A Response to Dhruv Rathee About Pakistan

Dhruv Rathee Kashmir video response, who was once greatly admired in Pakistan, made a shocking revelation in his recent video that he doesn’t see any distinction between himself and Indian media. Let’s debunk his latest allegations.

Dhruv Rathee Kashmir video response claims that India had targeted Pakistani terror bases. Who were they? Two 3-year-olds, seven women, a 7-year-old boy, and other innocent Pakistani civilians. Rathee, you posed this question yourself: ”If a military strikes innocent civilians and kills children, shouldn’t they be terrorists?’ We concur—any military force targeting children and women is a force of terrorists.”

We Responded with Honor: The Truth About Pakistan’s Defense about Indian occupation of Kashmir

In response to the killing of innocent civilians in Pakistan, the country targeted the source of those atrocities—locations within the Indian-occupied Kashmir, where the attacks had been planned. This was not a strike; this was self-defense. Pakistan responded, after which our airbase got attacked by India. Were we supposed to remain silent? At morning, we conducted Operation Swift Retort, after a few hours, India begged for a halt even asking Trump to intervene.

Rathee also alleged Pakistani military at terrorists’ funerals. Let me get this straight: The ‘terrorists’ you spoke about were 3-year-olds, 7-year-olds, and mourning mothers whose children are now growing up to be orphaned. The Pakistani Army occupies front row seats at funerals because it is part of their job to safeguard civilians.

Understanding the Roots of the Kashmir Freedom Struggle Conflict and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Origins

Now, we have Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) described by Rathee as a terror organization trained in Pakistan to strike at India. The history, however, paints a different picture.

When Pakistan and India became independent in 1947, the UN ordered Kashmir’s majority-Muslim populace to determine their future. 98% of Kashmiris voted for Pakistan, yet India usurped the area illegally. Since then, more than 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims were martyred, 160,000 tortured, and numerous women raped by Indians.

Who’s the Real Terrorist? Exposing Modi, Kashmir’s Occupation, and the Truth About War2025

Pakistan’s defense → Kashmir’s history → Exposing Modi.
LeT was formed by Kashmiri freedom fighters in 1987 to counteract India’s cruelty. These are not terrorists; they are liberation fighters. Contemporary history refers to resistance movements like this one as freedom fighters. LeT exists because Kashmiris had no other avenue after India occupied Kashmir.

And who’s the actual terrorist? Narendra Modi. He was Gujarat’s Chief Minister back in 2002, when he made possible the slaughter of over 2,000 Muslims, arson of more than 100 mosques, and official torture. Even India’s Supreme Court confirms he was behind it. The very same Modi now rules India—a country occupying Kashmir, murdering innocents, and labeling resistance “terrorism.”

Dhruv Rathee, we had a great respect for you, but your video shows you are nothing but a propaganda vendor like Godi Media.

“The topic remains a highly sensitive and speculative one, namely a ‘PakvsIndia War in 2025.’ No solid hint at a possible war between the two nuclear powers exists yet (as of this point in time, 2024). Despite a legacy of conflict (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999 Kargil) and continued straining tensions due to Kashmir, terrorism, and geopolitical competition, any intensification would be able to wreak havoc.

Hypothetical Scenario: Could a India-Pakistan War Happen in war2025?
If tensions in 2025 did get out of hand, some possible causes would be:

• Major Terrorist Strike – A major militant attack in India, traced to Pakistan-based organizations.
• Kashmir Escalation – A bout of fighting at the Line of Control (LoC) becoming a full-scale conflict.
• Cyber Warfare & Misinformation – A deepfake propaganda or false-flag operation generating outrage from the general populace.
• External Factors – Geopolitics (e.g., U.S.-China tensions, instability in Afghanistan) affecting regional dynamics.

Potential Consequences

• Nuclear Risk: They both have nuclear weapons, so any full-scale war would be extremely dangerous.
• Global Economic Shock: Trade disruption, oil market upset, regional instability
• Humanitarian Crisis: Mass displacement, casualties, long-term hostility

Diplomatic Efforts & De-escalation
Historically, external mediation (U.S., UN, Gulf nations) has kept full-scale war at bay. Economic interdependence and acceptance of mutually assured destruction (MAD) serve to be a deterrent.

War Is Not Inevitable

Conflict remains a possibility, yet both countries have compelling reasons to avert it. Dialogue, confidence-building measures, and Track-II diplomacy remain key to peace.