India, Kashmir, and Pakistan: Qui Bono?

Slowing down before accepting the first narrative presented

I saw an X post by Alon Mizrahi today (thank you, and please check out his work!) and it’s such an important concept that it made me want to quickly explore the qui bono idea as tension between India and Pakistan ramps up.

We are living through an era right now that is extremely stressful, but part of the stress is not just the events themselves. It is also the fact that everyone’s propaganda is working in overdrive, meaning it’s incredibly difficult to know what the fuck is going on and who to trust on any given subject. So now we’re in this situation where we not only know that a lot of horrible shit is happening, but we have also lost our compasses and guides within media to comprehend them. In trying to understand, we have to find and filter our own sources for reliability. If we don’t do that, then all we’re left with is our oligarch-funded media, whose narratives have to be scrutinized with caution.

If you have been reading my writing and agree with it for the most part, then you accept the propaganda model. You might also accept the three-letter-agent part of the story—that since we are in a time of heightened geopolitical tension, there are currently a lot of spies and state actors running around triggering world events and fucking around with our perception of them. It doesn’t mean that every event is fake or controlled, but if you read this article of mine and agree with it, then you accept the premise that false flags and agent provocateurs are still a thing, and that there have probably been an increased number of them in the 2020s because certain world players are losing control, so they are engaging in a higher level of manipulation and fuckery at the moment.

If you accept both of these ideas then it means you also accept that the first narrative that is given to you about any given geopolitical event is not necessarily true, because there are people out there that are trying to influence your perception and control your opinions. We should be especially careful of this when it involves countries that our own personal governments want us to perceive as enemies.

This does not mean that other foreign countries are always innocent of everything. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that we must always slow down and ask a lot of questions before we accept narratives. One of the most important questions we should always be asking is: qui bono? Or, who benefits?

Photo by Divya Agrawal on Unsplash

Let’s use the example of India and Pakistan. Whenever geopolitical tension shifts to a new hot spot in the world, it may indeed be an isolated event that is solely related to local tensions. It does not necessarily have to fit in to the larger picture of imperial collapse. But we live in a very interconnected world, and imperial collapse is in fact happening, and so it is now not just possible that large, intense events fit into the bigger picture, but actually quite likely.

As a regular citizen, one does not need to understand every single thing happening in every single region to be able to slow down and ask more questions before assuming one understands. We can’t be experts about everything, but we can be suspicious and cautious. Prior to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam for example, I didn’t (and admittedly still don’t) have a super detailed understanding of the situation in Kashmir. My understanding was limited to a Canadian lens, which is already flawed to begin with (Canada has a terrible relationship with India due to Jagmeet Singh’s inappropriate involvement with the Khalistani movement).

So when the terrorist attack happened in Pahalgam, I, like many others, didn’t (and still don’t) know exactly what happened or know what is going on between India and Pakistan. But I can still ask qui bono? before accepting the first narrative offered to me.

Photo by Jannes Jacobs on Unsplash

Here’s what I do understand, and to cover my ass, I am not like a denier that genuine terrorist attacks happen or anything. They do, and I never want to imply that I think that the empire is behind every single terrorist attack that ever happens. However, we also have to acknowledge that terrorist attacks are not always organic, and if there were ever a time for inorganic terrorist attacks and movements, it would be right now. A lot of times terrorists are paid off to set certain events in motion. Syria is a good example of this—Western-backed terrorists were used to help overthrow the Assad regime and are still being used to America, Turkey, Qatar and Israel’s benefit in the region.

Terrorists-for-hire can also be used to attack one’s enemy without the world knowing who the true aggressor is, or they can also be used to drive wedges between groups or nations, or as false flags to excuse a violent “response” from a “good guy just trying to defend themselves.” So my question is not whether or not the terrorists are bad and should be condemned—no one should ever be killing any innocent people ever—the question is why did this happen now, and what are the true intentions of the terrorists? Is it what is being portrayed in the media? Qui bono, or who benefits most from this incident at this time?

The Resistance Front, believed to be connected to the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack in Pahalgam, stating that it was due to residency permits being handed over to Indian citizens which permits them to live and work in Kashmir. Western and non-Western sources such as CNN and Al Jazeera however reported they could not independently confirm the statement’s authenticity. On X I then saw a few bot comments that I found suspicious; they used exact same word-for-word language, and cast blame on both Pakistan and China. India has also accused Pakistan of responsibility, and Pakistan is a close ally of China. However, China is also a member of BRICS, and has avoided antagonizing India too much on the subject in the past. They have stated that the “Kashmir issue should be resolved through dialogue between India and Pakistan” through “peaceful means according to the UN charter.”

As Kashmir is a disputed region between India, Pakistan, and China, China has however provided some criticism of India’s actions towards the region, such as when India dropped a constitutional provision that allowed the country’s only Muslim-majority region to make its own laws. China also blocked a proposal at the UN to designate Pakistan-based militants as global terrorists, and one can take two different perspectives on this, one that feels more reasonable than the other. The first assumes malice from China and assumes China doesn’t want to designate these groups as terrorists because they like supporting terrorists and would back Pakistani militant groups regardless of whatever violence they engage in. But the other argument is that China might just know that terrorist group designations are kinda arbitrary, and can sometimes be used to cement certain narratives that may not be true (for example, the characterization of Hamas as either terrorists or freedom fighters to excuse or defend against Israel’s behaviour).

Photo by Hamid Roshaan on Unsplash

So Pakistan, maybe or maybe not in collaboration with China, has been accused first of being responsible for this terrorist event. But so far we cannot know if this is true. You can take my understanding with a grain of salt as you should with anyone’s, but let’s zoom out of Kashmir and look at the whole geopolitical atmosphere to explain why I can’t accept this narrative immediately.

We are in a period where America has realized the situation in Ukraine is completely fucked and they’re trying to get out of there. America has lost its unipolar status and we all know that America maintains its power best by going to arbitrary wars. Outside of Russia, the two greatest threats to America’s unipolar dominance are Iran and China, and America is ramping up the war rhetoric towards both of these countries. Canada is already up in arms about China about alleged election interference (which for now are just allegations mostly limited to claims by elected officials and CSIS). And now this terrorist attack could be perceived by some as another strike against China, if people believe them to be aiding Pakistan in terrorist attacks against innocents.

So qui bono?

Pakistan: India has blamed Pakistan, and Pakistan has denied involvement. Let’s say for example Pakistan was responsible though. How do they benefit from the terror attack? You can make the long game argument and say that the benefit is for Kashmir to separate, and for them to be able to have more self-determination in the long run. They are Muslim-majority and so this would be to Pakistan’s benefit over India’s. However, let’s look at what’s literally happening now. India closed a key border crossing, restricted already limited visas for Pakistan citizens, expelled advisers from the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi, and suspended the Indus Water Treaty, a significant water-sharing pact between India and Pakistan that has been in place since 1960. Pakistan has said that any attempt to divert water would be an act of war. So is Pakistan currently benefitting when now even their water is at risk where it wasn’t before?

Photo by Nuno Alberto on Unsplash

China: As for China, let’s consider how up until now China has literally just been chilling through this entire global conflict. And we should ask ourselves why—because they have not really had to get involved, so the risks of getting involved outweigh the benefits. If you were China and you didn’t have to get involved, because your economy was strong enough that you literally don’t even care when the “most powerful country in the world” puts massive tariffs on you, what would be your incentive to get involved in the unravelling of the world other than an argument of pure malice (ie “China wants to take over the world and replace America as our world leader!”)?

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but if we ask qui bono, what I do notice is this: a) America appears to be ramping up anti-China rhetoric, b) Canada is in a panic because of yet unproven allegations that China is interfering in our election, and c) one of China’s greatest allies, Pakistan, has been accused of committing a terrorist act, though these accusations have also not been independently verified.

If you accept the premise that both China and Pakistan are responsible for the two above incidents, qui bono? China and Pakistan have a lot to lose from this, but what do the below have to gain?

America/Trump: “Hey Canada and India, Pakistan and China sure are evil, aren’t they? May I manufacture your consent for war? We could also drive a wedge between two BRICS partners! Won’t that be fun? For me, not you, but you can fight the war while I count my money from my throne!”

Israel/Netanyahu: “Ugh, Islamic terrorists are the worst, aren’t they?? Everyone is a terrorist but me! Now I can use this event as an excuse to characterize another Muslim population as evil, won’t that be fun? I love murder, and being a cunt!”

I’m being a bit of an asshole and I’m not saying these players are definitively responsible. This event happened literally days ago, so what do I know? None of us yet know the truth.

But if you ask qui bono, Pakistan’s water is now threatened where it wasn’t before, and they’re now facing a possible war where there wasn’t one before. China was living in peace with a better economy than everyone else but they’re now being drawn into potential conflicts with Canada and India. Do they benefit the most from what is going on?

But America does benefit if people are suspicious of China, and Israel does benefit if people are suspicious of Muslims. That’s all I’m saying. That’s just true.

I could still be wrong and am happy to be wrong. But what I’m not happy to do is to rush into antagonism with foreign countries when I know how much consent has been manufactured for a genocide in Palestine and a proxy war in Ukraine. I will be damned if I do not counsel caution for other possible conflicts, and I will not fighting any wars standing by Israel or America’s side.

Thank you for reading. If you like my writing and want to support me, please consider subscribing to my free newsletter, or sharing with others you think might be interested. Thank you!