OPINION | Operation Sindoor: Western Media’s Role in Unwittingly Amplifying Pakistan’s Falsehoods

by Maj Gen Deepak Mehra (Retd)

In the 21st century, data and information are pivotal in shaping global influence. The control of data can significantly impact narratives, which in turn affect perceived realities. A narrative comprises a sequence of information, whether factual or not, strategically constructed to persuade audiences towards particular viewpoints. Narrative campaigns are deliberately designed to provide context and coherence to actions and communications.

Modern warfare today is shaped as much by information flows, public perception, and communication as by military hardware. Hybrid warfare and grey-zone conflicts have normalised the blending of conventional and unconventional methods to achieve strategic objectives without triggering open conflict. Central to these contests is the weaponisation of narratives—framing events to influence opinion, shape societal dynamics, or erode an adversary’s legitimacy.

India’s own experience during Operation Sindoor in May 2025 underscored this reality. The calibrated escalation signalled resolve without tipping into recklessness, and the armed forces—particularly the Indian Army—showed how they are uniquely positioned to set the pace in the information space. Their early strategic messaging was proactive and dominant, reinforcing India’s objectives and limiting adversary disinformation. As the focus of public communication broadened across national institutions and ministries, the narrative space became more competitive. When the military’s voice re-emerged at the forefront—most notably through and after the DGMO’s press conference—India’s messaging once again carried clear, unified momentum.

In the initial days post-Pahalgam, Pakistan orchestrated an aggressive and coordinated disinformation campaign leveraging both state media and social platforms. A deeper forensic investigation by India revealed that a “sizeable number” of these social media accounts disseminated identical or near-identical messaging in a well-coordinated manner. Cyber labs found the content was posted within a span of 30 to 40 minutes, with average engagement exceeding one million. And Western mainstream media, including leading outlets such as The New York Times and BBC, were inadvertently complicit in amplifying Pakistan’s sophisticated disinformation campaign. The race to break exciting news likely led to the publication of Pakistani narratives before proper evidence and fact-checking were conducted, a phenomenon amplified by rapid social media reporting and pressure from digital platforms. India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval noted how, despite the unequivocal evidence, Western press continued to publish stories alleging Indian losses or downed jets—claims that had to be walked back when verification proved impossible, and imagery contradicted Pakistani assertions. This analysis examines the mechanisms through which respected international publications initially propagated falsehoods and how India’s strategic communication efforts eventually corrected these dangerous narratives.

Western Media’s Initial Missteps

The New York Times: From Scepticism to Acknowledgement

The New York Times initially characterised Operation Sindoor as “a major escalation in the India-Pakistan conflict,” conspicuously downplaying the Pahalgam terror attack that precipitated India’s response. The publication’s reporting heavily relied on Pakistani military sources, amplifying false claims of shooting down six Indian jets as fact, without independent verification. Most tellingly, the newspaper’s initial coverage focused on “conflicting narratives” rather than examining the substantial evidence India presented.

However, satellite imagery analysis eventually forced a dramatic narrative shift. By May 15, the Times acknowledged that satellite evidence showed “clear damage to buildings used as aircraft hangars at the Pakistani air force’s Bholari and Shahbaz air bases,” confirming India’s operational success. The publication was compelled to admit that “damage was far more contained than claimed and appeared mostly inflicted by India on Pakistani facilities”.

BBC’s Linguistic Obfuscation

The BBC’s coverage exemplified the Western media’s problematic framing of terrorism against India. Despite the gruesome murder of innocent Indian and Nepalese tourists, it consistently referred to terrorists as “gunmen” and described Jammu & Kashmir as “India-administered Kashmir”, terminology that mirrors Pakistani diplomatic language and subtly challenges India’s constitutional integrity. British commentator David Vance bluntly observed: “The BBC should be banned in India. It is so anti-India and pro-Pakistan”.

CNN’s Contradictory Coverage

CNN’s coverage oscillated between sensationalism and moments of journalistic integrity. While the network’s headline proclaimed “India and Pakistan on brink of wider conflict,” anchor Becky Anderson notably challenged Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on air, demanding proof of Pakistani claims about downed Indian aircraft, claims she effectively debunked in real-time.

India’s Strategic Communication Response

Institutional Preparedness

Learning from the initial lag and recognising the risks of a hijacked global narrative, the Indian government recalibrated its strategic communications, deploying a rapid, multi-pronged approach. The government established a 24/7 Control Room comprising representatives from all three services and the Press Information Bureau (PIB), enabling real-time coordination and rapid response to misinformation. The PIB’s Fact Check Unit operated round-the-clock, debunking over 1,400 URLs spreading anti-India content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. This proactive approach contrasted sharply with India’s reactive posture during previous conflicts.

Evidence-Based Messaging

India’s communication strategy emphasised transparency and verifiable evidence. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and military spokespersons provided detailed briefings with satellite imagery, audio-visual evidence, and technical specifications. This evidence-centric approach gradually shifted international opinion as independent analysts confirmed India’s claims.

Digital Counter-Operations

India implemented sophisticated digital countermeasures, including the strategic blocking of Pakistani propaganda networks and the deployment of fact-checking mechanisms across multiple platforms. Cyber agencies actively traced, reported, and restricted accounts identified as key spreaders of anti-India narratives originating from Pakistan. The government’s response demonstrated an evolved understanding of information warfare in the digital age. Targeted, well-orchestrated social media campaigns such as #OperationSindoor and #IndiaFightsTerror were deployed to flood the information space with verified, authoritative content, effectively diluting hostile narratives. These hashtags were not mere slogans; they served as rallying points for credible voices, veterans, journalists, diplomats, and informed citizens to amplify India’s position in real time. By combining impactful visuals, concise messaging, and consistent thematic framing, the campaigns created an ecosystem where official briefings were reinforced across platforms. This coordinated approach not only restored credibility to India’s operational account but also ensured that neutral and undecided audiences were exposed to India’s facts before adversarial propaganda could entrench itself.

Strategic Military Perspective

In my decades of service, I have observed that the side which controls the tempo of operations often controls the narrative. In Operation Sindoor, while our strike packages achieved their intended effects with precision, the adversary’s information operations moved with even greater speed. This disparity underscores a critical truth of contemporary warfare: narrative control must be synchronised with kinetic operations from the very first hour. Today, the battlefield is multi-domain: air, land, sea, cyber, space, and the cognitive sphere. The last of these, the cognitive domain, is where perceptions are formed, alliances are influenced, and legitimacy is either secured or lost. Just as we prepare contingency plans for air defence or counter-battery fire, we must prepare rapid-response narrative plans that anticipate adversary falsehoods before they are even launched.

India’s growing role as a regional stabiliser and global partner means that every military action is scrutinised not only for tactical outcomes but for its alignment with international norms and democratic values. This scrutiny is magnified when hostile powers manipulate global media ecosystems. For the armed forces, this demands doctrinal integration of information warfare into operational planning, not as an afterthought but as a parallel line of effort. Dedicated joint narrative operations with key inputs by the operational stakeholders would ensure that when the nation acts in self-defence, the world hears the truth with the same swiftness and clarity as our strike formations deliver on target. This is no longer optional; it is as much a part of modern deterrence as precision munitions or missile defence.

Lessons for Future Conflicts

Operation Sindoor demonstrated that in the digital age, falsehoods travel faster than facts. Pakistani disinformation achieved millions of impressions before Indian corrections could gain traction, highlighting the critical importance of proactive rather than reactive information strategies. The conflict exposed structural vulnerabilities in the Western media’s approach to South Asian conflicts. Cold War-era relationships, reliance on Pakistani stringers, and the pressure to break news created conditions where Pakistani disinformation found receptive audiences in respected newsrooms.

A  Senior security official, while speaking at IIT Madras, suggested that proactive transparency, providing sanitised visuals and data that validate operational claims, enables control over the narrative without exposing sensitive operational details. Today, control over the story shapes control over outcomes, alliances and perceptions. As India emerges as a regional and global power, it must not just win battles; it must also be able to shape public opinion.

• India would do well to create a dedicated cell/division for monitoring, early warning, and counter-disinformation needs establishment, blending military, cyber, and diplomatic expertise.

• In the age of AI and Quantum computing, India must elevate digital monitoring, bot network disruption, and AI-driven content tracking in its strategic communication toolkits.

• Enhancement of civil-military integration for messaging in crises, ensuring regional voices and local facts, will go a long way in reinforcing central narratives.

• The combination of technological preparedness, institutional coordination, and evidence-based messaging proved effective in ultimately correcting false narratives, though not before damage was done to initial international perceptions.

Engagement with International Media

The media is hungry for news, and its survival depends upon quick reporting of incidents and events across the World. A source which provides the news first, it flocks there. India needs to build trusted relationships with Western correspondents, providing evidence-based briefings and ready access to verifiable sources. By doing so, India can pre-empt narrative hijacking, reduce reliance on official sources from adversarial states, and ensure timely corrections in the global information ecosystem.

Final Thoughts 

Operation Sindoor revealed the sophisticated nature of contemporary information warfare and the complex challenges facing democratic societies in combating state-sponsored disinformation. The episode underscores the urgent need for enhanced verification mechanisms and greater awareness of how authoritarian regimes exploit media credibility gaps. The aim of some of the measures suggested above is not to create a propaganda machine, but rather a truth-delivery architecture capable of shaping narratives, countering disinformation, and building sustained influence over time. It should monitor information threats in real-time, advise on messaging strategies and deploy multi-platform campaigns pre-emptively, not merely in response.

India’s success in ultimately reclaiming the narrative demonstrates the power of evidence-based communication and strategic patience. However, the initial amplification of Pakistani falsehoods by respected Western outlets serves as a sobering reminder that the battle for truth in the information age requires constant vigilance and institutional preparedness. The conflict’s legacy lies not just in its military outcomes but in its demonstration that India has developed the capability to fight and win wars of narrative as effectively as wars of precision strikes. This evolution marks a crucial inflexion point in India’s emergence as a comprehensive power capable of defending its interests across all domains of conflict.

About Author

The writer is an Indian Army veteran. He has also served as the Indian Military Attaché in Moscow. He is the Founding Director and CEO of ThorSec Global Pvt Ltd: Security and Strategic Consulting Firm. An accomplished scholar, he specialises in Geopolitics with a focus on Russian Studies.