Masood Azhar, the UN-designated chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed, has claimed that more than 1,000 suicide bombers are ready and waiting to infiltrate India, stating that he is under pressure from operatives eager to carry out attacks and that the actual scale of manpower would “shock” global media if revealed.

Separately, a Hamas-linked individual identified as Naji Zaheer has appeared at a public gathering of Lashkar-e-Taibain Gujranwala, Pakistan. At the event, Zaheer was publicly felicitated by Rashid Ali Sandhu, described by Indian security agencies as a close aide of Saifullah Kasuri, a Lashkar-e-Taiba commander.

Kasuri has been named by Indian investigators as a key planner of the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 civilians—24 Hindus and one Christian among them—were killed. According to official accounts, the victims were tourists who were shot at close range after the attackers confirmed their religious identities.

Security sources assess Zaheer’s appearance at a Lashkar-e-Taiba platform as evidence of operational and ideological linkages between Palestinian militant groups and Pakistan-based jihadist organisations. Investigators have also noted that Zaheer reportedly visited Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in February 2025, weeks before the Pahalgam attack.

These developments come amid Pakistan’s repeated claims in international forums that it is committed to counter-terrorism efforts. The country’s military establishment, led by Asim Munir, continues to deny providing support or sanctuary to militant groups, despite longstanding allegations from India and other countries.

This is what Pakistan’s counter-terrorism narrative looks like when the cameras are not rolling in Washington. Not denial. Not even plausible deniability. Open stages. Open alliances. Open celebration of mass murder.

A Hamas operative does not accidentally end up being honoured at a Lashkar-e-Taiba gathering. A Jaish-e-Mohammed chief does not casually boast about a four-digit suicide bomber reserve without institutional confidence. These are not rogue elements freelancing on the margins. This is an ecosystem operating with the assurance that nothing will follow.

And usually, nothing does.

The broader hypocrisy is older and deeper. Islamist political leadership in the subcontinent once insisted that Muslims could not coexist in a Hindu-majority India—that numerical disadvantage under democracy amounted to oppression. That argument culminated in Partition, enforced through mass violence against Hindus. India was broken not out of ideological agreement, but exhaustion.

Pakistan was the outcome. Later, Bangladesh.

The results of that experiment are no longer theoretical. Pakistan has evolved into a global hub of jihadist terrorism. Bangladesh, once presented as a corrective, is visibly sliding down the same slope. Yet Islamists who continue to live in India routinely mock Hindus for supporting Israel, framing it as irrational prejudice against Palestinians.

History makes that framing untenable.

Palestinian terrorism has never been geographically confined. In 1986, four Palestinian terrorists hijacked Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi. During that attack, Neerja Bhanot—an Indian—was murdered while shielding passengers. She was not Israeli. She was not Jewish. She was targeted because jihadist violence recognises belief, not nationality.

That is why uncritical appeals to “humanitarian sympathy” ring hollow. What is often projected as concern for Palestinians is, in many cases, ideological affinity with transnational jihad. The appearance of Hamas figures on Lashkar stages only strips away the remaining pretence.

So much for talk of “Pakistan Army boots on the ground” in Gaza. The boots did not go anywhere. The terrorists came to Pakistan instead.

Hindus aligning with Israel is not emotional impulse. It is historical memory. Palestinian militancy is not Israel’s problem alone. It has already killed Indians. It threatens India today. And it threatens any society that refuses to submit to Islamist intimidation tomorrow.

What we are witnessing is not coincidence. It is convergence. And pretending otherwise is no longer naïveté—it is wilful blindness.