The devastating Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, left a deep scar on India, claiming the lives of 26 Hindu tourists in a brutal assault at Baisaran meadow. Just days later, on April 27, 2025, a high-profile event unfolded at Harvard University that has sparked outrage and raised serious questions about the intentions behind it. The Pakistan Conference 2025, organized under the Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute—funded by Indian-origin steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal—was held with an air of academic prestige.

However, many see it as a calculated attempt by Pakistan to polish its tarnished image as a hub of global terrorism while pushing anti-India narratives. This conference, attended by over 300 people and featuring more than 20 panels, has ignited a firestorm of criticism for its timing and agenda, especially in the wake of such a tragic event.

The conference, titled “Bridging Divides, Building Tomorrow: Pakistan’s Path to Inclusive Growth and Governance,” presented itself as a platform to discuss Pakistan’s arts, culture, and heritage. On the surface, it appeared to be a scholarly effort to foster dialogue. But beneath this polished exterior, critics argue it served a far more troubling purpose: to whitewash Pakistan’s long history of supporting terrorism and to subtly amplify narratives that undermine India’s sovereignty and cultural identity. The event’s academic veneer, backed by Harvard’s global reputation, lent it an air of legitimacy that many find deeply concerning, especially given its proximity to the Pahalgam attack. As one Indian student at Harvard put it, the conference felt like “a slap in the face” to those grieving the loss of innocent lives in Kashmir.

A Network of Partners with Questionable Timing

The Pakistan Conference 2025 was not a standalone event but a collaborative effort involving several prominent organizations. Its partners included National Foods Limited, a major Pakistani food company with a global footprint, and the United States Educational Foundation in Pakistan, known for administering programs like Fulbright. Other collaborators were ClassACT HR ’73, a Harvard-Radcliffe alumni initiative, and the Program on Law and Society in the Muslim World at Harvard Law School. The involvement of the Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute—funded by an Indian billionaire—has drawn particular scrutiny, with critics questioning why an institute bearing an Indian name would back an event seen as glorifying Pakistan at such a sensitive time.

The timeline of events leading up to the conference paints a troubling picture. On April 16, 2025, Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir declared Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” a provocative statement signaling Islamabad’s unrelenting focus on the disputed region. Just four days later, on April 20, Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam was opened to tourists without adequate security clearance, a decision that proved catastrophic. On April 22, the horrific attack by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group with links to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) safehouses, claimed 26 lives. Then, on April 27, the Harvard conference went ahead, projecting Pakistan as a progressive nation striving for inclusive growth, with no mention of the bloodshed in Pahalgam. This sequence of events has led many to view the conference as part of a broader strategy to deflect attention from Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorism.

Harvard’s Troubling Role in Shaping Narratives

The controversy surrounding the Pakistan Conference has brought renewed attention to Harvard’s history of promoting narratives that critics argue distort India’s cultural and historical identity. In his book Snakes in the Ganga, author Rajiv Malhotra accuses Harvard of using its academic platforms to push divisive ideologies through Marxist and Leftist frameworks. He specifically points to institutes like the Lakshmi Mittal South Asia Institute (funded with ₹207 crore), the Murthy Classical Library (backed by Infosys), the Mahindra Humanities Centre, and the Piramal School of Public Health as platforms that promote critical theories vilifying Hindu traditions. According to Malhotra, these initiatives often frame Indian culture as regressive while downplaying or ignoring the complexities of regional conflicts like Kashmir.

Harvard’s influence extends beyond academia to Indian media, with partnerships involving outlets like The Wire, Sabrang, The Caravan, and The National Herald. Through programs like the Nieman Foundation, Harvard shapes journalistic narratives that frequently refer to Kashmir as “Indian-administered” and describe terrorists as “militants,” terms that critics argue sanitize Pakistan’s role in fueling violence. Malhotra also claims that Indian students at Harvard are often exposed to anti-India ideologies, which they later carry into influential roles in government, academia, and media. He cites the 2008 UPA government’s allocation of ₹372.82 crore for an Amartya Sen chair at Harvard as an example of Indian resources being used to fund institutions that undermine India’s interests.

At the heart of the controversy is Lakshmi Mittal, whose funding of the Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute has come under intense scrutiny. While the institute claims to advance research on South Asia, its decision to host a conference that critics say glorified Pakistan—while ignoring the Pahalgam attack—has been labeled a betrayal by many. Speakers at the conference, including historian Dr. Ayesha Jalal and former Pakistani minister Miftah Ismail, portrayed Pakistan as a vibrant hub of culture and reform, a narrative that starkly contrasted with the reality of its alleged support for terrorism. Social media posts on X have been scathing, with one user lamenting, “Money doesn’t guarantee patriotism,” in reference to Mittal’s role.

Critics argue that the conference exemplifies what Malhotra calls Harvard’s “good cop” academic façade—a strategy of using intellectual prestige to mask deeper anti-India agendas while leveraging Indian wealth. The fact that an institute bearing an Indian name and funded by an Indian billionaire hosted such an event has left many questioning Mittal’s priorities. As one commentator on X put it, “Lakshmi Mittal sponsors a Paki conference at Harvard. What does he gain from this?!” The sentiment reflects a growing frustration among Indians who feel that their own elite are inadvertently enabling narratives that harm the nation.

A Broader Geopolitical Game

The Pakistan Conference cannot be viewed in isolation but as part of a larger geopolitical strategy. For decades, Western powers have supported Pakistan to counterbalance India’s growing influence in South Asia. Pakistan’s military, bolstered by billions in U.S. aid, has been accused of serving as a tool to destabilize India, a dynamic that critics say is often downplayed by Western media outlets like The New York Times. Pakistan’s former defense minister Khawaja Asif has himself admitted to Western-backed terrorism, yet such revelations rarely make headlines in global media.

Harvard’s global network, spanning academia, media, and policy circles, plays a pivotal role in shaping international perceptions. Indian-funded initiatives at the university, such as translations of Indian texts or projects like the Dalit Panthers, are often criticized for pushing intellectual colonization—reframing India’s history and culture through a Western lens that emphasizes division and conflict. The Pakistan Conference, with its focus on Pakistan’s “inclusive growth,” is seen as a continuation of this trend, using Harvard’s platform to sanitize Pakistan’s image while ignoring its role in incidents like the Pahalgam attack.

Calls for Accountability

The backlash against the Pakistan Conference has been swift and vocal. Indian students at Harvard have urged the university to take a stand, issuing a letter that reads, “We respectfully request that Harvard University: 1. Issue a public statement condemning the Pahalgam terror attacks and affirming support for victims of religion-based violence. 2. Review the participation of Pakistani officials at the Pakistan Conference 2025 in light of their government’s ideological and rhetorical support for groups like LeT. 3. Provide emotional and institutional support to affected students through the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging.” This demand reflects a broader call for accountability, not just from Harvard but also from Indian businessmen like Mittal, whose funds are seen as enabling these controversial narratives.

The timing of the conference—just five days after the Pahalgam attack—has only deepened the sense of betrayal. For many, it is not just an academic event but a stark reminder of how global platforms can be used to manipulate narratives. As one X user poignantly noted, “It is a shame that after the #Pahalgam attack, the ‘Pakistan conference at Harvard’ is being held with the Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute being a partner. This is quite unfortunate and must be stood against strongly!” The sentiment captures the growing demand for transparency and responsibility from institutions and individuals who wield significant influence.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam tragedy, the Pakistan Conference 2025 stands as a troubling example of how academic prestige can be co-opted to serve geopolitical agendas. For India, it is a call to reassess the role of its wealth and influence in global institutions, ensuring that they align with the nation’s interests and values. As the wounds of Pahalgam remain fresh, the controversy surrounding Harvard’s conference serves as a sobering reminder of the power of narratives—and the need to challenge those that seek to distort the truth.