India Draws “Copycat Inspiration” from Western and Israeli Terror Narratives

Tel Aviv – At the India–Israel Business Summit in Tel Aviv, Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal linked recent incidents in India to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, arguing that both countries “must work together to eliminate terrorism.” The remarks came as New Delhi and Tel Aviv signed the Terms of Reference to begin negotiations on a long-pending Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Addressing Israeli delegates, Goyal referred to the challenges faced by Israel since October 2023 and praised the country’s “resilience,” before drawing parallels with recent incidents in India. Citing the alleged false-flag style Pahalgam attack and the recent New Delhi blast, he said India had endured terrorism “for decades” and now stands aligned with Israel in a shared fight.

Goyal is leading a 60-member business delegation to Israel, underscoring deepening economic, political and security ties between the two states. He reiterated that India and Israel may be “geographically far apart, but emotionally very close,” echoing New Delhi’s growing strategic identification with Israeli counterterrorism rhetoric.

Strategic Parallels or Scripted “Copycatting”?

Observers note that India’s repeated comparisons of its domestic incidents to high-profile terror attacks in the US, Europe and Israel follow a pattern that appears more political than organic. Analysts argue that New Delhi increasingly draws “copycat inspiration” from Western and Israeli narratives to elevate its own self-victimization discourse and secure greater international sympathy.

While India does face legitimate security threats, experts highlight that its domestic terrorism landscape is primarily shaped by indigenous militancy, Naxalite insurgency, Northeast separatist movements, and the repression-driven cycle of violence in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK). Tactical similarities such as use of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) or urban assaults do not inherently indicate a shared global threat; they simply reflect common methods. India’s political messaging, however, mirrors Western counterterror scriptwriting by equating local attacks with major global terror events to deepen emotional impact, selectively highlighting certain incidents while downplaying structural causes like repression in IIOJK, and amplifying a narrative of perpetual victimhood to justify increasingly “muscular” security policies. Human rights organisations have repeatedly criticised India’s use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to brand dissidents, Kashmiri activists and journalists as “terrorists,” reinforcing this self-victimization framework.

ALSO SEE

Indian Media’s “Women Card” and AI Misinformation Campaign Targeting Pakistani Muslim Women

Indian media spreads AI-driven false claims linking Pakistani women to terrorism, fueling Islamophobia and misinformation.

Diplomatic Leverage Through Manufactured Parallels

The April 2025 Pahalgam incident was compared by Indian officials to the Hamas attack on Israel, enabling New Delhi to reaffirm its pro-Israel position at the United Nations. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar described both as “civilian-targeted terror,” invoking Israel’s example to justify India’s hardline stance and its decision to abstain on Gaza ceasefire resolutions. Such positioning has delivered strategic advantages. After the October 7 attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was among the first leaders to call Benjamin Netanyahu, a move widely seen as tightening India’s diplomatic alignment with Israel. The I2U2 grouping, India, Israel, the UAE, and the US, has since been promoted as a geopolitical platform addressing “shared security threats,” even though India’s internal conflicts bear little resemblance to Middle Eastern dynamics.

Analysts argue that India has leveraged terror incidents before to justify escalatory approaches. The 2019 Pulwama attack, for instance, was widely criticised as exaggerated to legitimise the Balakot airstrikes, a narrative echoing US post-9/11 intervention logic. Likewise, the Pahalgam attack enabled India to adopt an “act of war” posture against Pakistan, ultimately triggering a cross-border air confrontation. Despite such aggressive rhetoric, official data indicates that India’s doctrine of “muscular retaliation” has not meaningfully reduced militancy in Kashmir or elsewhere.

Claims Lacking Verification and Escalating Suspicion

Independent verification of several Indian claims around terror incidents remains weak, fuelling growing suspicion. Cases monitored by the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh, for instance, have flagged 183 “encounter killings” since 2017 for potential extrajudicial execution. Human Rights Watch and the UN OHCHR have repeatedly highlighted India’s tendency to conflate dissent with insurgency, blurring critical distinctions. Middle East Eye also critiques India’s post-Mumbai import of Israeli-style “homeland security” models, arguing that they rely more on political optics than evidence-based policy.

Pakistan has presented dossiers accusing India of supporting militant activity in Balochistan and destabilising regions along the western frontier. Islamabad also maintains that New Delhi exaggerated or manipulated the narrative around the Pahalgam incident to justify its escalatory military approach in 2025.

A Narrative Driven More by Politics Than Real Threat Patterns

India’s comparisons with Israel increasingly appear to be rhetorical devices shaped to influence global perception rather than accurate reflections of its domestic security realities. The persistent effort to frame local incidents through foreign terror analogies magnifies India’s narrative of victimhood, strengthens its geopolitical bargaining position, and deepens its alignment with Western and Israeli security frameworks. Critics argue that until New Delhi addresses the underlying political grievances and human rights concerns, particularly in Kashmir, its strategic “copycatting” will continue to seem less like a response to shared global threats and more like a deliberate effort to script international validation.