
Pixels, propaganda, panic: The anatomy of global conflicts in the modern era
In the early hours of May 8, missiles and drones were launched across India's northern and western borders, originating from Pakistan. As India responded to these aerial incursions, another kind of salvo was underway — not of steel and fire, but of pixels and lies.
During the conflict, numerous social media accounts — some verified and others anonymous — shared a barrage of images and videos related to the events. Many of them were later identified as doctored, misrepresented, and unverified.
The visuals illustrated how, in the modern era, conflicts are no longer just about territory, but narrative.
Phase One: The bombardment of visuals
The propaganda offensive began almost simultaneously with the military action. An image of a fiery explosion was shared widely, with captions claiming an Indian Air Force base had been struck. It was an old image — from Kabul Airport, August 2021 — but had been strategically selected to evoke urgency and fear.
Hours later, another video emerged, purporting to show Hazira Port in Gujarat under attack. It was, in reality, footage of an oil tanker explosion from 2021. Next came a viral video of a supposed drone strike in Jalandhar. This too was a misfire of misinformation — in truth, it depicted a farm blaze, timestamped before any known drone activity.
{PAYWALL HERE}
Then came a video claiming a Pakistani battalion had destroyed an Indian post, supposedly manned by the '20 Raj Battalion' — a unit that does not exist. The video was flagged and debunked by Indian fact-checkers.
According to the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate Crimes, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, video game footage was weaponised as 'evidence' of military victories, in context of airstrikes and military engagements: 'Footage from pre-existing games were edited with text overlays, patriotic soundtracks, and strategic commentary to create battlefield narratives that generated millions of views,' the organisation said in its report, Inside the Misinformation and Disinformation War Between India and Pakistan, published on May 16.
Phase Two: The infrastructure of illusion
The actors behind these digital salvos are not lone trolls or misguided patriots. Increasingly, they are coordinated networks, employing the techniques of modern marketing: microtargeting, A/B testing, and algorithm gaming
'These are very structured and handled as part of strategic responses around conflicts,' says Subimal Bhattacharjee, a defence and cyber security analyst and former country head of General Dynamics, a global aerospace and defence company. 'You would have dedicated teams building up content that's then disseminated through pre-decided networks, including social media influencers, bot networks, and even paid criminal syndicates to amplify it. This is a kind of parallel warfare.'
Tarunima Prabhakar, co-founder of Tattle, a Delhi-based organisation focused on developing citizen-centric tools to track misinformation, agrees that the system is deliberately multi-platform and plays into algorithmic weaknesses across media. 'There's algorithmic amplification on social media. The most sensational, clickbaity content spreads fastest,' she says. 'But even without algorithms, on apps like WhatsApp, people themselves become amplifiers — trying to be the first to share, to be the knowledgeable one in their network.'
What's more, she adds, the overlap of television, social media, and encrypted messaging creates a feedback loop that reinforces emotional narratives over factual ones. 'Each medium interacts with the other, whether television, social media, or messaging apps.'
Data voids and the vacuum of trust
One of the most dangerous dynamics in the May escalation, Prabhakar says, was the role of data voids — a concept describing the information vacuum created when there is a scarcity of verified news on fast-moving events.
And in such situations, ordinary citizens are often caught in the crossfire of conflicting narratives. 'The impulse is to panic-scroll, to seek clarity through more consumption. But in this case, the better response might have been to tolerate not knowing,' she says. 'People needed to be okay with knowing less — to not let anxiety force them into the arms of misinformation.'
The psychology of panic
Dr Itisha Nagar, a Delhi-based psychologist who studies mass behaviour in high-anxiety scenarios, argues that misinformation doesn't just exploit confusion; it provides temporary emotional relief.
'Rumours are not just idle talk; they serve a deep psychological purpose,' she says. 'In times of conflict, they reduce uncertainty and give a false sense of control.'
People don't necessarily share information because it's true; they share it because it resonates, Dr Nagar says. 'We are social beings. Rumours help us connect, express concern, and bond emotionally, even if the facts are wrong.'
Prabhakar reinforces this point from the technological side. 'In high-emotion events, you have motivated reasoning. People believe what aligns with their ideology. They're not looking for facts; they're looking for affirmation.'
Phase three: The damage done
What makes digital misinformation so potent during conflicts is its latency — the delay between lie and debunking. A falsehood spreads at the speed of a click; the truth chases it uphill. By the time fact-checkers weigh in, the damage is done: fear escalates, public opinion hardens, and policy discussions are distorted.
This latency is magnified by encrypted platforms, where virality cannot be easily monitored or countered.
Once again, Dr Nagar warns that the emotional environment created by misinformation is as harmful as the content itself. 'It's counterintuitive, but sharing a rumour can feel like quenching a thirst for predictability, even though it's like drinking saltwater. The more you consume, the thirstier and more anxious you become.'
'Telling people to 'stay calm' in a high-anxiety situation without giving them real information is like putting a sitting duck in a storm and asking it not to shiver,' says Dr Nagar.
That's not all, social media also has an impact on diplomacy. Nandan Unnikrishnan, Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, says all governments are sensitive to public opinion. 'However, it is difficult to distinguish what is real.'
'In India, what you see online is often the view of less than 20% of the population, but those voices end up influencing public perception,' he says.
This distortion effect, he warns, turns digital platforms into what he calls a 'different zoo' — an unpredictable ecosystem where anonymous handles, state-run accounts, and bots coexist with genuine public voices. 'It's very difficult to distinguish who's a tool and who's real.'
The stakes are particularly high when governments are active participants in this ecosystem, not just as targets but as the sources of content. 'Officials should be careful when they post from personal accounts or under dual-use accounts — where it's not always clear if it's the state speaking, or an individual,' Unnikrishnan says.
The counteroffensive
Authorities across the world are working towards countering misinformation and disinformation. Cyber commands now sit beside infantry divisions. Fact-checking has become a core pillar of national defence. India's PIB Fact Check unit has moved swiftly to debunk false narratives, but the sheer volume of misinformation makes this a Sisyphean task.
For citizens, Prabhakar offers one final suggestion: humility in uncertainty. 'The healthiest thing we could have done,' she says, 'was to be okay with not knowing everything. That, more than anything, might be the antidote to disinformation in the fog of digital war.'
Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics.
She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks.
She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year.
She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home.
Write to her at aishwaryakhosla.ak@gmail.com or aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com. You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Wire
10 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.


Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
For a $5 trillion economy, India must embrace cutting-edge tech
The Indian economy is on the threshold of crossing another milestone and becoming the fourth-largest in the world. It is a commendable achievement for a country that began its journey as an independent nation in 1947 with a meagre $33-billion economy. Decades of British exploitation left it significantly weakened and poor. The Jawaharlal Nehru government's Soviet-style central planning, while promoting heavy industries and the public sector, led to low economic growth of 3-4 per cent, pejoratively described as the 'Hindu rate of growth'. In 40 years, it could only reach the $266 billion mark. The first major leap came in 1991 when the Narasimha Rao government introduced economic liberalisation and unleashed the potential of Indian entrepreneurs. The opportunity offered by the digital revolution with the introduction of the internet was quickly seized by some of India's brightest tech entrepreneurs. The Indian economy grew manifold in the next two decades on the strength of its services economy, which contributed 60 per cent of the nation's GDP. The economy crossed $2 trillion by the time the Narendra Modi government came to power. The last 10 years have seen the Modi government giving greater emphasis to faster economic growth through programmes like Stand-Up India, Start-Up India and Make in India. The results are there to see. IMF data from May has projected that the Indian economy will overtake Japan this year, reaching the $4.19 trillion mark. Japan was once a $5.8 trillion economy but has shrunk to $ 4.18 trillion due to stagnation and slow growth rates since the 1990s. As India demonstrated promising growth, naysayers rushed forward to raise the hollow bogey of per capita income. Per capita income is determined by factors like the size of the population. India is the world's most populous country. As a result, whatever may be the size of GDP, its per capita figures are bound to remain low. No country's growth can be measured on the criterion of per capita income alone. Although the US is the world's largest economy with a $28 trillion GDP, it ranks seventh in per capita. China, the second-largest economy with $18 trillion, ranks 69. The per capita argument is worthless because even if India becomes the world's largest economy with $30 trillion, it will still be ranked 55th in terms of per capita. The only merit of this argument is that the country should be able to provide better living standards to all its citizens. In democracies, the fruits of economic growth percolate to all sections of society. This is reflected in the consumption patterns. Surveys indicate that the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) has increased in India by more than 2.5 times in the last 10 years. Interestingly, most of this expenditure was on travel, health and education, indicating healthy growth parameters. Tourism has seen remarkable growth in the last 10 years. China still occupies the first rank in the number of domestic and international travellers. India lagged in this sector for decades due to a lack of disposable income and tourism infrastructure. But today, with the incomes of the middle class growing substantially, Indians have started travelling more. Data indicates about 2.5 billion domestic tourist visits last year. Figures for 2024 indicate that almost 29 million Indians travelled abroad marking a 30 per cent growth. All this indicates healthy economic growth, which has led to the near eradication of baseline poverty and the creation of a strong middle class with disposable income. The Modi government aspires to take the economy to further heights with targets ranging from $ 5 trillion in 2027 to $10 trillion in 2035. The current impressive growth is a result of corrective measures taken by the government. It removed parallel economy, allowed proper distribution of wealth and encouraged greater consumption. But the path from here needs to be calibrated carefully. Economies grow on the strength not just of consumption but also trade and technology. Quality, quantity and speed are the main determining factors. India and China were leading economies until the middle of the 18th century. But when the industrial revolution occurred first in England and later in America, those two countries surged ahead and became leading economic powers by the dawn of the 20th century. When automation and digitisation progressed in the last decades of the last century, China moved ahead of the curve, emerging as the second-largest economy by 2008. We are now in the post-manufacturing and post-digital era. Growth in frontier technologies will determine a country's economic future. A country of India's size and capability cannot just think perpetually in terms of catching up with the developed West and the rest. It has to, instead, think in terms of moving ahead of the curve. We missed the first two industrial revolutions as we were a slave nation at that time. We benefitted partially from the third, digital revolution of the 1980s and '90s and became a leader in sectors like IT services. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution, led by Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, robotics, space, defence, crypto and bio-engineering calls for new thinking and new priorities. The impressive growth of the Indian economy in the last decade was largely due to the unleashing of its basic potential. The trajectory from here should be more strategic, with greater emphasis on deep-tech R&D, an area in which we lag. It is important to create a climate of hassle-free access to investments in these areas. Only then can India aspire to achieve its goal of becoming a $10 trillion economy in the next 10 years. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP

Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Iran Hails New 'Qassem-Basir' Missile That Can Be Guided Without GPS
'First Face Modi...': PM Modi's Direct Warning To Pakistan In First J&K Visit After Op Sindoor Prime Minister Narendra Modi, speaking in Katra, Jammu and Kashmir, recalled the May 6 precision airstrikes under Operation Sindoor, calling it a nightmare for Pakistani terrorists. 'Pakistan's terror camps were reduced to rubble within minutes,' he said, adding the operation would haunt them forever. Modi warned that anyone attempting to derail J&K's development would have to 'face Narendra Modi first.' Referring to the killing of pony operator Adil in Pahalgam, Modi condemned Pakistan's attack on 'insaniyat' and 'Kashmiriyat', saying it aimed to spark communal unrest and hurt tourism. He also flagged off the first train to the Kashmir Valley and inaugurated key projects.#narendramodi #katraspeech #jammukashmir #operationsindoor #antiterrorism #pakistanterror #jkdevelopment #pahalgamattack #insaniyat #kashmiriyat #tourism #kashmirrail #modigovt #nationalsecurity #counterterrorism #indiafirst #chenabbridge #jammukashmir #anjibridge #vandebharat #kashmirtrain #toi #toibharat 2.5K views | 14 hours ago