The Psychology of Fear: Analyzing Extremist Tactics Against Dissent in India

Byline: An investigation into the threats against Hindu influencer Sharmishta exposes a global playbook of fear, censorship, and ideological coercion.

may 17th 2025, Authored by - Tana ji S. Mal Usre - Oslo, Norway

campaign to silence critics of extremism

Mumbai, India — On May 14, 2025, Sharmishta, a 23-year-old law student at Pune’s Symbiosis Institute, became the face of a chilling campaign to silence critics of extremism. After she condemned Pakistan’s denial of the Pahalgam massacre—where 26 Hindus were executed by a Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot, The Resistance Front, in April 2025—a coordinated online mob threatened her with beheading, rape, and death.

The response was not limited to jihadis; AIMIM spokesperson Waris Pathan amplified calls for her arrest, accusing her of “blasphemy.” This incident, reported by the Rair Foundation, reveals a global pattern: dissenting voices are met with psychological terror, institutional gaslighting, and weaponized accusations of bigotry.

The Pahalgam Massacre and the Anatomy of Denial

On April 22, 2025, Hashim Must, a former Pakistani Army official, led jihadis in Kashmir’s Pahalgam district to confirm the victims' Hindu identities before executing them. When a Pakistani Instagram user dismissed the atrocity, Sharmishta responded with a video mocking Islamabad’s hypocrisy. “Pakistan celebrates terrorists as heroes while denying their crimes,” she asserted, referencing decades of cross-border violence.

Her criticism, rooted in documented history, triggered a malicious reinterpretation. Muslim users falsely claimed she insulted Prophet Muhammad, twisting her words to justify a hate campaign. By May 14, #ArrestSharmishta trended globally on X (formerly Twitter), with threats like “Sar tan se juda” (beheading) flooding her inbox.

Kolkata-based activist Mohammad Shadab Khan demanded police action against her, while AIMIM’s Pathan framed her critique as “hate speech”—a tactic critics argue weaponizes India’s blasphemy laws to shield extremist narratives.

The Role of Social Media in Amplifying Dissent

Social media platforms are increasingly playing a dual role in fostering and fighting extremist narratives. While these platforms provide a voice to marginalized individuals, they can also be battlegrounds where psychological warfare occurs. Sharmishta's case illustrates how digital mobs can coalesce rapidly, fueled by algorithms favoring outrage over reasoned discourse.

Activists warn that this environment fosters a culture of fear, discouraging individuals from expressing dissenting opinions. The ease of mobilizing hate online complicates the landscape for those seeking to challenge extremist ideologies. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for navigating contemporary debates around freedom of speech and censorship in India.

Psychological Warfare: Tactics Employed Against Critics

The cacophony of threats directed at Sharmishta exemplifies a sophisticated playbook of psychological warfare. Extremist groups often employ tactics designed to instill fear, shame, and self-censorship. The barrage of threats she faced aimed not only to silence her but to intimidate others from engaging in similar discourse.

The cyclical nature of fear and silence is alarming. When influential figures like Sharmishta become targets, it sends a chilling message: to speak out against extremism invites harassment, abuse, and potential violence.

Institutional Responses: Protecting or Persecuting?

Institutional responses play a critical role in shaping the climate of dissent. In Sharmishta's case, the reaction from law enforcement and judicial sectors could either legitimize or delegitimize the violence she faced. While some argue that law enforcement must uphold laws against hate speech, the application can be selectively enforced.

Calls for Sharmishta's arrest, driven by AIMIM representatives, exemplify how political entities can manipulate public sentiment and legal frameworks to wield control. The intersection of political interests and social activism complicates efforts to protect dissenting voices from extremist backlash.

A Global Perspective on Censorship and Dissent

The tactics witnessed in Sharmishta's case are emblematic of a larger trend of silencing dissent across various countries. Globally, governments and extremist groups increasingly use psychological warfare to inhibit free expression. Historical patterns show that minorities or dissenters often bear the brunt of violence and harassment, leveraging local laws to silence critical voices.

The Implications of Silencing Dissent

The ramifications of silencing dissent go beyond the immediate threats to individuals. When opposing views are stifled, society suffers from a lack of critical discourse. Engaging in healthy debate is essential for a vibrant democracy. The ability to challenge extremist ideologies directly correlates with societal resilience against radicalization.

The pattern of how dissent is handled can dictate the future of free speech in India and beyond. To protect democracy, it is essential to nurture an environment where diverse opinions can coexist without fear of reprisal.

Conclusion

Sharmishta’s story is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle against extremist tactics designed to silence dissent. The coordinated effort to intimidate, discredit, and marginalize critics illustrates a disturbing trend that transcends borders. Understanding these psychological warfare techniques is essential for individuals and nations alike in combating threats to free speech.

As society grapples with the compounding crises of ideology and safety, the importance of protecting dissent cannot be overstated. Empowering individuals to speak truth to power is crucial in fostering a climate of resilience against extremism and intolerance. Ultimately, a commitment to uphold free expression in the face of fear and intimidation will define the character of democracies in the 21st century.

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any government or organization.