The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, in which 26 civilians, mainly Hindu tourists were killed, is widely regarded as one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai massacre.
The brutality, targeting families and selecting victims based on religion, shocked the world and instantly escalated tensions in the subcontinent.
TRF: The Outfit Behind the Atrocity
The Resistance Front (TRF), a relatively recent entrant on the militancy scene, initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. TRF is widely recognized as a proxy for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), an organization already designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations and several Western nations.
Investigations revealed that the attackers were Pakistani nationals affiliated with LeT, and their aim appeared not just to target civilians but to inflame communal divisions and disrupt Kashmir’s fragile peace.
TRF and similar entities are often accused of rebranding and using local recruits to disguise their organizational lineage, thereby complicating efforts to counter them effectively. Indeed, after initially claiming responsibility, TRF retracted its claim and shifted blame toward Indian authorities—a tactic recognized by terror researchers as an attempt to avoid backlash or intensified counterterror operations.
US and India’s Alignment
In response to the attack, the United States moved swiftly and decisively. The US State Department officially designated TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, directly tying the group to LeT and citing its role in the April 22 massacre.
India, which had long classified TRF as a terror entity, immediately welcomed this move, seeing it as vital diplomatic support for its argument that Pakistan abets cross-border terrorism through proxies like TRF.
The US designation:
Blocks TRF’s financial, digital, and material support networks through legal and regulatory means.
Serves as an international signal to partner countries to act similarly.
Provides evidence-based validation to India’s longstanding claims of Pakistan’s complicity.
For India, this marks progress in its campaign to internationally isolate Pakistan-based militant networks. The US, in turn, signals a tougher posture, explicitly connecting recent violence to Pakistan’s territory.
The Global Divide: UN and China’s Contrasting Position
Despite these coordinated moves, the United Nations has not designated TRF as a banned terrorist group. The primary reason is opposition or lack of consensus within the Security Council, particularly due to the position adopted by China.
While China “strongly condemned” the Pahalgam attack, calling for enhanced regional cooperation on counter-terrorism, it has not endorsed any binding multilateral ban or sanctions on TRF at the UN.
China’s Consistent Support for Pakistan
China’s reluctance to ban TRF echoes its consistent diplomatic pattern of shielding Pakistan on international terrorism issues. For example:
Masood Azhar, chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed: For years, China blocked UN attempts to designate him a global terrorist, only relenting in 2019 after intense global pressure and irrefutable evidence.
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Affiliates: China has repeatedly put technical holds on UN efforts to list LeT operatives and other Pakistani proxies, arguing for “further evidence” despite consensus among most other Security Council members.
Even now, after the Pahalgam attack, China’s statements have focused on regional stability and dialogue, not punitive multilateral action against TRF specifically.
China perceives Pakistan as a key strategic partner in South Asia, central to its interests in the region (notably through projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor). Ensuring that Pakistan does not lose international standing or face crippling sanctions aligns with Beijing’s broader regional strategy.
Also Read: China’s Proxy War: Arming Pakistan and Misinformation Tactics
Implications of Global Disunity
The split between national and multilateral responses significantly impedes global counterterrorism effectiveness:
Without UN designation, international law enforcement and financial regulatory bodies have less power to freeze assets or restrict movements of TRF affiliates globally.
It creates operational loopholes, while some countries may act, others can become safe havens or conduits for funding and recruitment for these groups.
It emboldens other actors to mimic TRF’s rebranding strategy, undermining the resolve of US-India pressure.
Regional Fallout and the Danger of Escalation
The Pahalgam attack not only brought South Asia to the brink of open conflict—with India launching airstrikes in Pakistan and cross-border skirmishes flaring up—but also underscored the potential for regional terror incidents to produce global crises.
Indian and Western analysts argue that as long as countries like China shield Pakistan from international scrutiny and sanctions, substantive counterterrorism progress will remain elusive. In this environment, state-backed or tolerated proxies like TRF are effectively incentivized to sustain and escalate violence, often with horrific costs for civilians.
The Need for Unified Global Action
The designation of TRF by the US and India marks a significant escalation in the international campaign against proxy militant outfits. Yet, without UN consensus and China’s cooperation, such steps, while symbolically and practically important, have limited reach in a globalized world.
The Pahalgam attack exposes the gap between counterterror rhetoric and action—one that only unified, consensus-driven international policy can bridge.
Until then, the politics of terror designation will continue to be as much about geostrategic rivalry as about countering extremist violence—and the victims will too often be civilians caught in the crossfire
