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 commander, has instead emerged as a jumbled, poorly edited document that undermines its own credibility.
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 Sunday 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. “Even exposed” is the correct form, and the phrase “with facts” is tacked on like a slogan. The overall sentence reads like it skipped both proofreading and translation quality control.
In multiple places, the term “innocents’ civilians” appears—an incorrect possessive construction. The intended phrase is likely “innocent civilians,” but the document uses the grammatically impossible version at least twice. It also refers to an FIR being “lunched” against Pakistan—clearly a misspelling of “launched,” but never corrected and served to international bodies.
The document also frequently breaks from English syntax norms- “Just after the 10 minutes of incident, FIR was lunched against Pakistan without any evidence.”
Again, grammatically incorrect. It should read: “Just ten minutes after the incident, an FIR was launched against Pakistan.” The repetition of such errors gives the document the feel of a rushed, machine-translated draft—not the official position of a sovereign nation.
Beyond grammar, the rhetorical tone of the dossier oscillates between victimhood and bombast, often slipping into unfiltered aggression.
India is accused of “naked aggression,” “murdering innocents,” “weaponizing violence,” and committing “unprovoked acts.” These phrases are repeated throughout with little variation, weakening their impact. It reads less like a diplomatic dossier and more like a tabloid op-ed.
The list of supposed military victories claimed by Pakistan further stretches credibility. The dossier says that Pakistan military destroyed S-400 systems, BrahMos storage units, multiple Indian brigades, and shot down Rafale jets. It claims: “Pakistan precisely targeted only the military installations and platforms that launched attacks on its territory, strictly avoiding civilian areas.”
But there is no evidence—no photos, no independent confirmation, no satellite data. The sheer scale of these claimed victories, without a single corroborating source, makes the entire account sound fabricated or greatly exaggerated, as a director level official with an international body and a non-Indian who also read the dossier, told the Sunday Guardian.
Strategically, the document also defeats itself. It calls for a third-party investigation, but insists throughout that India is guilty—undermining its own supposed openness. It criticizes India for reaching conclusions too quickly after the attack, yet immediately brands the attack as a staged “false flag” in its opening paragraphs. That contradiction is not subtle; it’s central to the case and breaks whatever logical structure the narrative tries to build.
On the presentation side, even the Table of Contents is riddled with issues. One section is titled, “Indian Own Media and Intellectuals Raising Question about the Pahalgam Incident.”
This is grammatically incorrect. It should be “Indian Media and Intellectuals Raising Questions.” The phrase “Indian Own Media” is clunky and non-native in tone, suggesting poor editorial oversight.
Even the name of Pakistan’s own military operation—Operation Bunyanum Marsoos—is introduced with no background, no explanation, and no translation. For an international audience, unfamiliar with Urdu or military jargon, this comes across as both alienating and confusing.
In terms of diplomatic function, the dossier is non-strategic. It offers no roadmap, no proposals, no references to regional dialogue mechanisms, no appeal to the UN beyond the shallow invocation of Article 51. It offers no vision for peace, only accusation after accusation. There is no balancing act, no space for nuance, no recognition of mutual responsibility, or even of complex regional dynamics.
The official who read the dossier told the Sunday Guardian that Pakistan’s dossier falls far below the standard of a serious diplomatic document. It’s not just weak—it’s self-defeating. Its errors in language, logic, tone, and evidence are so extensive that it not only fails to make a case—it damages the very credibility it seeks to defend. For a government that wants to be seen as a responsible actor on the world stage, this document is not just a missed opportunity; it’s an embarrassment.