From 26/11 to Delhi Blasts: Why the “False Flag” Narrative Must End in India

What surprises me more than the terror attacks in India is the speed with which some Indians dismiss them as “false flag operations.” For instance, a look at the comments under Faye D’Souza’s Instagram post about the Delhi terror blasts shows several users mocking the incident and blaming the Indian government instead of the perpetrators. Many genuinely seem to believe it’s a political ploy to influence votes rather than an act of terror.

The “false flag” narrative isn’t new. It has surfaced after nearly every major terror attack in India. Even the 26/11 Mumbai attacks were, at first, misrepresented by some as an internal operation. The claim gained attention mainly because Ajmal Kasab, one of the attackers, wore a saffron thread on his wrist. Those spreading the theory strangely assumed such a thread could only belong to members of BJP or RSS. They overlooked the possibility that it might have been deliberately used to mislead investigators.

Ajmal Kasab with Saffron Thread on His Wrist

Kasab’s real plan, as later revealed, was to die appearing as a “Hindu” and thus shift suspicion away from Pakistan-based handlers, reinforcing the myth of “saffron terror.” Thankfully, due to the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of Assistant Sub-Inspector Tukaram Omble, Kasab was captured alive and later confessed to being a Pakistani national trained by terrorists.

Tukaram Omble and Mumbai 26/11 Attacks — Tukaram Omble

By then, however, the false-flag theory had already gained widespread circulation. Well-known public figures even released a book titled 26/11: RSS ki Saazish? that promoted the “false flag” theory surrounding the attacks.

Influential Figures Promoting RSS ki Saazish Book — Influential Indian Figures Promoting “26/11: RSS ki Saazish?” Book

The “false flag” narrative resurfaced after the Pulwama terror attack, when a suicide bomber from Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) drove an explosive-laden vehicle into a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir, killing 40 soldiers. Following the attack, some voices in Pakistan, including senior officials, suggested that India might have staged the incident to influence the upcoming 2019 elections. Commentators in India echoed similar theories online, framing the tragedy as politically motivated rather than acknowledging it as an act of cross-border terrorism.

Then came the recent Pahalgam attacks, where Pakistani media outlets and online commentators claimed that India had staged the incident to divert attention from domestic issues and influence elections. They described it as part of an alleged “Indian playbook” of false-flag operations. Soon after, similar talking points appeared in sections of Indian social media and commentary spaces.

In each case, claims of “false flag operations” lacked credible evidence and were primarily rooted in conspiracy theories first circulated in Pakistan and later amplified by certain opinion groups in India.

The Global “False Flag” Obsession

It’s worrying that many people in India tend to believe external narratives about terror attacks rather than trusting verified investigations at home.

This pattern might have been up for serious debate if it only happened locally, but the deflection from religious extremism appears to be a global trend. To cite a few examples:

The 9/11 attacks are still viewed by some as a “false flag” orchestrated by the U.S. or Israel to malign Muslims. This is a theory long disproved but still used by extremist groups to recruit followers. They thrive on anger, convincing vulnerable minds that violence is the only response to perceived oppression. In India, extremist recruiters have similarly exploited stories like the Babri Masjid while dismissing events like the Godhra train burning as conspiracies, weaving grievance into a tool for radicalization.
The October 7 attacks in Israel were also met with widespread conspiracy claims, framed as a false flag operation meant to discredit certain groups.
Likewise, criticism of regimes such as Iran’s leadership, the Taliban, or Hamas is often dismissed as Western propaganda. This is another form of deflection that prevents honest introspection.

Conspiracies Shield Extremists

It’s time to move past the overused “false flag” narrative.

Each time a terror attack is dismissed as a conspiracy, it insults the victims, weakens trust, and blurs the line between truth and propaganda. These baseless claims don’t protect anyone. They only embolden extremists and deepen divisions.

Real courage and national unity will come from confronting facts, condemning violence without bias, and demanding accountability from those who spread hate, no matter where it comes from.

Ending the false flag obsession is the first step toward restoring integrity in how we respond to terrorism.

From India-Pakistan to Gaza: Exploring the Duality of War

Personal observation: In almost every war, there’s always someone who doesn’t want it to end.

In the India–Pakistan war, many in India didn’t want the fighting to stop because they felt Pakistan hadn’t learned its lesson yet. Some even wanted the government to reclaim PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) during this time (which I strongly oppose).

When Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear sites, many anti-regime Iranians wanted the war to continue because they hoped the regime would fall.

The Israel–Gaza conflict is even more unusual. Many who kept calling for a ceasefire suddenly went quiet or were openly against it when finally announced. Maybe they had expected Israel to be driven out and a new Palestinian state to rise “from the river to the sea.” But that idea is unrealistic and only calls for more violence. Just like India will never give up Kashmir, Israel will never give up its land. Both countries get a lot of criticism for putting their own interests first. But, over the years, Jews and Indians have learned an important lesson: if they want their interests protected, they can’t rely on anyone else. When Indians get murdered in America, there’s next to no backlash. It’s the same case with Jews. History is also proof that when Hindus face persecution or genocide (Kashmiri Pandits, Sandeshkhali, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani Hindus), the world stays silent. In a world shaped by selective activism, these two communities have gradually learned to shed their passivity and docile nature, standing up for themselves without guilt. Indians, in my view, are still learning. Our tendency to stay silent runs deep. But since 2014, that’s starting to change, much to the annoyance of some. Apparently, a “good” Indian is still largely expected to be a silent one in the face of persecution and bigotry.

Anyway, the point is that in any war, there’s always duality. Those who push for the conflict to continue aren’t always on the “far-right.” Sometimes, they are far-left or far-right figures from other communities, disguised as leftist liberals. Take, for example, the India-Pakistan war. Many leftists in India wanted it to end and for peace to prevail. Yet recently, some of those same voices wanted Hamas to reject the peace deal, even at the cost of many lives.

I’ve often felt that the far-left and far-right are just two sides of the same coin. The recent wars and reactions to them over the years only validate this claim.

***

Photo by Pixabay

Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and the Bail Debate: The Right-Wing Take

The debate around Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other Delhi riots accused who have not yet been granted bail has once again come into focus. From the right-wing perspective, the issue is not as simple as “judicial delay” or “denial of justice.” I thought of writing this post because many in India only trust left-wing channels, which causes them to miss important fact-based points shared by the right-wing.

Adjournments and CJI’s Remarks

First of all, let us understand what an adjournment is. Simply put, it is when a court hearing or trial is postponed to a later date instead of being completed on the scheduled day.

Out of the 14 adjournments in Umar Khalid’s case, 7 were initiated by his own legal team. This was mentioned by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud himself in his interview with Barkha Dutt.

Umar Khalid Bail Plea: Multiple Adjournments, Withdrawal — Source: Lawbeat

“I do not want to comment on the merits of the case but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid‘s case, can you imagine that the case was adjourned, they were at least seven if not more adjournments which were sought by the council appearing for Umar Khalid and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn.” – CJI Chandrachud

Justice Chandrachud noted that, on social media, a one-sided narrative often takes hold, leaving judges with no space to defend themselves. He added that if one looks closely at the actual proceedings in court, the reality is far more nuanced than what is portrayed online.

While some “fact checkers” online have attempted to dismiss this claim by relying on surface-level sources, it is reasonable to trust the CJI more on this matter. As head of the judiciary, he had direct access to both official and indirect records of adjournments.

The Delay Tactic

According to many on the right, Khalid and Imam’s legal strategy is clear. If the trial begins, conviction is almost certain. Thus, their team is accused of deliberately delaying proceedings by filing fresh petitions, often citing a “change in circumstances.” The idea is to drag the trial as long as possible and eventually claim bail on the grounds of delay.

Notably, some petitions that caused delays were also filed by other accused who are already out on bail.

The Judicial Tactic Explained

The strategy seen here is not unique. It is a common tactic in the Indian judiciary:

Lawyers repeatedly file petitions (often citing new circumstances).
Each petition leads to adjournments, dragging the trial.
Eventually, the accused can argue that their right to a speedy trial (protected under Article 21 of the Constitution) has been violated.
On that ground, they can seek bail due to judicial delay.

This slow erosion of the process not only stalls justice but also erodes public trust in the judiciary. Something that many argue is part of the plan.

CJI on Unseen Angles

In an interview with Barkha Dutt, CJI Chandrachud hinted that there are angles in the case that cannot be revealed to the public. Right-wing commentators believe this may refer to multiple coordinated fronts behind the Delhi riots.

One example often cited is ISIS member Arshad Warsi (not the actor), who was in contact with Sharjeel Imam. Warsi allegedly helped decide the content of pamphlets that were distributed to mosques and Muslim neighbourhoods prior to the riots to incite violence. He was later arrested in the Pune ISIS module case.

Sharjeel Imam and Arshad Warsi — Sharjeel Imam’s connection with Arshad Warsi. Source: indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/

Arrest of Arshad Warsi — Arshad Warsi arrested

There are also allegations of foreign funding and terror groups like PFI supporting the protests and unrest.

Umar Khalid PFI — Umar Khalid met with other accused people in the PFI office to discuss funds for riots. Source: indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/

The Seriousness of the Delhi Riots

The 2020 Delhi riots were not minor incidents of unrest. They claimed the lives of 53 people, including Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma. For many, this underscores the gravity of the case and why justice cannot be indefinitely postponed.

Right-Wing Response

Right-wing commentators like Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Kushal Mehra have now openly criticized the delay of trials. They argue that instead of dragging the matter endlessly, the trial should begin as soon as possible, and justice should be delivered. In their view, it is time to see through legal manoeuvres and bring the culprits to justice. The longer the delay, the more the perception of judicial inefficiency grows, and that benefits only those seeking to evade accountability.

It is also important to understand that, though we can call for quick trials, courts in India are bound to follow established legal procedures. Every step, adjournments, evidence submission, witness examination, bail hearings, has to comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Evidence Act, and constitutional safeguards like Article 21 (right to life and liberty, including speedy trial).

Judges cannot simply “override” these protocols, even if they suspect delaying tactics. If the defense files a petition citing “change in circumstances” or another procedural ground, the court is obliged to hear it and decide. Ignoring or fast-tracking outside the rules would open the door to appeals, accusations of bias, or even the case collapsing later.

Delays often frustrate people. However, they’re also part of the judiciary, ensuring the trial stands on solid legal ground.

Left-Wing Response

The left-wing argues that delays aren’t only due to Khalid’s side and that long undertrial detention is unfair. While these points deserve acknowledgment, they don’t erase the fact that half the adjournments were filed by Khalid’s own team and that Sibal’s strategy clearly aims at running down the clock.

They also say Hindu mobs who killed during the riots haven’t faced equal scrutiny. But the distinction is clear: Hindu rioters were violent on the ground, yes, but they did not make the kind of provocative, mass-scale mobilizing speeches Khalid and Sharjeel Imam did that led to loss of lives. Khalid mobilized crowds by invoking the Kashmir issue, while Sharjeel Imam spoke about separating Assam from India and attempted to provoke people through pamphlets referencing the Babri Masjid dispute. Videos of their speeches can be accessed easily on social media platforms. That’s why the charges against them are different and why delaying the trial feels like a deliberate tactic.

My Take

It is important to examine cases from every angle instead of blindly accepting one-sided propaganda. Dhruv Rathee does not question the opposition, while journalists like Shiv Aroor do not question the ruling party. So it’s up to us, the citizens, to collect points from both sides and analyze it.

I have tried to provide proof for all the points in this post, but they can also be independently validated online. I would highly recommend going through the Indian Kanoon link (indiankanoon.org/doc/156202283/) to read more about the case.

Rather than dismissing everything right-wing as lies, citizens should review the available evidence and ask: Is a separatist attitude acceptable for the country? Does this kind of behaviour warrant bail? This cannot simply be brushed off as freedom of speech, because in this case, speech directly incited violence and led to the loss of 53 lives and the injury of thousands.

In India, there are rarely open-and-shut cases. Even Ajmal Kasab, a convicted terrorist, was given a fair trial. By that standard, it is certain that Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid will also receive a fair hearing once their trial begins, especially since their offences, while serious, are not on the same level as Kasab’s. That is why the trial should begin without further delay. So their actions can be properly examined, and justice delivered swiftly.