Critics argue that major security incidents in India, like the Pulwama attack and Pahalgam tragedy, are allegedly manipulated by the state to shape public perception, strengthen political power, and distract from domestic issues. By quickly blaming external actors and using media amplification, these events are said to fuel nationalism, suppress dissent, and prioritize short-term political gain over transparency and long-term stability.
A more recent and similarly tragic event that has attracted intense scrutiny unfolded near Delhi’s Red Fort Metro Station on the evening of November 10, 2025, when a powerfully concentrated car explosion resulted in the immediate deaths of eight individuals and caused injuries to more than twenty-four others. This event, too, has been extensively analyzed and quickly categorized by critics as fitting snugly within the alleged recurring pattern of Indian False Flag operations, with numerous critical aspects of the subsequent official account being treated with profound public suspicion. The blast initially caused understandable and immediate public grief and widespread outrage across the capital and the nation; however, as more ground-level information and minute details began to emerge, several significant and concerning contradictions became apparent between the initial accounts provided by eyewitnesses at the scene and the information subsequently reported by government sources. For example, one witness who actively participated in the immediate rescue of the wounded victims explicitly claimed in a widely circulated social media video that the vehicle involved in the massive explosion was a small Suzuki Maruti, a detail that directly contradicts the later official account, and even provided a visual description of its small size. Early local media reports were initially observed to support this claim before a noticeable and rapid shift occurred in the official governmental narrative. Despite this, Home Minister Amit Shah and all major national media outlets firmly and consistently maintained the assertion that the explosion involved a Hyundai i20 and had taken place near the Subhash Marg area at approximately 7 p.m. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the elite National Security Guard (NSG) were immediately deployed to investigate what officials consistently termed the “Hyundai i20 blast.” Nevertheless, no verifiable closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the surrounding, high-security area was publicly released to confirm or validate any version of the events, which immediately generated serious public questions regarding transparency and the ultimate authenticity of the official account.
Initial ground reports concerning the vehicle itself indicated that the ill-fated car was officially registered to an individual named Nadeem from the city of Faridabad, Haryana. Some secondary sources further introduced the involvement of a second person, Salman, who was reportedly said to have recently sold the car but had not formally completed the required transfer of registration, a detail which was purportedly supported by the existence of a parking challan dated September 20, 2025. The official governmental explanation then rapidly evolved to suggest that the car had changed hands multiple times and had ultimately reached an individual named Tariq from Pulwama, IIOJK. This final, crucial geographic and personal connection instantly and strategically revived painful, powerful memories of the 2019 Pulwama attack and served to immediately frame the new event as a possible, premeditated act of terror. Concurrently, several accounts across various online social media platforms quickly began circulating the name “Salman,” which significantly added to the overall confusion and obfuscation surrounding the incident and made the vehicle’s true ownership trail appear deeply unclear and potentially subject to manipulation. Reports specifically noted that the investigative timeline and the details surrounding the vehicle’s ownership appeared markedly inconsistent and progressed suspiciously fast, shifting the entire focus abruptly from Haryana all the way to IIOJK, all without any publicly disclosed, verifiable evidence or a clear forensic chain of custody to support the rapidly advancing official narrative.
At the very genesis of the incident, some of the very first emergency responders who arrived on the scene initially suggested that the massive explosion might have been caused by a malfunctioning CNG cylinder and not by a professionally manufactured explosive device. However, numerous major national news channels were observed rushing to describe the event as an undeniable terrorist attack before any form of forensic confirmation or official findings could possibly be released. Observational critics pointed out a critical inconsistency: in the overwhelming majority of documented terror operations globally, the actual attackers typically manage to successfully escape the scene, whereas, in this particular, highly suspicious case, all the occupants inside the car were tragically killed. This specific, contradictory outcome immediately generated substantial public doubts and served to remind observers of the alleged false-flag patterns of the past rather than conforming to the typical profile of a genuine suicide mission. Furthermore, initial reports mentioned “multiple feared dead,” but the number was very quickly fixed and publicized at precisely eight, with no subsequent release of further identifying details about the victims.
Critics vehemently and consistently argue that when the verifiable facts of a significant incident do not conveniently align with a specific political narrative that the government seeks to establish, the official version of events is often observed to dramatically change, shift, or be fundamentally rewritten. They draw explicit and pointed direct comparisons between this most recent event and a disturbing series of past security incidents that have been widely accused of being politically motivated or specifically designed to generate pervasive fear, intentionally spread communal hatred and division, and successfully divert the public’s attention immediately ahead of politically critical elections. They claim that the fundamental and core aim of such manufactured narratives is to strategically demonize specific communities, most notably the residents of IIOJK, and to quickly and automatically place the full burden of blame onto Pakistan without ever needing to present verified or concrete evidence. The ultimate, asserted result of this alleged practice is the destruction of families, the senseless deaths of innocent people, and a chilling climate where the pursuit of truth becomes a secondary concern, consistently subordinated to immediate and self-serving political interests.
The recent Delhi blast, in the view of these numerous critics, has unequivocally and demonstrably exposed that the alleged “dirty line of action” employed by the Indian establishment remains fundamentally unchanged and fully operational. The serious and far-reaching accusations surrounding the Pulwama attack, the Pahalgam incident, the recent Delhi Blast, and other similar events collectively underscore a far deeper, more troubling systemic issue—the deliberate instrumentalization and exploitation of human tragedy for narrow, self-serving political gain. The consistent absence of transparent, impartial investigation, and the skillful exploitation of powerful nationalist emotions raises profoundly serious questions about the true underlying motivations behind such catastrophic incidents and the long-term, detrimental consequences they invariably hold for regional peace, institutional accountability, and the pursuit of verifiable truth within the broader South Asian landscape. The overwhelming and pressing demand now articulated by critics is for a rigorous, fair, and fully transparent investigation into the tragedy, one that is firmly grounded in verifiable facts and hard evidence rather than being propelled solely by mere speculation, unverified claims, or cynical political motives. Without achieving this necessary level of clarity and truth, such devastating tragedies ultimately risk being remembered not for the attainment of justice for the victims, but for the perceived manipulation of both public grief and widespread fear. It is therefore asserted by these critics that India must endeavor to conduct itself as a responsible and mature sovereign nation in its handling of these complex internal matters, decisively refraining from the self-defeating practice of externalizing its own deeply rooted domestic challenges.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.