The Cyclic Diversionary Tactic: How Pakistan’s Internal Crises Fuel Terror Attacks on India

By IndraStra Global Editorial Team

Cover Image Attribute: Pakistani Ranger and BSF Soldier at the Attari-Wagah Border

For decades, Pakistan’s military-ISI alliance has masterminded terrorist attacks on India, a calculated gambit to quell domestic unrest while cementing its iron grip on power—but at what cost to its own people? By stoking the flames of the India-Pakistan rivalry and wielding the potent symbolism of Kashmir, this shadowy nexus deftly shifts the spotlight from its own failures: political turmoil, economic collapse, and raging insurgencies in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). The strategy is clear—sacrifice the welfare of ordinary Pakistanis to fuel nationalist zeal and funnel resources to military dominance, with little regard for the public’s plight. Take the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which diverted attention from the military’s faltering operations in FATA, where civilian displacement and deaths sparked outrage, to the India border, leaving KPK communities mired in chaos. Or consider the 2019 Pulwama attack, which eclipsed the crushing inflation and IMF bailout woes under Imran Khan’s government, offering no respite to a population sinking deeper into poverty as the military fixated on Kashmir. The 2025 Pahalgam attack, set against skyrocketing inflation and protests over Khan’s arrest, lays bare this pattern of exploiting India as a distraction to dodge domestic accountability. Yet, as Pakistanis grapple with unrelenting economic and security woes, one question looms: how long can the military-ISI alliance sustain this perilous game, prioritizing power over progress?
This article introduces the "Cyclic Diversionary Tactic (CDT)" as a subset of the Diversionary Theory of Conflict, also known as the Scapegoat Hypothesis, which posits that leaders may provoke foreign crises or conflicts to distract from domestic issues and strengthen political support. Through the CDT framework, we analyze how these attacks are strategically timed to shift domestic attention, rally public support around the Kashmir issue, and reorient military priorities, thereby reducing pressure on internal security operations and militant groups facing international scrutiny. The article examines the contexts, objectives, and consequences of these attacks, connecting them to Pakistan’s internal challenges and India’s evolving responses, while assessing the strategy’s risks and limitations.
26/11 Mumbai attacks (2008)
The 26/11 Mumbai attacks, executed by 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militants from November 26–29, 2008, set a precedent for this tactic. Pakistan was grappling with a turbulent transition to civilian rule after General Pervez Musharraf’s resignation in August 2008. The government under President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani faced legitimacy challenges, with the military retaining significant influence. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s military was stretched thin in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), particularly KPK, due to U.S.-led pressure to combat al-Qaeda and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Operations like Operation Sherdil in Bajaur (September 2008) resulted in 27 soldiers killed and 111 wounded, straining resources and public support. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) was intensifying its insurgency, targeting state infrastructure and Chinese investments, while the U.S. demanded action against LeT, threatening the military-ISI’s reliance on such groups as proxies against India. The Mumbai attacks, which killed 166 people, were planned with ISI support to provoke an Indian military response, justifying a redeployment of troops from the western border to the eastern front. By escalating tensions, the military rallied domestic support around Kashmir, deflecting criticism of its handling of TTP and Baloch insurgencies. India’s restrained response—focusing on diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan—avoided escalation but exposed Pakistan’s reliance on terror proxies, damaging its international credibility while temporarily easing U.S. pressure on its western operations.
Pathankot Airbase Attack (2016)
The 2016 Pathankot airbase attack, occurring from January 2–5, followed a similar pattern. Pakistan was navigating civil-military tensions under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose outreach to India, including a surprise visit to Lahore in December 2015 to meet Indian PM Narendra Modi, was viewed skeptically by the military. The TTP and other militant groups continued to challenge state authority in KPK, with Operation Zarb-e-Azb (2014–2016) killing 3,500 militants but failing to eradicate extremism, at the cost of 490 soldiers. Baloch separatists intensified attacks on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, undermining Pakistan’s economic strategy, while the U.S. and China pressed for action against militancy following the 2014 Peshawar school massacre. The attack on Pathankot, attributed to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), killed seven Indian soldiers and six militants, occurring days after Modi’s visit, suggesting a military-ISI effort to sabotage Sharif’s peace initiatives. By targeting a high-profile military installation, the attack aimed to provoke a response that would justify increased military presence along the India border, diverting attention from KPK and Balochistan. India enhanced counter-terror operations in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) but refrained from immediate military strikes, while Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team, including ISI representatives, failed to act decisively against JeM, derailing diplomatic ties and reinforcing military dominance in Pakistan’s India policy.
Uri Attack (2016)
The Uri attack on September 18, 2016, further entrenched this cycle. Pakistan’s military, under Army Chief Raheel Sharif, sidelined Nawaz Sharif’s civilian government amid the Panama Papers scandal, which fueled public discontent. Operation Zarb-e-Azb continued in KPK, but TTP splinter groups and LeT affiliates like Lashkar-e-Islam remained active, with 900 LeI militants killed by June 2016. Baloch separatists targeted CPEC projects, raising concerns in Beijing, while the U.S. and China pressed for action against LeT and JeM. The JeM-led Uri attack killed 19 Indian soldiers, aiming to escalate tensions and shift focus from internal failures to the India threat. The Kashmir narrative deflected public anger over corruption and military overreach, justifying troop redeployments to the eastern border. India’s response marked a shift: on September 29, 2016, it conducted “surgical strikes” targeting militant launchpads across the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Pakistan denied the strikes occurred, avoiding escalation, but the incident bolstered the military’s domestic image as a defender against India, though it failed to address underlying militancy.
Pulwama Attack (2019)
The Pulwama attack on February 14, 2019, escalated the stakes. Under Imran Khan’s military-backed government, Pakistan faced economic challenges, with high inflation and IMF bailout negotiations. Despite Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad, TTP regained strength in KPK, while the BLA targeted CPEC infrastructure, straining Pakistan-China relations. The U.S. suspended military aid in 2018, and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Pakistan on its grey list for terror financing. The JeM suicide bombing in Pulwama killed 40 Indian CRPF personnel, aiming to provoke a strong Indian response to shift focus from economic woes and militancy. The attack rallied nationalist fervor around Kashmir, reducing U.S. and FATF scrutiny as global attention shifted to the crisis. India retaliated with the Balakot airstrike on February 26, 2019, targeting a JeM camp in KPK, marking its first cross-border airstrike since 1971. Pakistan’s airstrikes led to a dogfight and the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, who was released after two days. Satellite imagery suggested minimal damage at Balakot, but the crisis temporarily bolstered Pakistan’s military domestically, though FATF pressure and India’s diplomatic offensive further isolated Pakistan.
Pahalgam Attack (2025)
The Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, underscores the persistence of this strategy. Pakistan faces severe economic challenges, with skyrocketing inflation and a shaky government under PM Shehbaz Sharif, compounded by protests following Imran Khan’s arrest. TTP attacks have surged in KPK, with over 95% of 2024 terror incidents in KPK and Balochistan, while the BLA’s March 2025 train hijacking killed 26. Army Chief Asim Munir faces backlash for mishandling these crises, with the military’s legitimacy waning. The U.S. and China demand action against militancy, especially as Pakistan pitches its $8 trillion mineral reserves in volatile regions. The Pahalgam attack, executed by five militants linked to LeT’s proxy The Resistance Front, killed 26 civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, in J&K’s Baisaran Valley. Timed during U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s India visit and linked to ISI directives, the attack aimed to provoke India, justify troop redeployments, and rally nationalist sentiment around Kashmir, as reinforced by Munir’s speech calling it Pakistan’s “jugular vein.” India responded with diplomatic and economic measures—suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Attari-Wagah border, and expelling Pakistani diplomats—while PM Modi gave the military “complete freedom” to respond, hinting at potential strikes. Pakistan denied involvement, offering a “neutral” investigation, but failed to act on prior evidence, risking a 2019-style crisis.
Pattern Analysis
Timeline of Major Terrorist Attacks: India-Pakistan Context (2008–2025)

Aspect	2008 Mumbai	2016 Pathankot	2016 Uri	2019 Pulwama	2025 Pahalgam
Date	Nov 26–29, 2008	Jan 2–5, 2016	Sep 18, 2016	Feb 14, 2019	Apr 22, 2025
Perpetrators	LeT, alleged ISI	JeM, alleged ISI links	JeM, four militants	JeM, suicide bomber	TRF, linked to LeT, retracted claim
Targets	Civilians, hotels, stations	Air Force base	Army base	CRPF convoy	Tourists, civilians
Casualties	166 killed, 300+ injured	7 security, 4 attackers killed	19 soldiers killed	40 CRPF killed	26 civilians killed, dozen injured
Claim	LeT, not initially	JeM	JeM	JeM	TRF, retracted
India’s Response	Diplomatic pressure	Limited ops	Surgical strikes	Airstrikes on Balakot	Treaty suspension, visa revocation (as on 4 May 2025)
Pakistan’s Response	Denied, limited arrests	Arrests, no convictions	Denied, no strikes	Denied, aerial combat, pilot release	Denied, warned, border closure
Context	Post-Bhutto, U.S. pressure	Zarb-e-Azb, BLA attacks	Kashmir unrest, U.S. criticism	Pre-election, economic woes	CPEC, TTP resurgence
Implications	Strained relations, global scrutiny	Diplomatic exchanges	Shift in strategy, LoC crossing	Direct confrontation, mediation	Escalation risk, international concern

These attacks reveal a consistent pattern: they coincide with domestic turmoil in Pakistan, targeting high-visibility sites to maximize provocation and media attention. Kashmir serves as a unifying narrative, with rhetoric and actions reinforcing anti-India sentiment. Troop redeployments to the eastern border ease pressure on western operations, while domestic dissent is temporarily subdued. However, the strategy’s long-term costs are significant. Pakistan’s FATF grey-listing, U.S. aid cuts, and strained relations with China over CPEC security highlight its international isolation. India’s responses have evolved from pre-2016 diplomatic restraint to post-2016 limited military actions, with Pahalgam’s economic measures signaling a hybrid approach. Yet, India’s intelligence failures—such as lax security at Pathankot and Pahalgam’s unprotected tourist site—expose vulnerabilities that Pakistan exploits.
The CDT succeeds domestically by rallying support but fails to address Pakistan’s underlying challenges. The nuclear overhang limits escalation, but Pakistan’s internal fragility in 2025 increases the risk of miscalculation, as seen in the 2019 dogfight. China’s support via CPEC and post-Pahalgam fighter jet transfers complicates the dynamic, potentially emboldening Pakistan’s adventurism. For India, balancing domestic demands for action with escalation risks remains a challenge, while Pakistan’s reliance on terror proxies perpetuates a cycle of controlled escalation without addressing its political, economic, and security crises. This strategy, while tactically effective, risks long-term diplomatic and economic fallout, leaving both nations trapped in a volatile rivalry that threatens regional stability.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html