Following the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed 28 lives, Pakistani cricketer Shahid Afridi stirred controversy by accusing the Indian Army of negligence and unjustly blaming Pakistan for the tragedy. In a video statement, Afridi alleged that despite having nearly 8 lakh soldiers, the Indian Army failed to protect civilians and was quick to point fingers at Pakistan after the attack.
Responding sharply to Afridi’s remarks, BJP National Spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla criticized the cricketer, saying, “Not every terrorist carries a gun; some come with a pen, and some come with a bat. Shahid Afridi is one of those who comes with a bat.”
Poonawalla further slammed Afridi by pointing out his glorification of Yasin Malik, a convicted terrorist, labelling him a “freedom fighter.” He accused Pakistan’s leaders and influential figures of consistently portraying terrorists involved in attacks like the one in Pahalgam as freedom fighters, further exposing their double standards.
Highlighting Pakistan’s dubious history with terrorism, Poonawalla called Islamabad’s denial of any links to terrorism “the biggest joke of the century.” He criticized Pakistan for continuously harbouring and supporting terrorist organizations under the guise of political and humanitarian narratives.
Meanwhile, Shahid Afridi had advocated for “sports diplomacy” as a solution to the ongoing tensions. However, Marksmen Daily questioned Afridi’s stance, asking: if Pakistan has no connection to terrorism, why was the Sri Lankan cricket team attacked in Lahore in 2009? Why do 13 banned terrorist organizations operate openly from Pakistani soil? And why was Osama Bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, found hiding in Pakistan?
As tensions rise after the Pahalgam attack, voices like Poonawalla’s reflect India’s growing frustration with Pakistan’s continued denial and contradictory narratives on terrorism. The incident also reignites concerns about the role of public figures like Afridi who, instead of promoting peace, are seen amplifying controversial and misleading narratives.
