Wars will always be fought on the battlefield. But acceptance of outcomes by a nation and the world would be determined on the basis of narratives in the media, especially when there is no loss or gain of territory as was the case in Operation Sindoor. India had no intention of launching a ground offensive to capture territory. It had only sought to send a message on its tolerance limits for terrorist strikes, after which it would respond. The message was sent and received by those that matter in Pakistan, but definitely not the common Pakistani who has been brainwashed by his media.
Well played out narratives in media networks result in acceptance by the global public on which side emerged stronger on the termination of the conflict. On the narrative front, Pakistan, backed by China and its paid handles in the West, may have won this battle. Pakistan’s media channels, controlled by their DGISPR (Director General Inter Services Public Relations) pushed a narrative determined by them, while Indian media houses attempted to play to the gallery, on occasions even going ridiculously overboard. Their theatrics did far more damage than good, especially with their ludicrous announcements. Indian official media briefing was based on truth and facts, while Pakistan conveyed fake narratives to convince the world of its success.
Pakistan’s heads of DGISPR gave rambling stories of victory with no evidence, reiterating damaging strikes and resultant losses to India, even when there were none. Geolocations based on their narratives yielded nothing, yet were played up convincingly across the world. On social media, Chinese and Pakistani media handles joined hands to project exaggerated Indian losses while claiming a Pakistani victory in the initial stages of the conflict. In addition, Pakistan journalists, embedded with multiple global media houses published articles buttressing these narratives.
The impact was evident when they and Western strategic analysts, even on Indian TV channels, iterated Pakistan’s boasts as true. The Pakistani narrative was that their air defences, relying on Chinese equipment, was invincible. It was so successfully projected that many believed that cheap Chinese copies of Russian fighters and air defence systems had succeeded in thwarting Indian strikes led by modern French and Russian fighters. They also conveyed that Turkish and Chinese UAVs caused significant damage to Indian defence installations.
Nothing could be further from the truth. India, on the contrary, adopted a cautious approach, with the foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, leading two women officers in conveying the impact of Indian strikes in the initial phases of Operation Sindoor. The reports were factual, devoid of theatrics, nor were questions taken. This left many to doubt Indian claims since the Pakistani narrative, backed by fake or AI-altered images, were ruling the media space. India was not playing to the gallery but sharing reality. Possibly, the intent could have been to let Pakistan’s fake narrative build before puncturing it. If so, this was an error. By the time India changed its briefing pattern by bringing in the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the three services, many were already convinced of Pakistan’s narrative. Hence, even questions raised during the Indian DGMOs’ briefings by Indian media were largely not on its achievements and damages across the border, but to confirm Pakistan’s claims on Indian material losses.
Indian military personnel only highlighted destruction of those targets whose evidence they possessed, not on assumptions. Whenever they were in doubt, they refused to comment. This should have been accepted but then sadly, India is filled with doubting Thomases. Pakistan’s politicians and media personalities joined their fake narrative bandwagon, with no politician, irrespective of party affiliation, contradicting their military spokesperson. In India, it was the reverse. Government ministers stayed away from the media while operations were on, only coming to the fore after ceasefire was declared and military briefings came to an end. Even when they emerged, they commenced threatening Pakistan, keeping forthcoming elections in mind, rather than explaining to the public what the national strategy was and how it was achieved.
Simultaneously, members of the opposition and anti-government media personalities played the Pakistan narrative questioning Indian material losses. They ignored the armed forces’ assertion that no nation declares its material losses. Even Pakistan has not admitted to its losses, aware that they were significantly higher. While the intent was not to let the government down on claiming success of Operation Sindoor in forthcoming elections, they inadvertently played into Pakistan’s hands. To justify their success in Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, Pakistan media networks quoted statements made by Indian politicians and media personalities. Even the dossier released by Pakistan on the Pahalgam attack and subsequent operations had quotes and social media comments from Indian politicians and media personalities.
Hence, many Western media houses and known strategists backed the Pakistan view that India, while it did strike its desired targets, suffered major losses. What Pakistan gained was that the world accepted Kashmir as disputed and a potential flashpoint. Both nations also played different narratives on what led to the ceasefire. Pakistan thanked US President Donald Trump for pushing India to accept it, while India insisted that it was accepted after talks between the two DGMOs initiated by Pakistan. The Indian narrative once again faltered because its opposition politicians questioned the role of Trump. Was Trump just seeking credit where not due by continuously claiming credit for the ceasefire or was it intentionally designed by the proPakistan lobby in his administration, or was simply to thwart outright Indian victory claims, thereby bailing out Pakistan for another day, is unknown.
The Indian narrative finally began gaining ground after movement of delegations of parliamentarians to different parts of the globe. Their messages of Indian intent, thought process behind keeping the IWT in abeyance and the response to terrorism are now being projected. This should have been done by government ministers as also Indian ambassadors and high commissioners as soon as operations commenced.
Historically, India has achieved a first. It has brought a nuclear-powered neighbour, backed by Chinese and Turkish military power, to its knees in just four days, while Israel continues in its attempts to subdue Gaza. It has proved that Chinese and Turkish military products cannot survive a major conflict. This should have been globally appreciated and accepted but was lost solely because we never had a narrative nor were our ministries and diplomats working in tandem. Nor did our opposition politicians and media houses behave maturely.
(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)