From Pahalgam to Propaganda: Terror, Retaliation, and the Battle for Narrative

In the wake of the devastating April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians, India and Pakistan have engaged in a series of retaliatory military operations, escalating tensions in the region. This article examines global responses to similar terrorist incidents, India's and Pakistan's actions and motivations, the role of misinformation, restrictions on independent journalism, and potential pathways to de-escalation.

---

Global Responses to Terrorist Attacks

Internationally, countries often respond to terrorist attacks through a combination of legal, diplomatic, and military measures:

• Legal Cooperation: Nations may engage in Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) to facilitate cross-border investigations. For instance, European countries have utilized JITs to address transnational terrorism effectively. ICCT

• Military Alliances: In response to the September 11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5, leading to collective military action in Afghanistan.

• Judicial Measures: Countries like France have pursued judicial investigations and prosecutions following terrorist incidents, emphasizing the rule of law.

---

India's Response: Operation Sindoor

Following the Pahalgam attack, India launched "Operation Sindoor," targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The operation aimed to neutralize threats and serve as a deterrent against future attacks. The Sun

India's government framed the strikes as a measured and necessary response to protect national security. However, critics argue that the timing and publicity of the operation suggest political motivations, particularly with upcoming elections.

India’s leadership leveraged Operation Sindoor to reinforce a strongman image, rally nationalistic sentiment, and pre-empt criticism of its Kashmir policy—moves widely interpreted as intended to shore up electoral support ahead of upcoming polls. Domestic political actors across the spectrum quickly fell in line, and even opposition parties paused critique, reflecting the high stakes of appearing “soft” on terror.

---

Pakistan's Counteraction: Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos

In retaliation, Pakistan initiated "Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos," launching missile and drone strikes on Indian military targets. Pakistan's leadership condemned India's actions as violations of sovereignty and accused India of targeting civilian areas, claims that India denies. The Sun

Pakistan's response also appears influenced by domestic political considerations, aiming to unify public opinion and assert its stance on Kashmir.

Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor has likewise been leveraged for domestic political gain, mirroring India’s use of military strikes to stoke nationalist sentiment. Islamabad’s government vowed “avenge each drop of blood,” launched cross-border shelling under “Operation Bunyan Ul-Marsoos,” and orchestrated a widespread propaganda campaign—complete with debunked claims of captured Indian soldiers. While both capitals publicly emphasize sovereignty and security, their responses also serve to consolidate internal support and deflect criticism, underscoring how tit-for-tat violence on the Indo-Pak border often doubles as electoral theater.

---

Misinformation and Propaganda

Both nations have engaged in information warfare, spreading conflicting narratives:

Misinformation on the Indian Side

1. Fake “captured Indian pilot” claims
   Rumors circulated on social media that Pakistan had captured an Indian Air Force woman pilot named Shivani Singh. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) officially debunked this, confirming no such incident occurred The Times of India.

2. Old or unrelated images passed off as strike footage
   An image of a crashed aircraft from years ago was shared as proof that Pakistan had shot down an Indian Rafale jet. PIB’s fact-check labeled it “old” and “unrelated to Operation Sindoor” The Times of India.

3. Communal “reprisal” lists after Pahalgam
   A viral list purported to show 15 Muslim victims of retaliatory attacks across India. Alt News traced it to unverifiable social-media forwards and flagged it as fake Alt News.

4. ATM shutdown hoax
   Social-media forwards warned that ATMs would close for days due to a “Pakistan ransomware” reprisal. The Week’s fact-check confirmed no such shutdown was planned The Week.

Misinformation on the Pakistani Side

1. Claims of “drones shot down” and zero civilian casualties
   Pakistani outlets asserted their Air Force downed Indian drones and that no civilians died in Pakistani territory. NDTV’s fact-check of Pakistani media broadcasts found both claims false and unsupported by independent evidence www.ndtv.com.

2. Fabricated prisoner captures
   State-aligned channels claimed Pakistan had captured two Indian soldiers and even a female pilot. These were later retracted or disproven by Reuters and Pakistani military spokespeople YouTube.

3. “21 lies” about Operation Sindoor
   Firstpost compiled and debunked a list of twenty-one major falsehoods spread by Pakistani media—ranging from phantom missile strikes to invented civilian deaths Firstpost.

4. Denial of cross-border firing
   Despite video evidence of Pakistani shelling in Kashmir, some Pakistani state channels claimed no violations occurred. Independent observers and ceasefire monitors contradicted this narrative

---

Restrictions on Independent Journalism

1. Access Regimes in Indian-Administered Kashmir

1.1. Permit Requirements and Live-Coverage Ban

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s advisory explicitly prohibits live coverage of counter-terror operations in Kashmir, citing security risks. Journalists must secure embedded-unit clearance from the Army’s Media Facilitation Centre or local police permits, a process that can take days and is often subject to arbitrary delay Committee to Protect Journalists.

1.2. Digital Censorship and Account Blocks

Since the Pahalgam attack on April 22, the Indian government has ordered the blocking of at least 16 Pakistani YouTube channels and over 8,000 social-media accounts (including independent voices like Free Press Kashmir and The Kashmiriyat) under the IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines Committee to Protect Journalists, The News Minute.

1.3. Harassment and Physical Threats

Independent reporters covering protests have been physically assaulted—for example, Dainik Jagran’s Rakesh Sharma was attacked by political supporters in Kathua—and charged under sedition or anti-terror laws for social-media posts criticising the response Committee to Protect Journalists, The Washington Post.

1.4. Press-Freedom Ranking

India now ranks 151st out of 180 countries in the RSF World Press Freedom Index, reflecting a climate of intimidation and self-censorship that severely limits independent on-ground reporting The Guardian, The News Minute.

---

 2. Access Regimes in Pakistan

2.1. New Social-Media Regulatory Law

In January 2025 Pakistan amended the PECA, creating a Social Media Regulatory Authority with powers to block websites, impose fines, and jail “false” reporters—measures condemned by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) as a direct attack on press freedom Reuters.

2.2. Digital Censorship

Following India’s strikes, Pakistani authorities also slowed internet speeds in border areas and threatened legal action against journalists covering “cross-border aggression” without official clearance Instagram.

2.3. Press-Freedom Ranking and Safety

Pakistan ranks 158th out of 180 in the 2025 RSF index, with journalists facing killings, kidnappings, and legal harassment—seven were killed in the first half of 2024 alone—making independent field reporting near conflict zones extremely hazardous The Guardian.

---

 3. Practical Impact on Reporting

• Limited “Eyewitness” Accounts: Both governments require reporters to file copies of all stories and raw footage with security agencies before publication, effectively chilling investigative journalism.

• Reliance on Official B-Roll: Media outlets dependent on military-provided footage cannot verify ground realities, undermining independent scrutiny.

• Editorial Self-Censorship: Fear of FIRs under the UAPA or PECA leads many outlets to avoid critical coverage altogether.

These actions have drawn criticism from press freedom organizations, emphasizing the importance of transparent and accurate reporting during crises.

---

Pathways to De-escalation

To prevent further escalation and promote stability:

1. Diplomatic Engagement: Both nations should engage in direct talks, possibly facilitated by neutral international parties, to address underlying issues.

2. Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Establishing or enhancing MLATs and JITs can facilitate joint investigations into terrorist activities.

3. Combatting Misinformation: Collaborative efforts to fact-check and counter false narratives can reduce public hysteria and mistrust.

4. Protecting Press Freedom: Ensuring journalists have access to conflict zones and can report without undue restrictions is vital for transparency.

5. Confidence-Building Measures: Initiatives such as cultural exchanges, economic cooperation, and military hotlines can build trust and reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings.

---

The recent events underscore the volatility of the India-Pakistan relationship and the potential for rapid escalation. A commitment to dialogue, legal cooperation, and respect for press freedom is essential to navigate the complexities of regional security and prevent future tragedies. 

War Is Not the Solution to the India-Pakistan Conflict

 The India-Pakistan conflict, rooted in historical, political, and religious complexities, has long been a flashpoint in South Asia. From the partition of 1947 to the ongoing disputes over Kashmir, the two nations have faced multiple wars, skirmishes, and a persistent atmosphere of mistrust. Yet, in the face of rising tensions, ultra-nationalists on both sides often clamor for war, driven by religious hatred and political opportunism. Their rhetoric, however, ignores the catastrophic consequences of such a conflict—human casualties, economic devastation, international sanctions, and the loss of innocent lives. War is not the solution; it is a reckless path that fuels division and destruction rather than resolution.

The Human Cost of War

War between India and Pakistan would exact an unimaginable toll on human lives. Both nations possess significant military capabilities, including nuclear arsenals, making the stakes exponentially higher. A full-scale conflict could result in millions of deaths, both military and civilian, with cities reduced to rubble and entire communities displaced. The 1999 Kargil War and earlier conflicts demonstrated the heavy price paid by soldiers and civilians alike, with thousands killed or injured. Ultra-nationalists, often far removed from the frontlines, dismiss these losses, framing war as a glorious pursuit of national pride. Yet, the reality is far grimmer: families torn apart, children orphaned, and generations scarred by trauma.

Innocent lives are particularly vulnerable. Civilians living along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir already endure cross-border shelling and violence. A broader war would amplify their suffering, displacing millions and creating a humanitarian crisis. Hospitals, schools, and homes would become collateral damage, as seen in past conflicts. Those fanning the flames of war rarely acknowledge these human stories, instead prioritizing ideological victories over the sanctity of life.

Economic Devastation

The economic fallout of war would be catastrophic for both nations, which are already grappling with domestic challenges. India, with its burgeoning economy, and Pakistan, striving for stability, would see their progress derailed. Military spending would skyrocket, diverting resources from education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Trade, tourism, and foreign investment would grind to a halt as global markets react to the instability. The 2019 Pulwama attack and subsequent airstrikes led to temporary disruptions in air travel and trade; a prolonged conflict would multiply these effects manifold.

International sanctions would likely follow, particularly if nuclear capabilities were involved or if either nation violated international norms. Sanctions would cripple industries, exacerbate poverty, and isolate both countries diplomatically. For Pakistan, already reliant on international aid, the consequences would be dire. For India, aspiring to global leadership, war would undermine its credibility and economic ambitions. Ultra-nationalists, blinded by fervor, fail to consider these long-term ramifications, focusing instead on short-term political gains.

The Role of Religious Hatred and Political Opportunism

At the heart of the war rhetoric lies a dangerous mix of religious hatred and political manipulation. Ultra-nationalists on both sides exploit religious differences—Hindu nationalism in India and Islamic fervor in Pakistan—to stoke division. This rhetoric paints the other side as an existential threat, dehumanizing entire populations and justifying violence. Social media amplifies these narratives, with inflammatory posts and misinformation fueling public anger. Yet, this hatred ignores the shared history, culture, and humanity of the people of India and Pakistan, who have coexisted for centuries.

Politicians and media outlets often exploit these tensions for their own gain. War rhetoric rallies voters, distracts from domestic failures, and strengthens the grip of hardline leaders. In India, elections have seen Kashmir and Pakistan used as political tools to consolidate power. In Pakistan, anti-India sentiment is similarly leveraged to unify a fractured polity. These actors thrive on division, not resolution, and their calls for war serve their agendas rather than the public good. The casualties, economic ruin, and global isolation that would follow are mere footnotes in their calculations.

The Path to Peace

War is not inevitable; it is a choice. India and Pakistan have the opportunity to pursue dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperation to address their differences. Confidence-building measures, such as reopening trade routes, easing visa restrictions, and resuming backchannel talks, can reduce tensions. People-to-people exchanges—through art, sports, and education—can rebuild trust eroded by decades of hostility. The Indus Water Treaty, a rare example of sustained cooperation despite conflicts, proves that mutual benefit is possible even in challenging times.

International mediation, though often resisted, could provide a neutral platform for dialogue. The United Nations and regional powers could facilitate discussions on contentious issues like Kashmir, provided both sides approach talks in good faith. Civil society, including activists, academics, and youth, must also play a role in countering nationalist narratives and promoting peace.

Ultra-nationalists may dismiss these efforts as weakness, but peace requires courage and vision. It demands leaders who prioritize the welfare of their people over political expediency and who recognize that true strength lies in unity, not destruction. The people of India and Pakistan deserve a future free from the specter of war—one where resources are invested in schools, not bombs, and where borders are bridges, not battlegrounds.

Conclusion

The India-Pakistan conflict is a complex challenge that cannot be resolved through the blunt instrument of war. The ultra-nationalists who advocate for conflict, driven by religious hatred and political ambition, ignore the devastating costs: loss of life, economic ruin, and global isolation. Their rhetoric may win applause in the short term, but it risks a future of suffering for millions. Instead of war, India and Pakistan must choose the harder but wiser path of dialogue, cooperation, and peace. Only then can both nations honor the shared humanity of their people and build a future worthy of their aspirations. War is not the solution—it is the surrender to our worst instincts.

India Tops Misinformation Risk Rankings: Why the Pahalgam Attack Coverage Demands Caution

 

India Tops Misinformation Risk Rankings: Why the Pahalgam Attack Coverage Demands Caution

India has been ranked as the country facing the highest risk of misinformation and disinformation, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 (source). In an era where narratives spread faster than facts, it’s crucial to tread carefully — especially during times of national crisis.

One such case is the coverage surrounding the recent Pahalgam terror attack. Amid the chaos and grief, misleading claims and fake visuals have been circulating across social media and even mainstream platforms.

Viral Claims Debunked

1. False Communal Angle: A list that went viral claimed 15 out of the 26 army victims were Muslim, suggesting communal bias in the coverage. This list was shared by prominent media channels like India TV and later proved false. BOOM Live investigated and debunked it. Read the fact-check here.
2. Misleading Soldier Image: Another widely circulated image purportedly showed an injured soldier from the Pahalgam attack. Upon verification, it turned out to be unrelated. See the clarification by BOOM Live.

How You Can Protect Yourself From Misinformation

1. Use Google Fact Check Explorer: This tool aggregates fact-checks from across the internet. You can search for topics like “Pahalgam” and instantly see what’s verified. Try it here.
2. Follow Credible Fact-Checkers: India has multiple IFCN-certified fact-checking organizations. Follow them for regular updates:

• Alt News: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• BOOM Live: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• NewsMobile: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• Vishvas News: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• NewsMeter: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• The Quint (WebQoof): Website
• NewsChecker: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• Factly: Website | X | Instagram | Facebook
• PTI Fact Check: Website

3. Reverse Image Search: If you see an image that seems suspicious:

• Go to Google Images, click the camera icon, and upload or paste the URL of the image.
• Or use browser extensions like Search by Image for Chrome or Edge.

4. Verify on X (Twitter): Tag @grok on any post and ask something like: “@grok is this true?” Grok AI (available to Premium+ users) can often identify misleading or debunked content.

Final Thoughts

The rush to share information during crises often clouds our judgment. India’s vulnerability to misinformation makes it all the more important for individuals to pause, verify, and reflect. The Pahalgam case is just one reminder of how fast falsehoods can travel — and how essential digital literacy is in combating them.

Stay alert, verify before you share, and help build a more informed public space.