How Operation Sindoor Exposed India’s Unpreparedness in the New Battlespace of Narrative Warfare
India's fighter jets returned safely. The operation was swift, sharp, and precise. Terror camps and key airfields in Pakistan were destroyed. India had struck hard and struck right. But even before the dust settled, a second battle had begun. India was not ready for it. This was not a war of missiles. It was a war of messages. Not for territory, but for global perception.
The New Rules of War
In their book “LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media”, P.W. Singer and Emerson Brooking lay down five principles that now define modern conflict. These principles apply to the stories that follow them. During Operation Sindoor, India failed on all five counts.
War Moves to Where People Are—Online
Wars now unfold on timelines, not frontlines. They move to where people watch them, on social media. Pakistan understood this instinctively. Within hours, its military media wing, ISPR, released images of bombed mosques, injured civilians, and sobbing children. Many were fake or from past disasters, but they worked.
These images flooded X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and international newsrooms like Al Jazeera and TRT World. The visuals shaped early opinion. India was missing. There were no aerial visuals, no verified footage, and no coordinated media release. As an internal review noted, "India’s strategic messaging was hijacked before it could stabilise."
Virality Trumps Veracity
In today’s world, what spreads fastest often feels like the truth, even when it isn't. Pakistan’s emotional, fake images quickly came online. India’s reply came too late. By then, many people had already believed the false version. This was picked up by those who were looking for more and more views. More views mean more money for TV and social media. So fake news travelled faster, and farther.
Attention Is the Most Contested Terrain
Modern conflict is not just about facts, but about framing. The one who commands attention shapes perception. Pakistan's visuals and scripted emotional narratives captured the world’s eye. India's silence ceded the narrative. Even senior leadership was dragged into this vacuum. A carefully worded interview by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), meant to highlight India’s restraint and operational clarity, was misquoted, decontextualised, and spun by both domestic and foreign media. What was intended as a display of calm professionalism became a source of confusion.
The damage was not accidental. It was the result of India lacking a unified, anticipatory communication strategy. There was no civil-military-media interface to own the story.
Perception Is Influence and Power
The military aim of Operation Sindoor was deterrence. But deterrence only works when others believe you achieved it. India did everything by the book, avoiding civilian targets and exercising restraint. Yet, global opinion tilted the other way. Even India’s strategic partners, remained silent. The U.S. called for a ceasefire, treating India and Pakistan as equals. The diplomatic outcome was disappointing.
India deployed force effectively but failed to achieve its political objective of deterrence, as perception eclipsed physicality.
Everyone Is a Combatant
In today’s information wars, everyone is on the battlefield, news anchors, influencers, meme-creators, and trolls. India lost control here too. TV anchors competed to outdo each other in hyperbole. Some declared that Karachi port had been bombed. Others said Pakistan’s Prime Minister had fled to a bunker. Global fact-checkers quickly debunked these claims. But the damage was done. India’s credibility was eroded, not by its enemies, but by its own media houses.
Even worse, some outlets communalised the crisis on religious identity. These clips were picked up by Pakistan to build its victimhood narrative across the Islamic world.
What’s Wrong With India’s Media?
In the book "Editor Missing: The Media in Today’s India", journalist Ruben Banerjee delivers a scathing critique "one section unabashedly bats for those in power, while the other spares no effort in criticising the establishment." This deep partisanship corrodes national coherence. Objective journalism has been replaced by ideological performance. "Truth," Banerjee warns, "is often the casualty." Indian media no longer functions as a fourth pillar. It acts as a cacophony. In times of national crisis, this noise drowns out clarity and credibility.
During Operation Sindoor, the absence of editorial discipline allowed conspiracy theories, fake news, and hateful narratives to proliferate unchecked. The media did not report the war, it performed it. And it performed badly.
Television’s Unique Failure
Not all media failed equally. Some print outlets remained measured, verifying facts and avoiding provocation. Their sober editorials stood in stark contrast to what unfolded on television. It was Indian TV, not social media that collapsed first into delusion.
As The Economist observed, "Indian television achieved the astonishing feat of making social media appear sane." In the days following Operation Sindoor, prime-time broadcasts were filled with doctored visuals, screaming anchors, and war cries. "Set fire to Karachi, blow up the entire city," shouted one guest. False claims of naval strikes, military coups, and collapsing governments in Pakistan flooded the screen. The article summed it up precisely: "TV news failed miserably… India has emerged looking like an aggressor instead of a victim." Intended as nationalist theatre, these broadcasts instead undermined both the government’s strategic messaging and India’s global credibility.
A Failure Foretold
None of this was unforeseeable. India had already faced setbacks in the information domain during past crises, be it Doklam, Balakot, or Galwan. Yet no institutional framework was put in place to correct the pattern. There was no war room for narrative control, no pre-cleared visuals ready for release, no coordinated voice across diplomacy, defence, and media.
Conclusion
Operation Sindoor was a clinical military operation. It showcased India’s capability to launch a swift, non-escalatory strike with strategic restraint. But in the age of cognitive warfare, steel alone is not enough. Strategy must also include the screen. Weapons win battles. Narratives shape victories. India won the sky. But it lost the cloud.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
