India wages information war to show it has the upper hand against Pakistan

The Star

11-05-2025

NEW DELHI: While news programmes are broadcast on many Indian television channels, sirens can be heard blaring in the background, forcing anchors to raise their voices as they discuss the latest developments in the conflict between India and Pakistan.
This prompted the Home Ministry on Saturday (May 10) to issue an advisory to TV channels to stop using civil defence air raid sirens – meant to capture the viewer's attention – on their programmes.
'The routine use of sirens may likely reduce the sensitivity of civilians towards the air raid sirens,' the advisory cautioned.
Behind all the noise, which includes blanket coverage of the conflict steeped in jingoistic and nationalistic rhetoric, is one message: India has the upper hand against Pakistan.
This message remains in place even as US President Donald Trump announced on May 10 that India and Pakistan had agreed to a 'full and immediate' ceasefire.
In tandem with the strikes and counterstrikes, an information war has been waged within and outside India and Pakistan, not just to show their respective domestic audiences that their governments are taking strong action, but also to win support from those following the hostilities from overseas.
In India, this has ranged from pro-government coverage to media bans and advisories, as the government has sought to control the narrative.
Social media platform X, on the orders of the Indian government, had started blocking 8,000 accounts in India, leading to accusations of censorship.
These include accounts of senior journalists from Kashmir and media websites like Maktoob Media – an independent media outlet that said it focused on human rights and minorities – as well as weekly publications Free Press Kashmir and The Kashmiriyat.
'Blocking entire accounts is not only unnecessary, it (also) amounts to censorship of existing and future content, and is contrary to the fundamental right of free speech,' said X in a statement on May 9.
The platform acknowledged the difficult position it faces, stating: 'This is not an easy decision; however, keeping the platform accessible in India is vital to Indians' ability to access information.'
Those whose accounts were banned said they had no prior intimation.
Maktoob Media said in a statement that it had no knowledge of the reason for the government's action, even as it has continued to cover different aspects of the conflict on its website.
Separately, The Wire, a news portal that is often critical of the government, also found its website briefly blocked on May 9, leading to accusations of censorship.
The site was back online on May 10 with its founding editor, Mr Siddharth Varadarajan, saying in a statement that it had been unblocked after it removed a specific story related to Pakistan's claims of downing an Indian Rafale jet.
India has dismissed the downing of jets as 'misinformation'.
Tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours have risen following the killing of 26 people in a terror attack on April 22 in Pahalgam in Kashmir. India has blamed Pakistan for the attack, and launched strikes across the border in the early hours of May 7.
Pakistan responded, and the two countries were locked in a cycle of exchanging missile strikes and shelling each other's territories.
Amid all this, public opinion has continued to invest confidence in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose image is that of a strong nationalistic leader.
Role of the media
The question facing the media now is about the kind of role it has played and will play in the information war.
Commentators noted that some sections of the media had pushed the narrative of strong government response by backing it with unverified information, inadvertently muddying the government's messaging.
Some mainstream TV channels supportive of the Indian government told viewers that the Indian Navy had attacked Karachi – the largest city in Pakistan – and that the Indian military had advanced right up to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.
This proved to be wrong, with Pakistani residents of the cities mentioned sharing footage and creating memes of how life was going on as usual.
A day after these claims were widely shared, the Indian Defence Ministry, without naming any media organisations, on May 9 'advised' TV media, among others, against 'live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and movement of security forces'.
'Beyond legal compliance, it is a shared moral responsibility to ensure our collective actions do not compromise ongoing operations or the security of our forces,' the advisory said.
Analysts noted that keeping the messaging on point amid the information war had remained critical for the Modi government to back up its strong nationalistic stand and possibly even de-escalate tensions with Pakistan.
'(News that is wrong) damages India's international reputation. If this was done by social media handles, it would be different. These are mainstream news channels. It could damage the credibility of not just the media, but also the country,' said Chennai-based political analyst Sumanth Raman.
'If the public is told by the media that we have delivered the message to Pakistan, and we have made our point, that is what they will believe. Definitely the media has a role, including in de-escalation,' he added.
But this is not the first conflict where sections of the Indian media have waged an information war.
In 2019, India launched air strikes against what it said was a terror training camp in Balakot in Pakistan, in retaliation for a suicide bombing in which 40 soldiers were killed in Kashmir.
Indian TV channels then, too, whipped up passions, seeking revenge for the killing of the soldiers.
The rhetoric has deepened even further this time as India, ahead of the ceasefire on May 10, accused Pakistan of targeting civilians and using high-speed missiles to target its bases.
Pakistan, too, accused India of targeting its military airbases, as the two countries continued to exchange claims and counterclaims.
Shantanu Gupta, a political analyst and author, maintained this was not the time for critical reportage, saying the media had to put its weight behind the Modi government.
'The narrative is a big part of the conflict. Media is very important because public sentiment is only made by Indian television, however big YouTube or social media has become,' he said.
'Until and unless you find the government is doing something too wrong, this is not the time to create confusion. But yes, sometimes they (television media) go overboard just to justify their argument, or they go wrong,' he acknowledged.
In Pakistan, too, the coverage has advanced the government narrative.
'Right now the coverage is all dominated by the government narrative,' said Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad.
'Pakistan has its internal political and economic problems, but the opinion for now has swayed in favour of the government.'
Shrinking space for dissent
Still, questions remain over whether the media can continue to play its role effectively during times of conflict like this, with critics accusing both governments of permitting little space for criticism in recent years.
India and Pakistan have in recent years faced criticism from rights groups for allowing a smaller space for dissent.
India has more than 20,000 daily newspapers, about 450 privately owned news channels and around 28 government-owned national and regional channels.
Still, it remains to be seen how the ceasefire brokered by the US will be reported, said Delhi-based writer and journalist Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay.
'We have to see how the narrative plays out,' he said, as the media could portray it as 'Modi's victory, even though the US brokered the deal'. - The Straits Times/ANN