dr. Medusa) over their social media posts about Pahalgam. Among other charges, they have been accused of undermining India’s integrity and unity. An Uttar Pradesh court dismissed the case against Rathore.

The FIR in Kakoti’s case also contains little substance describing her alleged crime. Since the day of the attack, she has released multiple videos, summarised below:

First video: She questioned the government over the security failure and demanded accountability.

Second video: She explained that while the attack was a targeted killing of Hindus, its goal was to cause communal unrest—not much different from Foreign Secretary Misri’s statement.

Next two videos: She called for support for Kashmiri students and criticised the media for communal polarisation.

Protests erupted against Kakoti’s comments after this tweet from her handle, @ms_medusssa, went viral (translated into English):

“Killing someone after confirming their religion is terrorism.

And so is:

Lynching someone after confirming their religion,

Firing someone from a job after confirming their religion,

Refusing to rent a house after confirming their religion,

Bulldozing a house after confirming their religion, and so on.

This is terrorism as well.

Recognise the real terrorist.”

It is argued that this content spreads Pakistan’s narrative, divides Indians, and incites violence, since a Pakistani X account shared her posts.

But what is Pakistan’s narrative in this conflict, after all?

Days before the Pahalgam attack, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir said that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. He called Kashmir Pakistan’s “jugular vein” and claimed that Pakistan is the only nation, after Makkah, established on Islamic principles. Pakistani officials and commentators defended Munir by citing similarly polarising statements made by BJP leaders.

Is there no truth to this argument? Does not the divisive commentary by right-wing influencers, politicians, and certain TV anchors—who fan Hindu-Muslim divisions after every tragedy, from train accidents to terror attacks to even pandemics—mirror Pakistan’s two-nation theory narrative? And how is calling out those who exploit tragedies for their domestic political interests a crime when exposing foreign forces who do the same is considered the highest form of patriotism?

While the Indian government has rightly cracked down on some Pakistani psy-op influencers, it has done little to shut down domestic actors peddling the same narrative for internal political goals. Even the current response appears haphazard. Should banning cricket commentary, artists, entertainment channels, or legitimate news from Pakistan be a priority when India faces dozens—if not hundreds—of foreign and Indian influencers engaged in disinformation and communal mobilisation?

Also Read | Operation Sindoor and the long game nobody’s ready for

Meanwhile, Pakistani disinformation campaigns cover all fronts but focus on three major objectives:

Outreach to Indian Muslims through Hindi-language posts on X and Instagram, highlighting persecution. These messages attempt to exploit communal anxieties and link unrelated events, like the waqf protest and old videos of violence, to the conflict. By not allowing Indians, especially Muslims, to openly counter it internally in a democratic way, New Delhi opens the door to those who do it with mala fide intentions. Then there is an element of “Ummah solidarity”. The Pakistani far right argues that Indian Muslims have become traitors to the community by supporting Hindutva aggression on Muslims.

They are framing India as “Israel of South Asia”, and Pakistan as Gaza, portraying an imminent ethnic cleansing. Indian anchors and influencers demanding an Israel-like response or a Hindu vs Muslim war risk eroding not only India’s goodwill among Islamic nations but also alienating Indian Muslims. For instance, the viral video of the desecration of a green Islamic flag with the Islamic Kalima written on it. Pakistani influencers have amplified the video to mobilise support from Muslims across the globe, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Add to this, videos of demolitions, alleged fake encounters, or other instances of performative justice—they only risk alienating Kashmiris further. At a time when Kashmiris are united in grief and anger over the Pahalgam attack, New Delhi must not lose their goodwill, especially as inimical actors seek to deepen the divide between Kashmir and Delhi. If India wants the world to consider its international messaging seriously, the ruling BJP must mend its domestic majoritarian rhetoric.

But there has been little visible effort to address these social fissures this tragedy has deepened.

Indian military veterans have warned against falling into the trap set by the attackers, who selectively killed Hindu men, leaving women and children to tell the tale. New Delhi’s response is ideological; one that rejects the two-nation theory, but it remains strictly limited to their external messaging. Whether this atmosphere of unity will extend to India’s domestic politics—once tensions between India and Pakistan ease—remains to be seen.

Alishan Jafri is an independent journalist and producer based in New Delhi. He writes on human rights, media, disinformation andpolitics.