Not sure if you'll accept it, but here’s how I see it:
For example, whenever an attack happens in Pakistan, the first reaction usually blames Afghanistan, suggesting that India was backing it. Without any investigation.
And honestly, since no terrorist carries an identity card in his pocket, or documents and usually belongs to low profile, most of the time it just ends with claims that "they came from Afghanistan for an example.
Now, if we talk about investments in the narrative — I’m sure you’ve noticed — whenever an attack happens and security forces make a statement, almost no one nationalist questions it whether they are indian or pakistani. Nobody stands up and demands evidence. If you do, people will question on your loyalty.
The same goes for claims about capturing intelligence officers — it has happened on both sides. You can beat him or make statements, they will accept whatever being asked - so opposite side don't accept that evidence.
So, in the end, it’s all a matter of "pick and choose." If something happens inside my country, naturally, people believe whatever our army or establishment says. But when the same people hear accusations about terrorist attacks abroad, they start demanding evidence.
It’s just a part of international politics, nothing new.
