Dr. C. Christine Fair, a political scientist and expert on South Asian military affairs, has long been a controversial figure in Indo-Pak discourse. Known for her robust critiques of Pakistan’s military establishment and jihadist infrastructure, she often earns respect from those who seek a more honest look at Islamabad's duplicity. Yet, despite this, many Indians have increasingly grown disillusioned with her commentary—especially when it appears to downplay or ridicule Indian outrage over cross-border terrorism.
In multiple public appearances, social media posts, and writings, Fair has suggested that Indian media and political actors exaggerate the threat from Pakistan or manipulate it for domestic political gain. She has even gone so far as to mock popular anger in India following terror attacks, suggesting that it reflects not national trauma but political hysteria.
This dismissiveness is particularly grating to many Indians who have witnessed decades of proxy war, infiltration, and bloodshed—often with minimal international sympathy or action. For a scholar who claims to recognize the threat posed by Pakistani jihadist groups, Fair’s contempt for Indian emotional responses appears hypocritical and tone-deaf.
Fair’s tone also exposes a deeper issue: selective empathy. When Western nations respond to terror attacks with anger and sweeping countermeasures, they are applauded for their resolve. But when India reacts similarly, it’s labeled jingoism or intolerance. The expectation that Indians must respond to jihadist violence with restrained, Western liberal detachment smacks of condescension and a lack of cultural sensitivity.
Why is it that global experts, Fair among them, expect India to engage diplomatically with a state that openly celebrates terrorists as “martyrs” and shields their masterminds from justice? Why must Indian pain be filtered through the lens of academic detachment while other nations are granted moral license to defend their people forcefully?
By trivializing Indian concerns, Fair risks undermining her otherwise valuable critiques of Pakistan’s military and ISI. Her expertise on these subjects is significant, but when that knowledge is couched in disdain for Indian perspectives, it alienates the very audience that might otherwise amplify her warnings.
Furthermore, her increasing forays into ideological scuffles—particularly online—have eroded the perception of her neutrality. Scholars must be rigorous, yes, but also empathetic. Fair’s public tone often lacks both humility and an understanding of the trauma that fuels Indian fears about jihadist violence.
C. Christine Fair's work remains important in exposing the deep ties between the Pakistani state and extremist groups. But her credibility suffers when she dismisses Indian sentiment as exaggerated or politically motivated. India's frustration is not merely ideological—it is the product of decades of lost lives, shattered families, and failed diplomatic efforts.
To speak of jihadism in South Asia without acknowledging the legitimacy of Indian outrage is to render the conversation incomplete—and ultimately unjust.