Stanzin Dorjey
Processing, analysing and making an informed decision seems so tough in an age when almost any and every information is readily available and news channels are running round the clock. The attention span is decreasing in this age of screen-scrolling where there is swarms of information instantly accessible on the screen in the form of short videos and couple of minutes reads. The situation becomes critical during wars when there is deliberate propaganda by the other side. One may easily fall for the fake news. The privatisation of news channels and their proliferation makes them chase viewership often at the cost of truth, sanity and rationality. The currently unfolding perilous situation between India and Pakistan brought to light these things. The experience of such events for people in the TV studios and people at a geographic distance from the thick of action is starkly different from the people who are near the International Border and the Line of Control as this paper points out. It’s no one’s argument that one is more nationalist/patriotic than the other, the point is made from the point of view of positionality.
TERRORIST ATTACK IN PAHALGAM AND INDIA’S RESPONSE
The entire nation rose in anger against the terrorist attacks on tourists in Pahalgam in Kashmir on 22nd of April 2025, killing 25 Indians and 1 Nepali citizen. The armed forces targeted “nine terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir in a focused, measured and non-escalatory” retaliation. It was named “Operation Sindoor”. From taking up the matters diplomatically after the attacks on Mumbai on 26th of November 2008 to the targeted attacks in Pakistan, going as deep as Bahawalpur in the Punjab province which is around 100 kilometers from the International Border, there has been a sea change in India’s approach to terrorist attacks on India. The essence of that change is encapsulated in the following quotation. “Establishing military response to a terrorist attack as a doctrinal innovation” and not accepting the “the difference between conventional and sub-conventional (terrorist) aggression which Pakistan has used to paint a doomsday escalatory scenario to prevent Indian military response to terror attacks” as Happymon Jacob puts it.
This point was made amply clear to Pakistan when India said that any future act of terror will be considered as an Act of War against India. Now this could effectively means explicit disappearance of the conventional and sub-conventional difference. New red lines are drawn. In an interview to BBC Hindi, Jacob said that India acted, as any major power would do, in case of an attack against their civilian population, “not giving much importance to international opinion and not waiting for their approval” before taking any action. In a way, India’s response shows its limits of tolerance at one level and growing confidence to manage any fall-out thereafter at the other. Commenting on the possibility of the conflict getting blown-up into a full-scale war, John Mearsheimer says that Pakistan does not have conventional war superiority against India and with no political solution to the Kashmir issue, Pakistan uses terrorism to make up for this weakness and he adds that for India to dominate the escalation ladder, it really needs to go up the escalation ladder to bring forth that dominance and this would not be in India’s interest at this time. He further states that escalation benefits neither side. This realisation could partly explains the ceasefire. As the reports of ceasefire violations are coming in and the situation still unfolding, for any future course of action, the political leadership and the armed forces should be trusted and supported.
CONFLICT IN THE EYES OF MEDIA
In a parallel universe of the Indian television studios, Pakistan is balkanised, missiles were fired upon the Karachi port of Pakistan, the Baloch had declared independence, the Indian army had launched an offensive and is marching inside enemy’s territory! None of these were confirmed by the official media briefings from the Indian side. Director General Naval Operations Vice Admiral A N Pramod confirmed Indian Navy’s “decisive and deterrent posture with full readiness to strike any target including Karachi which forced a defensive posture” from the enemy. The TV studios draw a match-up of the respective military strengths as if a total war, using all the military might by both countries, is whisker away. The stoking of adrenaline rush and capitalizing on these emotions. The commercialization of fear and anxiety.
These studios have become battle fields, the fighter jets flying around and the news anchors seems just about to jump in the thick of the action. The experts there seem to understand Pakistan inside out and appeared more in action than the actual forces on the ground! These news channels seems to be thriving on such blown-up, out of proportion shows and sometimes outright lies. Rationality is the biggest casualty and truth disappears. The dynamics changes in ground-based reporting though and this must be commended. The media was specifically directed to do “responsible reporting” and was refrained from “live coverage of defence operations” and said no to “reporting based on source based information” as per an advisory issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 26th of April 2025. Similarly, on 10th of May, MHA refrained the media from using Civil defence air raid sirens during the airing of the programmes as this could also adversely impact the seriousness of the matter. This tells the performance of mainstream media in India in such crucial times.
The misinformation from the Pakistani side is also a challenge as people tend to accept as real anything on social media, especially when posted from an account with a blue checkmark on X and a blue tick on instagram. These can be easily faked and done deliberately more so in such critical times. No patience or wisdom for cross verification of information. The PIB Fact Check specifically flagged many such news as false revealing hidden agenda from the enemy side. The misinformation spread by the Pakistani side was also exposed by Colonel Sofiya Quereshi while speaking to the press on 10th of May and many official media briefings thereafter. In an embarrassing moment, the Pakistani defence minister in an interview to the CNN pointed out to the social media as evidence of having shot down five Indian fighter jets. Age/designation/experience in public life/education seems to give no shield against falling for misinformation in this age of information explosion.
THE CONFLICT IN EYES OF PEOPLE NEAR THE ACTUAL ACTION
In yet another parallel universe is the people along the border, the line of control and the cities constantly under sirens and black-outs. There is tremendous socio-economic and psychological costs for them. For them the situation disrupts their normal life and is a question of life and death. There is no machismo in escalation. Militarily, they experience the strength or weakness of a nation especially during a conflict and wars firsthand. The experience of a conflict for them living in bunkers, living in the midst of shelling, the disruption of daily life, of businesses and educational institutions is starkly different from those in TV studios. It’s not AI generated or computerised battle tanks and jets like the TV studios but the real ones, a face to face interaction with the raw military power of the state. Deferred images of drone strikes shown on a TV screen and actually living under a sky full of drones is very different. People near the border also often serve as helpers and porters during wars, as was done during the Kargil war of 1999, sometimes losing their lives. Of course every Indian is connected to the events at different levels, psychologically, physically and emotionally, the parallel universe analogy is used to amplify the different experiences of them which is real.
(The author is Research Scholar, JNU)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
