Engineered Unrest

The latest bout of violence in Noida no mere story of labour unrest spiralling out of control but bears the more troubling imprint of Pakistani orchestration. The rapid mobilisation, coordinated messaging and the tell-tale fingerprints of networks is symptomatic of a deeper malaise which is Pakistan’s persistent reliance on covert destabilisation as an instrument of statecraft.

Protesters were mobilised overnight through WhatsApp groups, recruited via QR codes and fed a steady stream of incendiary content. As the demonstrations escalated, parallel coordination appeared on Instagram.

Indian agencies are right to probe the possibility of external instigation, particularly in light of recent arrests in Meerut and Noida that point to handlers across the border. The timing is also suggestive. With the anniversary of the April 22 Pahalgam attack fast approaching, one has to be vigilant about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism within India. The unravelling of a terror module linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba in February underscores the point. Operating across Delhi, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, the network was not engaged in spectacular violence but in something subtler and arguably more insidious. Pasting anti-national posters, conducting reconnaissance and building sleeper capabilities, it sought to erode confidence and foment discord. Directed by handlers based in Bangladesh but tied to Pakistan’s security ecosystem, the module exemplifies the diffusion of proxy warfare into new geographies and methods.

For decades, Pakistan’s security establishment has relied on non-state actors to offset India’s conventional superiority. What has changed is the toolkit. Where once infiltration across borders and high-profile attacks dominated, there is now a discernible shift towards hybrid tactics in form of digital mobilisation, psychological operations and the seeding of unrest within civilian spaces. The objective is to keep India internally preoccupied and externally constrained.

The use of Bangladesh as an operational rear base is particularly telling. It allows plausible deniability while expanding the theatre of activity. Figures such as Shabbir Ahmed Lone, with a history of militancy and renewed links to Lashkar leadership, illustrate how old networks are repurposed for contemporary needs. The distinction between state and proxy in Pakistan’s security doctrine has always been deliberately blurred. That some of these networks now operate through third countries or digital platforms does not absolve their original patrons of responsibility. The consequences are corrosive. Episodes like the Noida unrest disrupt economic activity, strain communal relations and test the capacity of local authorities. For India, which is aspiring to sustained economic growth and social cohesion, such disruptions are not trivial irritants but structural threats. What is required is a response that is both firm and sophisticated. Policing must adapt to the realities of digital mobilisation, with greater emphasis on real-time intelligence and platform accountability. Pakistan’s addiction to proxy warfare has already rebounded internally, fuelling extremism within its own borders. To persist with such tactics in an era of heightened surveillance and interdependence is not merely reckless; it is self-defeating. Yet the pattern endures.