Pakistan's Pahalgam dossier is a rambling mix of propaganda, poor proof and patchy English

In what was presumably meant to be a hard-hitting diplomatic counter to India's response after the 22 April Pahalgam massacre, a 'dossier' made by Pakistan intelligence agency, the ISI in collaboration with military commanders, has instead emerged as a jumbled, poorly edited document that undermines its own credibility.

- ABHINANDAN MISHRA

Meant to rally international sympathy and support, the 18-page file fails to present a coherent, persuasive narrative—and suffers not just from weak arguments, but also from glaring spelling mistakes, broken grammar, and propaganda-level tone.

The dossier, accessed by the Daily Guardian, alleges that India orchestrated the Pahalgam attack as a "false flag" to justify military strikes on Pakistani territory. It accuses India of targeting religious sites, killing civilians, and fabricating its narrative to cover up internal security failures.

But for all its sweeping claims, the dossier contains no visual evidence, no primary documents, no satellite imagery, and no verifiable third-party sources. Repeated mentions of "international media" are made, yet not a single article is quoted, footnoted, or hyperlinked.

The writing, at several points, is shockingly poor for a document presumably meant for diplomatic audiences.

Take this sentence from the Executive Summary: "Based on fabricated facts and using the Pahalgam false flag as justification, India targeted various locations in Pakistan, including Muridke, Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad and also sent 100 plus Drones in Pakistan territory." Besides its clunky structure, "100 plus Drones" is both grammatically awkward and informally phrased. "Drones into Pakistani territory" would have been correct, and "100-plus drones" would be the proper form.

Another gem appears in the section on Indian media, where the dossier reads, "Indian media war hysteria and fake news factory even expose by credible international media with facts." This is not just grammatically wrong-it's incoherent.