SOURCE: AFI
In the wake of the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, some Pakistani commentators, including veteran journalist Najam Sethi, have revived claims labeling India’s past terror incidents, such as the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack, as “false flag” operations orchestrated by India to malign Pakistan. Sethi’s assertions, echoed in a recent interview flagged by X user @DrAyeshaRay on April 28, 2025, align with a broader Pakistani narrative dismissing cross-border terrorism links.
However, these claims are directly contradicted by credible evidence, including investigative reporting by Pakistani journalist Ahmad Noorani, who confirmed in January 2016 that the Pathankot attackers infiltrated from Pakistan, a fact acknowledged by Pakistan’s civilian intelligence and even the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This article debunks Sethi’s false flag narrative, leveraging Noorani’s reporting, official investigations, and strategic context to affirm the Pathankot attack’s Pakistani origins.
On January 2, 2016, six heavily armed terrorists breached the high-security perimeter of the Indian Air Force’s Pathankot airbase in Punjab, targeting fighter jets and helicopters. The 17-hour gun battle, followed by days of combing operations, resulted in the deaths of five attackers, six Indian security personnel, and one National Security Guard (NSG) officer, with three additional soldiers succumbing to injuries. A sixth attacker was neutralized on January 5, ending “Operation Dhangu.” The attackers, identified as members of the United Jihad Council (UJC), a Pakistan-based coalition including Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), aimed to destroy aircraft and kill personnel, though they were thwarted from reaching the technical area.
India immediately pointed to Pakistan, citing intercepted communications and physical evidence like GPS devices tracing the attackers’ route through Bamiyal, a known infiltration point near the border. The attack, coming weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore on December 25, 2015, derailed nascent India-Pakistan peace talks, raising questions about Pakistan’s commitment to curbing terrorism.
Najam Sethi, editor-in-chief of The Friday Times, has repeatedly suggested that attacks like Pathankot are staged by India to defame Pakistan. In a 2016 X post (@najamsethi, June 4, 2016), Sethi argued that while JeM terrorists based in Pakistan were involved, there was no evidence of ISI or Pakistani government complicity, implying India exaggerated the incident. More recently, in the context of the Pahalgam attack, Sethi joined what X user @DrAyeshaRay called a “chorus of deranged and lying Pakistani voices” labeling such incidents as false flags, suggesting India orchestrates them for political gain, such as influencing elections or justifying actions like the 2019 Balakot airstrike.
These claims align with Pakistani media narratives, such as a 2016 Pakistan Today report citing a Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that questioned India’s evidence and suggested the attack was “staged” to malign Pakistan. Similar arguments surfaced after Pahalgam, with outlets like The Express Tribune and Pakistan Observer citing the First Information Report’s (FIR) rapid filing as evidence of premeditation. Sethi’s narrative fits this pattern, dismissing cross-border infiltration and alleging Indian manipulation without substantive evidence.
In January 2016, Ahmad Noorani, a prominent Pakistani investigative journalist with The News, published a report verifying that all six Pathankot attackers had indeed entered India from Pakistan. Noorani’s findings, based on sources within Pakistan’s civilian intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau (IB), confirmed that the attackers crossed the border near Bamiyal, a route previously used in the July 2015 Gurdaspur attack. The IB’s investigation, shared with then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, left the ISI with “no option but to accept the established facts,” as Noorani wrote. This admission was significant, given the ISI’s historical reluctance to acknowledge cross-border terrorism.
Noorani’s reporting, published on January 7, 2016, detailed:
Infiltration Route: The attackers used a nylon rope and eucalyptus trees to scale the Pathankot airbase’s 3.4-meter perimeter wall, exploiting non-functional floodlights.
Pakistani Origins: Intercepts of the terrorists’ communications with handlers in Pakistan, recovered GPS waypoints, and 50 kg of ammunition and 30 kg of grenades pointed to planning and support from across the border.
Official Acknowledgment: The IB’s findings, corroborated by physical evidence, forced Pakistan’s civilian leadership to confront the reality of JeM’s involvement, despite initial denials from officials like Nawaz Sharif’s aide Irfan Siddiqui, who called India’s accusations “baseless.”
Noorani’s credibility as a journalist, despite facing legal challenges in Pakistan (e.g., a 2025 FIA case for Jaffar Express attack coverage), lends weight to his findings. His 2016 report directly undermines Sethi’s false flag claims, as it confirms the attackers’ Pakistani origin through Pakistan’s own intelligence channels.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) identified JeM operatives, including Masood Azhar’s nephew, among the attackers. Intercepts linked them to handlers in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, JeM’s headquarters. The NIA’s June 2016 statement to CNN-News18 clarified no evidence directly implicated Pakistan’s government or ISI, but the attackers were undeniably Pakistan-based.
In March 2016, a Pakistani JIT, including an ISI representative, visited Pathankot. While Pakistan Today claimed the team found no evidence of Pakistani involvement, the visit itself signaled Pakistan’s acknowledgment of the need to investigate cross-border links. The JIT’s restricted access (via a breach in the wall, not the main gate) was a procedural issue, not proof of staging.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.