India’s strong refusal of Pakistan’s invitation for a “neutral, transparent, and credible” investigation into the recent Pahalgam terror attack is not an overreaction — it’s a position based on history, betrayal, and strategic adjustment. The attack, which claimed the lives of 26 tourists, has a striking resemblance to previous cross-border attacks such as the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where Pakistan’s alleged cooperation disintegrated into denial, delay, and diplomatic drama.
From botched joint investigations to public revelations by Pakistan’s own media — Islamabad’s latest move is less about justice and more about international perception. Supported by allies such as China and boasting a history of protecting terror actors, Pakistan’s “neutral inquiry” is in the eyes of India neither an avenue to peace but an instrument of imagecraft.
Pahalgam Attack: Cruel Catalyst for Diplomatic Backlash
The April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam demolished the peace of Kashmir. The attack killed 26, targeting tourists at a tourist destination. As soon as two of the attackers were found to be Pakistani nationals, India moved swiftly — intensifying border security and even closing down the Attari-Wagah border.
The shock was not only in the brutality, but in the déjà vu it created. This was not the first time India witnessed Pakistani fingerprints on cross-border terrorism. It wasn’t the first time Pakistan disclaimed involvement and insisted on a “neutral” probe.
Pathankot: Trust That Turned into Betrayal
In 2016, India attempted to cooperate. It welcomed a Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) into its fold after the Pathankot airbase attack. Seven Indian troops were killed when Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terrorists attacked the camp. All the attackers were eliminated. India provided forensic details, eyewitness accounts, and even permitted Pakistani authorities to visit the air base.
The five-member JIT comprised leading investigators — among them an officer of Pakistan’s ISI. They took DNA samples, depositions of 16 witnesses, and got NIA’s complete cooperation. They departed with a commitment: Pakistan would let Indian investigators resume the joint probe from Islamabad’s end.
But once back, Islamabad stalled. Media reports began branding the Pathankot attack a “stage-managed” event. Permission for the NIA to visit Pakistan never arrived. The cooperation ended in dead silence — and distrust.
Ahmad Noorani’s Report: Pakistan’s Own Media Broke the Truth
In the middle of this diplomatic freeze, Pakistani investigative journalist Ahmad Noorani published a damning story. He verified that all six terrorists entered India from Pakistan, based on sources within Pakistan’s own civilian Intelligence Bureau. Noorani explained the report was presented to then-PMNawaz Sharif — and even the ISI could not deny the facts.
The discovery embarrassed Pakistan. But rather than taking action on the facts, the state doubled down on denial. The Pathankot case was shelved, not investigated.
26/11 Mumbai Attacks: No Justice
Prior to Pathankot, India attempted to cooperate following the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Pakistan was subjected to enormous international pressure following the attack, which claimed the lives of more than 160 individuals. India presented seven detailed dossiers that connected the attackers to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). In return, Pakistan arrested senior LeT operatives — Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah.
But the cases lingered. Lakhvi was granted bail in 2014. He was arrested again under international pressure, only to be let out once more a year later. The FIA prosecutor in the case, Chaudhry Zulfikar Ali, was murdered in Karachi.
No one has been convicted as yet in Pakistan for 26/11. For India, it was confirmation that cooperation does not mean accountability.
Pakistan’s Probe Offer: Global Image Reset Strategy
India’s refusal of an impartial probe is not merely emotional — it’s strategic. Islamabad’s proposal this time follows a pattern. Shortly after the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan rallied global opinion. China was quick to follow suit on Pakistan’s side. Pakistan’s erstwhile High Commissioner went so far as to wonder if India feared transparency.
But India today regards these ‘offers’ as a part of Pakistan’s diplomatic choreography. Islamabad acts like the reasonable guy to diffuse global opprobrium. It proffers “neutrality” while silently harboring terrorists in its midst.
This narrative reboot has worked previously. Pakistan has frequently employed such tactics in international forums like the FATF and UN. But India no longer wants to play the same game.
India’s New Stance: No More Symbolic Investigations
The stance of New Delhi is unmistakable: it will not accord sham probes legitimacy. Neutral or joint probes, offered by Pakistan, are in the opinion of India, not aimed at finding the truth but creating delays. They diminish the severity of terror. They also demean the victims’ memory by equating terror with a PR issue, and not with a crime.
Security experts further argue that admitting Pakistani investigators onto Indian soil — or accepting third-party investigations — undermines operational integrity and sovereignty. India now prefers firm unilateral action.
No Probe Without Credibility
Pakistan’s history is full of delays, denials, and distortions. Be it Pathankot, Pahalgam, or 26/11, the pattern is the same. India has every reason to be suspicious of Islamabad’s “neutral” appeals — they are instruments of image management, not justice.
New Delhi has shifted from strategic cooperation to strategic suspicion. It is no longer interested in symbolic gestures. Unless Pakistan delivers justice in previous attacks, India will keep its door shut to any offer of investigation — neutral or otherwise.
