A Calculated Power Move
In what appears to be a chilling repeat of history, sources within Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment have confirmed that the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir was not a rogue act, but a deliberate case of state-sanctioned terrorism. At the heart of this orchestrated escalation stands Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Asim Munir.
This report continues my ongoing investigative series connecting covert ISI operations to Pakistan’s internal power politics and regional instability. According to multiple insiders from Military Intelligence (MI) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the attack was ordered directly by Asim Munir and executed through the ISI’s Special Operations Division.
A Pattern of Provocation
This is not General Munir’s first involvement in a major terrorist incident. During the 2019 Pulwama attack, he served as Director General of the ISI. Now in 2025, as Army Chief, he appears to have repeated history—this time with even graver consequences.
Military insiders reveal the Pahalgam operation was designed to provoke a controlled escalation with India using the existing communication channels like hotline between both country’s Director Generals of the Military Operations to avoid escalation into a nuclear catastrophe. The timing was strategic. Munir reportedly sought to use the resulting tension to strengthen his domestic standing, paving the way for his recent self-promotion to Field Marshal and an extension of his tenure—mirroring the authoritarian legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq.
Background: A Calculated Power Move
General Munir has long been accused of manipulating crises to consolidate his authority. His promotion to Field Marshal has only amplified concerns about his ambitions to become a de facto ruler. According to intelligence leaks and defence analysts, the Pahalgam attack was part of a broader political strategy.
The intent, sources suggest, was to trigger an Indian military response, allowing Munir to position himself as the indispensable guardian of national security. This narrative has bolstered his grip on power—albeit at the cost of regional stability and Pakistan’s international credibility. India’s official response, including pointed accusations from Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, further reinforced Munir’s domestic security narrative, making the gambit appear temporarily successful.
The Mechanics of the Attack
The operation was reportedly overseen by Major General Muhammad Shahab Aslam, Director General of the ISI’s Special Operations Division. Aslam, a senior officer from the 14th Sind Regiment, executed the mission under the direct oversight of DG ISI Lt. Gen. Asim Malik.
Logistical coordination came from the ISI’s Special Operations Director Muhammad Haroon Murtaza and Special Operations Directorate Detachment in Rawalpindi, chaired by DDG Ahmed Arifeen—both experienced in covert overseas roles under diplomatic cover. Murtaza previously served as Trade and Cultural Attaché at the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi before being expelled for espionage. Arifeen, meanwhile, operated out of Geneva, forging links with Khalistani separatists before returning to oversee arms and narcotics trafficking across the Punjab border.
Execution on the ground involved proscribed organisations—namely Lashkar-e-Taiba remnants operating under the rebranded Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Despite resistance from the ISI’s own Analysis Wing, the plan was approved by Munir and proceeded as intended.
This network of handlers and militant proxies paints a grim portrait of a military leadership willing to manufacture crises to extend its rule, eroding institutions and public trust in the process.
Domestic and International Ramifications
The attack provoked a strong Indian response. General Anil Chauhan publicly blamed Pakistan, referencing a venomous anti-India speech by Munir delivered just days before the incident. In retaliation, India has unveiled a new doctrine tying terrorism to water diplomacy—hinting at the use of river resources as leverage in future conflicts.
Prominent analysts, including Dr Moeed Pirzada, confirmed that US defence sources also believe Munir orchestrated the attack for political purposes. “According to defence analysts in the US,” Pirzada stated, “General Asim Munir and the Pakistan military are responsible for the Pahalgam attack… staged for his own political ambitions.”
Silencing the Messenger
As part of this investigation, I contacted the Pakistan Army’s Directorate General of Inter-Services Public Relations (@OfficialDGISPR) and the GHQ Military Intelligence Directorate via my longstanding email (talktoadilraja@proton.me). Rather than offering a response, the account was hacked and permanently deleted—an apparent attempt to obstruct this inquiry.
Undeterred, I followed up using secure alternative addresses and posted a public request for comment:
“I am currently working on an investigative story concerning the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its alleged involvement in special operations abroad in collaboration with proscribed militant organisations… Please provide your comments on these allegations by the end of the working day tomorrow on June 17, 2025.”
(Shared publicly and emailed directly to MI Directorate)
Despite confirmation of delivery to official military addresses, no response has been received after three attempts.
The Bigger Picture
These findings expose how Pakistan’s military, under General Munir, continues to manufacture instability for personal and institutional gain. Far from defending the nation, Munir’s actions are dragging Pakistan backwards—politically, economically, and diplomatically.
His alleged transformation from a uniformed general into a power-hungry autocrat represents not just a personal moral failure but a national crisis. With Pahalgam, Pakistan hasn’t merely antagonised India—it has undermined its own legitimacy and future.
This investigation—built on insider testimony, defector reports, and international corroboration—is just the beginning. Further exposés on ISI’s covert networks, at home and abroad, will follow.
For now, one urgent question remains:
How long can a nation be held hostage by the ambitions of one man and his military machine?
