Pakistan’s ‘Unknown Gunmen’: Who Is Behind the Mysterious Targeted Killings?
- 3 days ago
- 6 min read
Pakistan’s ‘Unknown Gunmen’: The killings behind a growing shadow-war mystery
For several years, an unusual phrase has repeatedly surfaced around targeted killings in Pakistan: “unknown gunmen.”
The victims in some of the most closely watched cases were men associated with militant organisations or attacks targeting India. Assailants often escaped, and responsibility was not immediately claimed.
Eventually, the incidents generated a much larger question:
Were these unrelated killings driven by local rivalries and militancy—or evidence of a covert campaign operating inside Pakistan?
Pakistan has publicly accused Indian agents of orchestrating at least two killings and says it possesses documentary, financial and forensic evidence. India rejected Pakistan's accusations as “false and malicious anti-India propaganda.”
Investigations by The Guardian and The Washington Post, meanwhile, reported allegations from intelligence and security sources that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), had expanded operations targeting militants inside Pakistan
What We Know
Who are the ‘unknown gunmen’?
There is no organisation formally known as the “Unknown Gunmen.”
Rather, the expression became shorthand in media and online discussion for attackers whose identities or affiliations were unclear when particular killings occurred.
That creates an immediate problem.
Pakistan has long experienced violence involving Islamist militants, Baloch separatists, sectarian organisations, criminal networks and state security operations. An attack by unidentified gunmen therefore cannot automatically be classified as a foreign intelligence operation.
For example, unidentified gunmen have been responsible for attacks in Pakistan completely unrelated to the India allegations. Pakistani authorities have sometimes suspected domestic militant organisations in such cases.
What made another group of killings different was the profile of the targets.
Some had histories connected with militant groups accused of attacks against India.
Two cases Pakistan formally attributed to Indian agents
Pakistan made its most detailed public accusation on January 25, 2024.
Foreign Secretary Muhammad Syrus Sajjad Qazi said Pakistani authorities had evidence connecting alleged Indian agents with the assassinations of Shahid Latif and Muhammad Riaz.
The Pakistani government characterised the cases as killings-for-hire involving networks operating across multiple jurisdictions.
India rejected the accusations. AP reported that New Delhi described Pakistan's claims as an attempt to spread false and malicious anti-India propaganda.
These two cases provide a useful starting point because, unlike much online speculation surrounding the “unknown gunmen” phenomenon, Pakistan publicly presented its allegations in detail.
Two Key Cases
Who was Shahid Latif?
Shahid Latif was described by AP as an anti-India militant. He was killed in October 2023 in Sialkot.
Pakistan later alleged that an Indian agent based in another country recruited intermediaries who located Latif and arranged the killing.
According to Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, local suspects were arrested and investigators claimed that financial transactions, technical evidence and statements connected the alleged network to an Indian agent.
The allegation remains Pakistan's account of the case; India rejected the broader accusation.
Who was Muhammad Riaz?
Muhammad Riaz was killed at a mosque in Rawalakot in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in September 2023.
Pakistan alleged that the suspected killer was recruited and guided by Indian agents and received payments through intermediaries outside Pakistan.
Pakistani authorities said the suspected shooter and alleged facilitators were arrested.
Again, the claimed connection to India is an allegation by Pakistan, not an acknowledgement by the Indian government.
Another killing raised questions: Amir Sarfraz Tamba
The pattern attracted further attention in April 2024 after gunmen killed Amir Sarfraz Tamba at his home in Lahore.
Tamba had previously been accused of involvement in the prison attack that killed Indian national Sarabjit Singh, who Pakistan had convicted of espionage. Tamba had been acquitted of involvement in Singh's murder in 2018.
Pakistan's Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi said authorities suspected Indian involvement but would wait for the investigation.
That qualification is significant.
Unlike the Latif and Riaz cases, Pakistani officials had not at that stage presented the same level of public attribution. Reuters reported that the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministries did not respond to its requests for comment on the Tamba killing.
Claim vs Evidence
What did investigative reports find?
The issue moved beyond accusations exchanged by India and Pakistan after international news organisations began investigating the killings.
In April 2024, The Guardian reported allegations from Indian and Pakistani intelligence sources that India's RAW had been involved in killings in Pakistan since 2020 as part of an evolving counter-terrorism strategy. India denied the allegations reported at the time.
Later that year, The Washington Post published an investigation into what it described as India's “shadow war” with Pakistan, examining allegations of covert targeted killings.
These investigations substantially increased international attention around the issue.
They did not, however, turn every unexplained killing in Pakistan into a confirmed RAW operation.
That distinction is essential.
What has India said?
India's response has had two different dimensions.
First, New Delhi rejected Pakistan's specific accusations connecting Indian agents to the killings.
But India's political leadership has also adopted increasingly assertive language about pursuing militants responsible for attacks on India.
In April 2024, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said India would pursue terrorists even if they escaped into Pakistan. His comments came after publication of allegations concerning killings in Pakistan.
Such statements demonstrate a hardening public counter-terrorism posture.
They should not automatically be interpreted as confirmation that India was responsible for every killing attributed to unidentified gunmen in Pakistan.
Why would targeted killings be used?
Targeted killings can offer states a way to confront perceived threats without launching a conventional military operation.
But they also create profound legal, diplomatic and strategic questions when carried out inside another sovereign country.
Potential strategic objectives can include:
disrupting militant leadership;
degrading operational networks;
deterring future attacks;
preventing planned operations;
increasing the personal cost of organising attacks.
The risks can be equally significant.
Misidentification, civilian casualties, diplomatic retaliation, escalation between states and violations of sovereignty can turn a supposedly limited operation into a much larger international crisis.
Why States Use Covert Action
The wider India–Pakistan shadow war
The allegations cannot be understood separately from the decades-long security confrontation between India and Pakistan.
The two nuclear-armed neighbours have fought wars, experienced repeated military crises and accused each other of supporting violent actors across their borders.
India has long accused Pakistan of providing sanctuary and support to militant organisations responsible for attacks in India and Kashmir. Pakistan denies supporting terrorism and has, in turn, repeatedly accused India of covert destabilisation inside Pakistan.
The 2019 Pulwama attack became an important turning point.
A suicide bombing killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel. India subsequently carried out an air strike near Balakot in Pakistan, saying it had targeted a Jaish-e-Mohammed training facility.
Pakistan responded militarily.
The episode demonstrated that a major terrorist attack could rapidly push India and Pakistan towards direct interstate confrontation.
From shadow operations to Operation Sindoor
The strategic environment changed even more dramatically after the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam attack, in which 26 people were killed.
India blamed Pakistan-linked terrorism; Pakistan denied involvement and called for an investigation.
India subsequently launched Operation Sindoor, striking what New Delhi described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
The confrontation expanded into missile and drone attacks against military installations before the two countries agreed to halt the fighting after four days. Reuters described it as their worst fighting in nearly three decades.
Satellite imagery reviewed by The Washington Post later showed damage at several Pakistani airfields following Indian strikes.
This represents an important strategic distinction.
Alleged targeted killings are characterised by deniability.
Operation Sindoor was an openly acknowledged state military operation.
Covert vs Overt
Why attribution is so difficult
Intelligence operations are deliberately designed to make attribution difficult.
States may work through intermediaries rather than government personnel. Criminal networks, local operatives or other proxies can further obscure responsibility.
But there is another problem.
Once a narrative such as “unknown gunmen” becomes popular, unrelated killings can become attached to the same theory without adequate evidence.
Pakistan's complicated security landscape makes that especially dangerous.
Militant rivalries, sectarian violence, organised crime, personal disputes and counter-terrorism operations all coexist.
A responsible assessment therefore requires examining each incident individually.
Updated+ Attribution Standard
What remains unknown
There is credible reporting and an explicit Pakistani government allegation that Indian intelligence was connected to certain targeted killings.
There is also an Indian denial of Pakistan's specific allegations.
What the public record does not establish is that every militant or controversial figure killed by unidentified attackers in Pakistan was targeted by India.
Nor does the popular phrase “unknown gunmen” identify who carried out any particular attack.
That uncertainty is not a weakness in the story.
It is the story.
Covert conflict operates precisely in the space between action and acknowledgement—where governments accuse, intelligence agencies remain silent, intermediaries obscure responsibility and definitive evidence may remain classified for years.
A new phase of the India–Pakistan conflict?
The evolution from allegations of deniable targeted killings to the openly acknowledged military exchanges of 2025 suggests a potentially important shift in the India–Pakistan security relationship.
After the 2025 confrontation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned that India would strike terrorist hideouts again in response to future attacks, while Pakistan said it remained committed to the ceasefire but would respond to future aggression.
This raises a larger question for South Asia:
Will future confrontation remain in the shadows—or increasingly move into openly acknowledged cross-border military action?
For two nuclear-armed neighbours, the distinction is more than semantic. It could determine how quickly the next crisis escalates.
Editorial Note
This article concerns disputed allegations involving intelligence agencies and targeted killings. Updated+ does not attribute an operation to a government or intelligence service solely because unidentified attackers were involved. Pakistani allegations, Indian responses, independently reported findings and confirmed facts are identified separately.
Comments