I watched the reports pour in with growing alarm: at precisely 2:20 PM on that fateful day in Pahalgam-6.4 kilometers from the last checkpoint-communications abruptly went dark, and India was quick to point the finger at Pakistan. But as an investigative journalist, I cannot help but ask: what evidence underpins such a hasty accusation? What fissures in the official narrative am I missing? First, consider the pattern of “fake encounters” along the Line of Control. Time and again, operations are justified as responses to cross-border infiltration-yet locals whisper of innocents caught in the crossfire of a larger strategic game. Who truly stood to gain when reports surfaced of an Israeli jet making an unscheduled appearance in Srinagar, purportedly to provide technical equipment? And why have IED calls been tracked not just to militants but to systems allegedly monitored by Indian intelligence? If we accept these details at face value, we must also accept the discomforting possibility that this was not merely a spontaneous attack, but a calculated operation designed to achieve multiple objectives. Repetition of a Political Script: Over the past two decades, India has repeatedly turned to the same playbook-timing high-profile “terror” incidents to coincide with diplomatic engagements or moments of domestic turbulence, then rushing to attribute blame to Pakistan with minimal evidence. From the reported “foiled plots” during President Clinton’s 2000 visit to the manufactured outrage over the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and from the instantaneous accusations in the Uri and Pathankot episodes of 2016 to the hasty Pulwama-Balakot escalation in 2019, each event followed an eerily familiar sequence: sensational headlines, staged or opaque “encounters,” selective leaks to compliant media, and a demand for retaliatory action. The Pahalgam blackout, falling precisely as foreign delegations arrived in Delhi, simply extends this pattern-demonstrating a systematic effort by New Delhi to divert attention from its own governance failures, stoke nationalist fervor, and present Pakistan as a perpetual villain rather than engage in honest dialogue. In an age when false flags and “managed truths” are as potent as any bullet, how do we ensure that justice is served, not sacrificed on the altar of political convenience? At its core, India’s swift accusation against Pakistan appears to serve as a convenient distraction from mounting domestic discontent. By framing the Pahalgam incident as an external conspiracy, attention is deflected from internal governance challenges-ranging from economic slowdown to rising social unrest. More alarmingly, this narrative shift conveniently frames Pakistan as a violator of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, planting seeds of doubt about the integrity of our shared lifeline. Water, after all, is not just a resource; it is the very artery of life for millions on both sides of the border. To threaten it is to flirt with regional catastrophe. Equally troubling is the chorus of voices emerging from within India’s military establishment-voices that speak less of measured strategy than of partisan zeal. I have heard allegations that the army, unrestrained by any meaningful dissent, echoes the hardline stance of the ruling BJP, with no “sane” counterpoint to temper its excesses. Is it credible that a professional military could be so monolithic, so politically aligned, that it would willingly entertain a false-flag operation merely to justify future actions against Pakistan and suppress Kashmir’s freedom struggle? History offers unsettling precedents. Who can forget the controversies surrounding the Pulwama incident, where initial denials gave way to belated explanations? Or the Balakot airstrike, lauded by some in India as “befitting retaliation,” yet challenged by independent analysts as disproportionate and bordering on state-sponsored escalation? And what of the shadow campaigns-fake NGOs, counterfeit websites, and “citizen journalists” whose sensational footage of Pakistan has repeatedly turned out to be AI-generated or repurposed from unrelated events? If we are to trust our eyes and ears, we must first demand transparency and ethical journalism-qualities conspicuously absent in many mainstream Indian outlets today. Beyond the border skirmishes, a darker trend unfolds within India’s own society. Hate crimes against Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other marginalized groups have surged, carried out under the banner of “internal security” or “national unity.” I ask: could the greatest threat to India’s cohesion come not from external enemies, but from the rising tide of sectarian violence and state-endorsed vigilantism at home? And if so, why launch cross-border provocations that risk igniting a full-scale conflict, rather than addressing the wounds festering within? Let us not mince words: tampering with Pakistan’s water supply, whether through physical obstruction or propaganda warfare, constitutes an act of war. No nation can weaponize its rivers without courting disaster-not only for its neighbor but for itself. Pakistan will not sit idle while its most precious resource is held hostage to political expediency. Every drop diverted or poisoned would demand a response, calibrated or otherwise, and the consequences for South Asian stability would be severe. Finally, I wonder: What will it take for cooler heads to prevail? Will the next investigative commission simply rubber-stamp the “official narrative,” or will it probe the murky intersections of politics, military ambition, and media manipulation? Until we insist on hard evidence-independent forensic analysis, unedited communications logs, verifiable eyewitness testimony-we risk being complicit in a carefully orchestrated campaign of disinformation. As I conclude, I pose this question to every reader: in an age when false flags and “managed truths” are as potent as any bullet, how do we ensure that justice is served, not sacrificed on the altar of political convenience? Only by demanding transparency, upholding journalistic ethics, and treating water and human lives with the sanctity they deserve can we hope to chart a path away from conflict and toward genuine peace. The writer is a freelance columnist.