Pahalgam attack: Why India needs a three-pronged approach to fight Pakistani info war
In a commendable and much-needed move, India has banned several Pakistani YouTube-based news channels — such as Dawn News, Geo TV, ARY News, and Samaa TV—from broadcasting or disseminating their content within Indian digital and media spaces. This step comes in the wake of the tragic Pahalgam killings that targeted innocent civilians mostly tourists, further exposing Pakistan's relentless information warfare strategy against India. The government's action underscores an important realisation that narratives, if left unchecked, can be as dangerous as bullets.
The decision to crack down on propaganda channels is not about limiting press freedom; it is about defending national stability against hostile disinformation. The Pakistani military's media wing, the Directorate General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DGISPR), has long turned information warfare into an institutionalised weapon. Several studies, including one by the Oxford Internet Institute in 2020, have documented that Pakistan runs one of the most organised state-sponsored disinformation campaigns in South Asia, targeting India consistently. Whether it was during the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis, the Nupur Sharma controversy, the farmers' protests, or even the CAA-NRC demonstrations, DGISPR's digital machinery pumped a steady stream of fabricated content into Indian social media spaces, amplifying discord.
During the farmers' protest (2020–21), data from EU DisinfoLab revealed that over 750 fake news outlets were used to portray India negatively, many operating out of Pakistan. Similarly, after the Nupur Sharma episode in 2022, more than 300 fake accounts were traced by Indian intelligence agencies to Pakistan, which were involved in fuelling communal sentiments and mobilising protests across the Arab world against India.
Today, amidst tensions following the Pahalgam attack, the same toolkit is active again. Fabricated reports have emerged, including claims that The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan-backed proxy, had its communication systems 'hacked' by Indian security forces and was thus 'framed' for the attack. Shockingly, some Indian electronic media channels and social media accounts picked up these falsehoods without verifying the sources, thereby lending inadvertent credibility to Pakistan's narrative.
Recognizing the risks posed by such information leaks, India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued strict advisories to Indian media houses to refrain from sharing sensitive operational details, avoid real-time coverage during terror incidents, and prevent any broadcast that could assist the adversary. This corrective action is a vital lesson learned from painful past experiences. During the 2008 Mumbai attacks, live coverage by certain Indian TV channels inadvertently provided tactical information to handlers operating from Pakistan, allowing them to adjust terrorist movements accordingly.
Instances like the live telecast of NSG commandos' movements at the Taj Hotel, or the real-time reporting of security positions, significantly compromised operational security. More recently, during the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack, media outlets were found broadcasting strategic information that could have jeopardized military operations. Similarly, during the Pulwama attack aftermath, premature, speculative reporting without verification created panic and confusion. Today, the need for media restraint is even greater as information warfare tactics grow more sophisticated.
This highlights a dangerous vulnerability in a democracy where freedom of speech is sacrosanct, misinformation can seep in and get legitimised domestically if not properly countered.
Therefore, India must develop a three-pronged approach to tackle this multidimensional information warfare.
First, in strategically addressing external containment. India must continue to identify and ban Pakistani propaganda channels, websites, and social media handles that manufacture and amplify false narratives. For instance, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently blocked 16 YouTube-based news channels, many operating from Pakistan, to counter anti-India fake content.
Second, in efficiently handling internal vigilance. Indian media houses and social media users must adopt a culture of verification before amplification. Whether it is in the case of TRF's dubious denial or claims regarding the Indian government's 'hidden role' in the recent violence, unchecked spreading of false narratives within India serves the enemy's purpose. Media literacy and accountability must be enhanced—media regulatory bodies like the Press Council of India should penalise reckless dissemination of unverified news, and major newsrooms must set up dedicated fact-checking units.
Third, India must actively invest in nurturing and strengthening communal resilience to safeguard its social fabric against divisive narratives. Information Warfare thrives on exploiting societal divisions, particularly communal ones. Efforts must be made at every level—political, educational, and civil society—to reinforce India's pluralistic ethos. Hate speech and communal rumour-mongering should be treated with zero tolerance. Meta's Threat Report 2023 highlights that a substantial percentage of misinformation targeted at India had communal overtones, underlining the urgency of addressing this internal threat.
It is worth noting that the anatomy of information warfare is no longer linear—it is decentralized, fast-moving, and increasingly psychological. In this context, data is the new oil, and narrative is the new weapon. Therefore, strengthening cognitive resilience among citizens is crucial. Media literacy must become a part of school and college curricula, teaching young Indians how to discern fact from fiction, how to verify sources, and how not to become unwitting carriers of enemy propaganda. While it exists as a specialised segment in few universities in the country, it is important to make the subject compulsory for all.
Moreover, initiatives like public awareness campaigns, mandatory fact-checking workshops for journalists, state-sponsored counter-narrative content promoting unity in diversity, and community-based digital literacy drives can bolster India's societal immunity against such hybrid threats. Workshops conducted by Google News Initiative and Meta Journalism Project and educational campaigns by Media Matters for Democracy and Boom FactCheck are necessary and commendable steps taken towards this direction.
An interesting case that underscores this necessity is the recent false report aired by some Pakistani outlets claiming that India 'engineered' floods in Pakistan's Punjab region by 'releasing excess water from dams.' However, hydrological data from the Pakistan Meteorological Department and the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) showed no evidence of India's deliberate action. The monsoon overflow and Pakistan's own mismanagement of its water resources, particularly aging canal systems and poor flood management infrastructure, were identified as the primary causes.
While the Indian government can—and must—exercise its tools of regulation, the larger responsibility lies with us, the netizens. Consuming information cautiously, verifying before forwarding, and resisting the emotional pull of provocative but dubious content is the civic duty of every connected citizen.
Understanding the anatomy of information warfare means recognizing that wars are no longer only fought on battlefields but also on newsfeeds and WhatsApp groups. Every click, share, and comment shapes public perception and, ultimately, national security.
India must rise to this challenge with wisdom and unity. As the Pahalgam killings tragically remind us, the threats are real and present—not only at our borders but also within our digital walls.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
41 minutes ago
- India.com
Should We Switch Off Our Economy: Indian Envoy Defends Oil Ties With Russia, Questions Western ‘Convenience' Deals
New Delhi: Indian High Commissioner to the UK, Vikram Doraiswami, has pushed back against Western criticism of India's continued oil imports from Russia, saying it is unrealistic to expect the country to shut down its economy simply. In an interview with Times Radio, the Indian envoy highlighted the inconsistencies in the West's stance, noting that many European countries continue to buy rare earths and other energy products from the same suppliers they now expect India to avoid. 'Don't you think that seems a little odd?' Doraiswami remarked. India, the world's third-largest oil importer, traditionally relied on the Middle East for its energy needs. However, after facing steep discounts from Russia, which began redirecting exports following Western sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, India shifted a substantial portion of its imports to Moscow. Addressing questions about India's ties with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, Doraiswami said the relationship is built on several long-standing factors, including historical security cooperation. 'There was a time when some of our Western partners refused to sell us weapons but supplied them to our neighbours, who then used them against us,' he said. He further pointed out that India's energy trade with Russia is a result of being priced out of other markets, as global buyers outbid India for energy sources it once relied on. 'We import over 80% of our energy. We're the third-largest consumer in the world. What would you have us do, switch off our economy?' he asked. Doraiswami also questioned the double standards in global diplomacy, highlighting that several nations maintain relationships of convenience with countries that pose challenges to India's own interests. 'Do we ask you to come up with a little test of loyalty?' he said. On the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the envoy reiterated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consistently advocated for peace. 'He has said repeatedly, including to both President Putin and President Zelensky, that this is not an era of war,' Doraiswami emphasized. 'We want this terrible conflict to end, just as we want other conflicts around the world to end,' he concluded.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Bihar voter list revision is not anti-democratic—India can't let illegals influence polls
Before going into the question of whether or not the exercise is asking for too much documentation in too short a time in order to establish the legitimacy of voters on the list, we must deal with the two-faced politics of it first. The exercise is legitimate in itself, for it is the Election Commission's (EC) job to ensure that citizens eligible to vote are included in the voters' list, and those who are not Indian citizens are excluded. One can object to how quickly it is being done, but there is no case whatsoever to object to the SIR per se . West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has turned it into a Bengali vs non-Bengali issue. She knows that what happens in Bihar may sooner or later happen in Bengal too, which will have assembly elections next year. Banerjee is very dependent on a consolidated Muslim vote to get her Trinamool Congress over the finish line. Some NDA allies, including the Telugu Desam Party, without opposing the SIR exercise outright, have also expressed concerns about its goals. The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar—due for assembly elections in a few months—has raised hackles mostly among Opposition politicians. They believe that it is a covert exercise to remove minority voters from the voters' list in order to benefit the BJP and the NDA. So, when the Telugu Desam Party says that the SIR exercise should not be a way to determine citizenship, it is right in a technical sense, but not quite. The EC cannot determine citizenship, but it has the right to know whether someone on the voters' list is a citizen or not. Opposition's mala fide intention The EC says that 99.8 per cent of electors have already been covered in the SIR (till 25 July), and just 1.2 lakh voters have not submitted their forms/documents. That's a very small percentage of missing forms. What may be of concern is the likely exclusion of nearly 64-65 lakh voters currently on the list, which is just under nine per cent of the total. But the EC's numbers do indicate why so many may be excluded unless they prove otherwise. Of the proposed deletions from the draft electoral roll, 22 lakh are deceased, 35 lakh are out-migrants who may have shifted permanently out of Bihar, and another 7 lakh had their names in multiple state voter lists. All the parties likely to contest in the state have been given the list of likely exclusions, and they have till 1 August to raise objections. Nothing sounds unfair, except for the tight deadlines. If the Opposition boycotts the polls over the SIR issue, it will be acting with mala fide intention. It cannot be anyone's case that people who live elsewhere must be on Bihar's voter list, or that the dead should be represented by fraudulent impostors voting in their names, or that people registered in multiple states should be allowed to vote in Bihar, too, unless those other states first delete their names. No political party will admit to it, but each one wants to see that its potential voters are not excluded. They may have no problems with the other exclusions and deletions. The Opposition parties, which rely heavily on the Muslim vote in Bihar and West Bengal, are not keen to see Bangladeshi citizens who may have gotten into our voters' lists excluded. The BJP in West Bengal, on the other hand, would not like to see the same citizenship scrutiny being imposed on Hindu Bangladeshis, though many of them may be living in West Bengal due to persecution in Bangladesh. Since all non-NDA Opposition parties seem united in demanding a cancellation of Bihar's SIR, it's safe to assume they fear their own vote bank stands to lose the most. Two arguments are being made against SIR: The exercise has given voters too little time, and it does not accept widely available documents like Aadhaar. Second, it is undemocratic to exclude so many voters on the suspicion that they may not be Indian citizens. The rushed deadline is a valid complaint, but when Mamata Banerjee—who will contest in the Bengal assembly polls next year—also raises the same issue, the argument loses much of its force. As for non-use of Aadhaar, it was never intended to be proof of citizenship. The EC seems to have done most of the job already, and, if needed, can give political parties an additional week or two to raise objections to the exclusions. The second argument is patently wrong, for it is the EC's job to see that non-citizens are not allowed to vote in India. As long as no eligible voter is excluded, it cannot be blamed. To ensure the latter, all political parties have been given the opportunity to re-insert names they think have been unfairly removed from the draft list. Even after the draft is published on 1 August, voters have time till the end of the month to make corrections. That said, one must point out that voters' lists are not foolproof because the EC does not have enough full-time staff to keep lists updated year-round in all states. Its work begins more or less a few months ahead of a general or state election, and most of the work is done by state officials under the EC's overall direction. Most states will not spare staff a year ahead of elections to do this job of filtering out ineligible voters and adding new ones. Also read: A year after Bangladesh's Monsoon Revolution, a parched summer looms ahead Case of Bangladeshi, Pakistani citizens The truth is not just SIR, but the compilation of a regularly-updated National Register of Citizens (NRC) would be an equally legitimate exercise. But as the Assam NRC showed, such an exercise would force Hindus who may have fled persecution in Bangladesh or Pakistan to be struck off the rolls and denied citizenship rights, too. The Assam NRC used not just documents, but family trees to determine citizenship. The politics of SIR or NRC involves two separate questions: one is about citizenship and the eligibility to vote. The other—unstated—issue is the demographic challenge in eastern border states of West Bengal, Assam, Jharkhand, and Bihar, which have been quietly settled by Muslims as well as Hindus from Bangladesh. The BJP view—which I agree with—is that we cannot treat illegals who may be persecuted in Bangladesh in the same way as those who are merely coming here for livelihoods. The Modi government tried to partially signal this differentiation through the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, but the cutoff date for fast-tracking citizenship for eligible minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan was 31 December 2014, which made the exercise minimalist. Useful for political signalling, but of no real help to the lakhs of Bangladeshi minorities seeking to flee persecution even today. The only logical way out for the BJP is to enact a 'right to return' law for Hindus and minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh—much like the one Israel has for Jews living outside Israel. In India's case, it would mean offering minorities in our neighbouring countries the right to enter India and seek fast-track citizenship. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to persecute their minorities, and do not want to give Hindus equal rights on a par with Muslims. By no stretch of imagination can the reduction in Bangladesh's Hindu population from 22 per cent in 1951 to less than eight per cent in the last census be called anything other than steady ethnic cleansing through coercion and intimidation. The demographic challenge is particularly acute in India's east and north-east, where several districts are now Muslim majority, and others are showing a steadily rising share of Muslims. This is what drove Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma to clearly state what the real issue is. In posts made over the last few days on X (formerly Twitter), Sarma made statements that no politician has previously dared to make. Sanjay Hegde, a lawyer, noted that it was not right to equate all Bengali Muslims with Bangladeshi Muslims. He wrote: 'Not every Bengali-speaking Muslim in Assam is a Bangladeshi. The history and geography of Assam and undivided Bengal are far too complex for such lazy thinking.' To which Sarma replied boldly, avoiding political correctness. While agreeing with Hegde that the issue was complex, Samra was crystal clear in identifying the problem for what it was: the steady change in religious demography. 'Legally, all of them may not be foreigners. But we, the people of Assam—especially Hindus—are becoming a hopeless minority in our own land. All this has happened over a span of just 60 years. We have lost our culture, our land, our temples. The law gives us no remedy. That's why we are desperate—not for revenge, but for survival. Yes, we may be fighting a losing battle. But we will go down fighting—with dignity, within the law, and for the soul of our Assam. Do not stop us. Just do not stop us from fighting for what is ours. For us, this is our last battle of survival,' he wrote on X. Thus far, no Opposition politician has given Sarma any kind of evidence-based rebuttal. In response to Mamata Banerjee's attempt to convert the issue into a Bengali-non-Bengali one, Sarma was even bolder in his assertions. 'Didi, let me remind you. In Assam, we are not fighting our own people. We are fearlessly resisting the ongoing, unchecked Muslim infiltration from across the border, which has already caused an alarming demographic shift. In several districts, Hindus are now on the verge of becoming a minority in their own land. This is not a political narrative – it's a reality. Even the Supreme Court of India has termed such infiltration as external aggression. And yet, when we rise to defend our land, culture, and identity, you choose to politicise it.' Courage, maybe. But constitutional clarity is needed, and this can only come if persecuted minorities in our neighbourhood have the right to come to India and settle legally. Ideally, this process should happen through a well-thought-out NRC, and not only through SIR, but both processes have their legitimacy. The political tensions will continue well into the West Bengal and Assam elections next year. The question is: even if minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh are given a legal right to return to India, what happens to those who are found to be illegal immigrants, especially Muslims? Will Bangladesh take them back when it has avoided even acknowledging the problem? Any clear determination on whether a Bengali is Indian or Bangladeshi needs Dhaka's cooperation. In the current situation, where the interim Mohammad Yunus government, backed by Islamists, is inherently hostile to India, such cooperation seems unlikely. They can be given the right to work, while being denied the vote. This right to work cannot be indefinite, but it is needed as an interim measure so that India need not deport non-citizens as soon as they are identified. It will also be more humane. Additionally, we can use technology to determine who may not be an Indian national. We can use AI and regional dialect recognition patterns to figure out if someone is from a district in India or Bangladesh. What we cannot do is allow non-persecuted Bangladeshi Muslims to change the demography in the border states when sources close to Mohammad Yunus are already talking about Greater Bangladesh and the takeover of India's north-eastern states. Yunus himself has talked about Bangladesh holding the key to India's north-east. So, far from being a needless exercise, SIR must precede every state or general election. It would help if EC could draw on a painstakingly compiled and regularly updated NRC. No serious nation can afford to compromise its borders or allow ineligible foreigners to influence local politics. R Jagannathan is the former editorial director, Swarajya magazine. He tweets @TheJaggi. Views are personal.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
China opposes Czech president's visit to Dalai Lama
China said it 'resolutely opposed' Czech President Petr Pavel's meeting in India with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and urged the Czech side to 'abide by its one-China political commitment' and maintain healthy and stable relations. China's embassy in the Czech Republic posted the notice late on Sunday and said China firmly opposes any form of contact between officials of any country and the Dalai 'clique'. Pavel met with the Dalai Lama on July 27, it said. 'China urges the Czech side to abide by its one-China political commitment, take immediate and effective measures to eliminate the bad influence,' the statement said. It added that the Czech side should stop sending 'any wrong signals to 'Tibetan independence' separatist forces.' The Dalai Lama has been living in exile in India since 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet, and Indian foreign relations experts say his presence gives New Delhi leverage against China. India is also home to about 70,000 Tibetans and a Tibetan government-in-exile.
