The Trigger Event: A Tragedy That Demanded Justice
The morning of 22 April 2025, changed the course of South Asia’s security landscape. A group of innocent Indian tourists, enjoying the spring vistas of Jammu and Kashmir, fell victim to a cowardly act of terrorism. The assailants, heavily armed and operating with clear tactical intent, gunned down civilians in cold blood. The motive was apparent: to provoke, destabilize, and remind India of a festering wound it had long tried to cauterize with diplomacy and restraint.
This wasn’t just terrorism. It was psychological warfare. It wasn’t about casualties—it was about headlines, optics, and symbolic disruption. India’s threshold had been breached. The Prime Minister’s vow that “these deaths would not go unpunished” wasn’t mere rhetoric. It was a clear indicator that India’s strategic calculus was shifting.
From Diplomacy to Deterrence
In the immediate aftermath, India adopted a two-pronged approach—first, diplomatic outreach to international allies, followed by the quiet mobilization of its military assets. The National Security Council, intelligence agencies, and the Prime Minister’s Office went into overdrive. The objective was to frame a response that would not only settle scores but also recalibrate deterrence.
Throughout late April and early May, India’s calculated power projection was evident. Satellites orbited key zones, communication intercepts were analyzed, and precision strike options were refined. This was not an emotional retaliation, but a display of India’s strength and determination.
The option of a “kinetic response”—military action to degrade the infrastructure supporting terrorism—was discussed at length. When greenlit, it took the form of Operation Sindoor, a codeword that would soon ripple through headlines, strategic studies, and digital warfare spaces alike.
Operation Sindoor: Precision with a Purpose
During the dark hours between 6 and 7 May, India executed Operation Sindoor, a multi-platform air strike mission that was a testament to strategic brilliance. The Indian Air Force deployed 24 precision-guided munitions (PGMs) targeting nine high-value locations. These were not random hits, but the result of weeks of surveillance, electronic intelligence, and human intelligence (HUMINT) collaboration.
The targets, including terrorist camps, logistics nodes, and control facilities, were purposefully chosen, some of which were barely kilometers inside Pakistan-administered territory. The intent was not to inflame, but to dismantle capabilities. This was a clear demonstration of strategic planning and intent.
The operation also carried a subtler objective: to send a message. Not just to Islamabad, but to Beijing, Washington, and every regional player in the Indo-Pacific, India will act, and act alone if needed.
Pakistan’s Information Blitz: Smoke and Mirrors
Almost immediately, Pakistan’s DGISPR (Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations) held a press conference. In a swift move, they alleged that India had suffered aircraft losses and even claimed to have captured or shot down pilots. They released ambiguous footage, voice notes, and statements without verifiable data—textbook information warfare.
By the following day, social media was ablaze. Telegram groups, X threads, and TikTok-style platforms spread rumors of IAF aircraft falling from the sky. Carefully edited videos showed burning wreckage (later revealed to be doctored or unrelated incidents), and Pakistani influencers went live from locations claiming proximity to “crash sites.”
In contrast, the Indian government maintained radio silence. Apart from a brief statement by the DG Air Ops, which assured that all Indian pilots had returned safely, no further operational details were released—the reasoning being operational security, strategic ambiguity, and perhaps an old-school doctrine of restrained maturity.
However, in today’s digital-first environment, silence is not a sign of strength—it’s a vacuum the adversary is eager to fill.
Narrative Control: Who Owns the Story Wins the War
This leads us to the heart of the issue: in modern conflicts, perception is reality. You may win the skirmish on the ground but lose the narrative in the global consciousness. And that’s precisely where the imbalance emerged.
While Pakistan flooded every channel with updates—true or false—India stayed mute. Even Indian media, often known for its aggressive posture, had little more than before-and-after satellite images to chew on.
Contrast that with the Pakistani playbook: they promoted their Army Chief to Field Marshal, a symbolic gesture likely meant to showcase strength and elevate morale. National slogans began trending. Memes, songs, and montages flooded their local feeds. The most quoted?
“Sade te Maujan hi Maujma, charon taraf teh Faujan hi Faujan.”
“We are thriving; everywhere we look, our army is victorious.”
Another popular ditty went viral:
“Jang kadi jiti nahin, election kadi harya nahi”
“Never won a war, never lost an election.”
Behind the bravado lies a deeper goal: to win domestic legitimacy and rattle Indian public cohesion. In a battle of narratives, the audience isn’t just the enemy—it’s also your people.
The Indian Response: Disjointed, Defensive, and Delayed
India’s internal media landscape turned chaotic. Newsrooms ran half-baked stories. Retired officers offered contradictory views on airstrikes, pilot safety, and diplomatic implications. Politicians from across the aisle weighed in, turning strategic commentary into electoral point-scoring.
Some voices called for releasing cockpit footage or infrared targeting videos, similar to those seen after the 2019 Balakot strikes. Others advocated keeping things low-key, arguing that overexposure risks operational security.
The result was an incoherent narrative. A moment of strategic brilliance risked being lost in a fog of digital confusion and media noise.
Leadership Narratives: Domestic Optics Over Regional Stability
Both Pakistan and India are locked in a cycle of exploiting every military and diplomatic incident for domestic political mileage. In Islamabad, military maneuvers and war rhetoric bolster nationalist sentiment, diverting attention from economic woes. In New Delhi, measured responses are framed as statesmanship, but also serve electoral calculations.
This cycle reinforces a dangerous feedback loop: the louder the leadership postures for domestic audiences, the more entrenched the divide becomes. The populations on either side, conditioned by controlled media and partisan messaging, essentially believe what their governments tell them, no matter how divorced from fact.
Foreign Policy Reset: Stop Hiding Behind the Terrorism Argument
For India, there’s a more profound reckoning to be had. Relying solely on the “terrorism” label as a foreign policy anchor is no longer sufficient. The world is looking for leadership, not lamentation. Terrorism remains a scourge, but invoking it must come with a strategic narrative that resonates beyond borders, not a repetitive plea for sympathy.
India’s foreign policy must evolve beyond a reactive response to provocations. It must assert a proactive vision for regional peace and security, one that engages stakeholders across South Asia and the global community, not just when tragedy strikes, but as a sustained doctrine.
Lessons from the Narrative War
Silence is Not a Strategy. In a world that demands instant clarity, prolonged silence cedes ground if full disclosure isn’t possible; at the very least, frame the outline of your story.
Info-War Cells Must Be Operationalised. India needs a real-time, agile, and professional counter-disinformation unit under the NSCS to manage, verify, and counter-narratives within hours, not days.
Unified Messaging Across Arms of the State. Communication during crises must be coordinated. Mixed signals confuse allies, embolden adversaries, and mislead citizens.
Use Tech to Frame Facts, Not Hide Behind Them. India’s technological assets must support its storytelling, not just its targeting. If you can strike with precision, you can inform with credibility.
Post-Sindoor: Strategic Gains or Missed Opportunities?
Militarily, Operation Sindoor was a success. It showcased Indian precision strike capability, the synergy between intelligence and airpower, and the political will to punish terrorism without escalation.
But diplomatically and perceptually, the gains were underwhelming. Allies wanted clarity. Citizens wanted transparency. The global media, starved of Indian cues, ran with Pakistan’s spin.
In an era where optics dictate outcomes, treating perception as secondary is a strategic mistake.
Control the Narrative or Lose the Plot
The battle of narratives is not an accessory to war—it is a front in itself. In Operation Sindoor, India executed a disciplined, effective strike. But it relinquished control of the story. That cannot happen again.
The next crisis will come. And when it does, India must be ready not just to strike hard, but to speak first, loudest, and most transparently. Because in today’s world, if you don’t tell your story, someone else will. And their version will not be kind.