Saifullah Khalid, alias Saifullah Kasuri, is a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander and the alleged mastermind behind the deadly 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR: Saifullah Khalid, also known by his alias Saifullah Kasuri, has emerged as a central figure in the recent resurgence of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. Widely identified as the mastermind behind the horrific Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025—which claimed the lives of 26 innocent civilians, mostly tourists—Khalid holds a senior leadership position within Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based terrorist organization.
His deep-rooted affiliations with extremist outfits like Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and his role as the head of LeT’s Peshawar headquarters further establish his prominence within the militant ecosystem. As security agencies continue their probe into one of the deadliest attacks in Kashmir in over two decades, Saifullah Khalid’s name stands out not only for his operational involvement but also for his ideological influence in reviving militancy in the region under the garb of local resistance through outfits like The Resistance Front (TRF).
Who is Saifullah Khalid (also known as Saifullah Kasuri)?
Saifullah Khalid, also known by his alias Saifullah Kasuri, is a top-ranking commander of the Pakistan-based terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and has been identified by Indian intelligence as the suspected mastermind behind the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. This attack, carried out in the scenic Baisaran meadow of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, resulted in the death of 26 civilians, primarily tourists, making it the deadliest civilian attack in Kashmir since 2000.
Alleged Role in Pahalgam Attack
Khalid is believed to have played a central role in orchestrating the Pahalgam assault. Multiple intelligence sources, including reports from India Today, The New Indian Express, and The Times of India, point to him as a key planner.
These reports also suggest the involvement of other Lashkar commanders based in Rawalkot, including an individual named Abu Musa.
The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF)—a banned militant group that is widely acknowledged as a proxy front for LeT. Although the authenticity of the TRF’s claim is yet to be independently verified, it aligns with the group’s prior patterns of targeting civilians, migrant workers, and security forces in Jammu and Kashmir.
Position and Affiliations
Saifullah Khalid is reported to be:
- Deputy Chief of LeT, with direct links to LeT co-founder Hafiz Saeed.
- Head of LeT’s Peshawar headquarters in Pakistan.
- A former member of Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s Coordination Committee for Central Punjab Province.
Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which Khalid has been associated with, is designated by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations as an alias for Lashkar-e-Taiba. These entities have imposed sanctions on JuD due to its terrorist affiliations.
Ideological Stance and Activity
Khalid has been vocal in extremist circles, particularly criticizing Pakistan’s softened stance on Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 by India in August 2019. In a reported (but unverified) speech delivered in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on February 2, 2025, Khalid declared:
“We will try our best to capture Kashmir by February 2, 2026. In the coming days, our Mujahideen will intensify attacks.”
He also reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s internal strategic recalibrations, especially regarding its approach to Kashmir, in light of increasing security challenges in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Strategic Meetings and Mobilisation
Reports suggest that in the months preceding the Pahalgam attack, Khalid had traveled to Kanganpur, Punjab (Pakistan)—a region housing a significant Pakistan Army presence. He has also been involved in closed-door meetings with LeT cadres and sympathizers across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, aimed at reviving and escalating cross-border militancy in Kashmir.
Saifullah Khalid, alias Kasuri, is a high-ranking LeT commander, regarded as the mastermind of the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack. His leadership role in LeT and involvement with JuD underscore his longstanding influence within the militant network targeting India. His ideological rhetoric and operational planning reinforce concerns about renewed threats to peace and civilian security in Kashmir.
The Legal Arsenal: India’s Major Anti-Terrorism Laws
India has developed a comprehensive legislative framework to tackle terrorism, empowering authorities to prevent, investigate, and prosecute such offenses. These statutes are designed not only to address acts of terror but also to deter their planning and funding. Among the most significant are:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
The UAPA remains the cornerstone of India’s anti-terrorism legislation. Enacted to curb unlawful activities and associations, the law has evolved to address modern forms of terrorism.
Key Features:
- The central government can designate individuals and organizations as terrorists.
- Law enforcement can detain suspects for extended periods without formal charges.
- It permits the attachment and seizure of properties suspected to be linked to terrorism.
In the context of the Pahalgam attack, the UAPA may be invoked to declare “Kashmir Resistance” a terrorist organization, enabling law enforcement agencies to freeze their financial assets and pursue members aggressively.
National Security Act, 1980 (NSA)
The NSA provides for preventive detention of individuals who are perceived to pose a threat to national security and public order.
Key Features
- Allows detention without formal charges for up to 12 months.
- Intended to thwart activities prejudicial to the integrity and sovereignty of the country.
Post-Pahalgam, this statute could be crucial in detaining individuals suspected of collaborating with or aiding the attackers, thereby pre-empting further threats.
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA)
Enacted in the wake of the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, POTA aimed to strengthen anti-terror operations. It broadened the definition of terrorism and enabled the creation of special courts.
However, due to widespread allegations of misuse, particularly targeting minority communities, POTA was repealed in 2004. Its legacy, however, continues to influence current legal thought on counter-terrorism.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)
TADA was one of the earliest attempts at dealing with terrorism legislatively. It allowed prolonged detention and admitted confessions made to police officers as evidence.
Despite its intent, TADA was criticized for serious human rights violations and was allowed to lapse in 1995.
SAARC Convention (Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1993
India’s commitment to regional counter-terrorism efforts is reflected in this legislation, which implements the SAARC Convention.
Key Features:
- Facilitates extradition and legal cooperation among SAARC countries.
- Reinforces India’s international obligations to suppress cross-border terrorism.
Arms Act, 1959 and Explosives Act, 1884
These foundational laws regulate the possession and use of arms and explosives.
In terrorism-related cases such as Pahalgam, these statutes are often applied in conjunction with the UAPA and NSA due to the involvement of illegal firearms and explosives.
Legal Implications of the Pahalgam Attack
The horrific nature of the Pahalgam incident necessitates a swift and lawful response. In addition to UAPA and NSA provisions, investigators are likely to utilize the Arms Act and Explosives Act to prosecute those involved. Designating “Kashmir Resistance” as a terrorist group under UAPA would enable authorities to dismantle its networks and track funding sources.
Preventive detention under NSA might be employed against individuals with suspected links to the perpetrators to prevent further attacks. Additionally, evidence collection under the procedural safeguards of these laws is expected to play a critical role in prosecuting the accused in special or fast-track courts.
Balancing National Security with Civil Liberties
While these laws provide powerful tools against terrorism, they also attract criticism for potential misuse. Human rights advocates have raised alarms over the vagueness of terms such as “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts,” which could be exploited to suppress dissent.
International organizations and civil society groups have repeatedly urged India to ensure that the enforcement of anti-terror laws adheres to constitutional safeguards. Provisions allowing prolonged detention without charge or the lack of judicial oversight in some instances raise concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms.
Thus, the challenge lies in ensuring that the response to terrorism is effective without undermining the democratic fabric of the nation.
READ MORE REPORTS ON PAHALGAM ATTACK
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE