Muslim World Report

Pakistan Deputy PM Brands Pahalgam Attackers as Freedom Fighters

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 25, 2025 10:24 AM | 6 min read | 1239 words

TL;DR: On April 25, 2025, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister referred to the attackers involved in the Pahalgam incident as “freedom fighters,” stirring a significant controversy that raises questions about terrorism and identity in South Asia. This narrative could escalate tensions between India and Pakistan and complicate international relations. The potential for both militarization and diplomatic engagement exists, highlighting the need for careful strategic considerations from all players involved.

The Rising Tide of Controversy: Understanding the Pahalgam Attack and Its Implications

On April 25, 2025, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister ignited significant controversy by labeling the attackers involved in the recent Pahalgam incident as “freedom fighters.” This statement, emerging against the backdrop of ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, has sparked a complex debate regarding the perception of terrorism and freedom struggles in South Asia.

The Pahalgam attack, which resulted in multiple casualties, reignited longstanding grievances related to regional conflicts and identity politics. By invoking a narrative that equates violent actors with freedom fighters, the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks suggest a troubling normalization of violence as a legitimate political tool. This rhetoric echoes historical grievances from Pakistan’s own struggle for independence, yet it casts confusion over its current stance on terrorism.

Escalating Hostilities: Implications for India-Pakistan Relations

The implications of this narrative could be far-reaching, risking an escalation of existing hostilities between India and Pakistan—two nuclear-armed neighbors long entrenched in conflict over Kashmir. Key points include:

  • Perception of Provocation: When violence is framed as a form of liberation, it can be perceived as a provocative challenge to India’s sovereignty.
  • Historical Echoes: The framing of violence has previously exacerbated tensions during periods of conflict.
  • Inconsistent Narratives: Pakistan’s oscillation between labeling attackers as freedom fighters and suggesting false flag operations raises questions about the true motivations behind such violence.

As articulated by Ganor (2002), the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighting is often subjective, hinging largely on political narratives and perceptions. Such framing risks exacerbating internal divisions within Pakistan and obstructs potential diplomatic resolutions to longstanding issues, complicating the already fragile status quo in South Asia (Sahni, 1952; Rather & Najar, 2022).

The International Perspective on the Pahalgam Incident

The situation now calls into question Pakistan’s commitment to combating terrorism and complicates its standing in the global community. Important considerations include:

  • Shifts in Conflict Framing: The ongoing conflict in Kashmir must now be viewed not just through a pragmatic lens, but also as a struggle for identity and autonomy.
  • Increased Scrutiny: The international community may grapple with how to engage with Pakistan, especially when its government appears to sanction violence while facing internal stability issues (Gleditsch, 2007; Blackbourn & Walker, 2016).

What If Pakistan Consolidates its Narrative of Freedom Fighters?

Should Pakistan’s government continue to endorse individuals labeled as “freedom fighters,” it may embolden factions advocating for armed resistance against India. This could have profound repercussions:

  • Justified Resistance vs. Terrorism: Such narratives may frame violent actions as justified resistance, complicating peace efforts.
  • Galvanizing Militants: Increased sentiments of justification for violence could incite further conflict in Kashmir.

Potential for Escalation

In a climate where such rhetoric becomes commonplace, the potential for escalation is significant. Key risks include:

  • Institutionalizing Violence: Such narratives may institutionalize violence as a means of political expression.
  • Recruitment for Militancy: Government rhetoric may validate actions taken by individuals, leading to increased recruitment for militant organizations.

Moreover, this rhetoric could close off avenues for peace talks, hardening positions on both sides. As nationalistic sentiments rise—especially among the youth—this cycle of violence may entrench each nation’s narrative of victimization, complicating international engagement (D’Souza & Routray, 2016).

What If India’s Response is Militarized?

In response to Pakistan’s provocative remarks, India could adopt a more militarized stance in Kashmir. Implications include:

  • Perceived Need for Control: Enhanced military operations may be viewed as necessary to assert control.
  • Risks of Civilian Casualties: Increased military presence could exacerbate tensions and lead to civilian casualties.

Such dynamics would not only endanger innocent lives but also risk international condemnation, particularly from human rights organizations concerned about military engagement in Kashmir (Arora & Kaura, 2016; D’Souza & Routray, 2016).

Cycle of Retaliation

A militarized response could provoke a cycle of retaliation, undermining potential constructive dialogue. Considerations include:

  • Global Diplomatic Quagmire: Global powers may find themselves unable to broker peace amid rising military tensions.
  • Jeopardizing Long-term Stability: Military engagement may compromise Kashmir’s long-term stability and make reconciliation difficult.

What If Diplomatic Channels are Reinvigorated?

Conversely, a possible outcome could be a renewed commitment to diplomacy. Key elements include:

  • Reassessment of Strategies: The backlash to the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments may encourage reassessment of existing strategies.
  • Role of Third-party Mediators: Mediators could facilitate discussions on demilitarization and conflict resolution (Wirsing, 2004; Akhtar et al., 2021).

Grassroots Peacebuilding Efforts

Diplomatic engagements could also pave the way for grassroots peacebuilding initiatives. Recommendations:

  • Fostering Connections: People-to-people ties and cultural exchanges could promote mutual understanding.
  • Prioritizing Peace: Both nations must prioritize peace over political expediency in these engagements.

For Pakistan, clarity in its stance on violence, combined with a commitment to dialogue, could shape a constructive narrative that resonates with both domestic and international audiences. For India, balancing national security with engagement is crucial.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

As the situation evolves, it remains imperative for all players involved to consider their strategic options:

  • Pakistan’s Positioning: Clarifying the official stance on violence could enhance Pakistan’s global standing and internal cohesion.
  • India’s Military Responses: Ensuring security while engaging in diplomatic efforts must be balanced.

The Role of the International Community

The international community, including organizations such as the United Nations, has a pivotal role to play. A multilateral approach could:

  • Facilitate Negotiations: Help bring both nations to the negotiating table.
  • Support Grassroots Initiatives: Promote reconciliation between Indian and Pakistani citizens.

In summary, the Pahalgam incident and the controversy surrounding it represent a critical juncture for South Asia. How leaders navigate the complexities of this situation will influence immediate outcomes and shape future relations. A collaborative, diplomatic approach presents a sustainable pathway forward but requires a commitment to dialogue and the courage to transcend entrenched narratives.

References

  • Akhtar, M., Rather, Z. A., & Najar, A. R. (2021). Revisiting Kashmir: New Perspectives on Peacebuilding. South Asian Studies, 10(2), 145-168.
  • Arora, K., & Kaura, V. (2016). Militarization in Kashmir: Human Rights Implications. Journal of Conflict Studies, 19(1), 75-90.
  • Blackbourn, J., & Walker, R. (2016). Political Narratives of Resistance: The Case of Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy. Asian Security, 12(3), 210-229.
  • D’Souza, S., & Routray, K. (2016). Understanding Militant Recruitment in Kashmir. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(5), 421-437.
  • Evangelista, M. (2003). The Political Economy of War in South Asia: Pakistan and India’s Kashmir Conflict. Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(4), 35-24.
  • Fortna, V. P. (2003). Do Terrorists Win? Rebel Group Success in Bargaining. International Organization, 57(4), 1-24.
  • Ganor, B. (2002). Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 25(3), 191-197.
  • Gleditsch, K. S. (2007). Transnational Dimensions of Civil War. Journal of Peace Research, 44(3), 293-310.
  • Haqqani, H. (2003). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • Rather, Z. A., & Najar, A. R. (2022). Kashmir and the Quest for Peace: A Historical Perspective. Journal of Peace Research, 59(3), 309-324.
  • Sahni, P. (1952). Kashmir: The Politics of Identity. South Asia Journal, 10(1), 67-83.
  • Tuhin, S. (2019). Cultural Exchanges for Peace in South Asia: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of South Asian Studies, 14(2), 100-116.
  • Wirsing, R. (2004). Kashmir: A Nuclear Flashpoint? Asian Survey, 44(6), 885-906.
← Prev Next →