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. 

Does India Need a Misinformation Act? A Comparative Look at Global Approaches

 In recent weeks, Indian media has been dominated by the sensationalist coverage of "Operation Sindoor," where mainstream outlets pushed unverified narratives with little accountability. This has reignited debate around the regulation of misinformation in India. The current legal mechanisms appear either outdated, misused, or insufficiently enforced — raising the question: does India need a dedicated Misinformation Act?

India’s Current Legal Framework

India already has several laws that touch on misinformation, but none directly or comprehensively address the modern digital disinformation ecosystem.

The Indian Penal Code includes sections like 153, 295, and 505, which penalize speech that incites violence, promotes religious enmity, or causes public mischief. While useful in some contexts, these laws are often vague and open to misuse. For instance, criticism of the government is sometimes labeled as “hate speech,” which stifles free expression rather than curbing falsehoods.

The Information Technology Act was meant to govern digital activity, but its infamous Section 66A — used to arrest individuals for “offensive” posts — was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for violating free speech. Alarmingly, reports show that police across India have continued using this defunct section, illustrating a dangerous legal vacuum and lack of awareness.

The IT Rules of 2021 (amended in 2023) require social media companies to remove any content flagged as “fake news” by the government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB). This essentially gives the government the unilateral power to decide what is true and what is false, with no independent review or appeals mechanism. Such power in the hands of any ruling party — irrespective of ideology — poses grave threats to press freedom and democratic discourse.

There are also provisions under the Representation of the People Act, which penalizes the spread of false information about political candidates, but enforcement is rare and the scope is limited to electoral contexts. Similarly, the Disaster Management Act was temporarily used during COVID-19 to penalize pandemic-related misinformation, but this was more reactive than systemic.

Risks of a Misinformation Act

While the demand for a dedicated Misinformation Act is growing, such legislation is not without significant risks:

1. Censorship and Government Overreach: The biggest danger is that a Misinformation Act could be weaponized to silence dissent. If the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth, even legitimate criticism or investigative journalism can be labeled "fake news" and suppressed.

2. Suppression of Marginalized Voices: Minority groups, activists, and opposition parties already face disproportionate scrutiny. A vague or overbroad law could deepen this imbalance, where power is used to erase inconvenient truths rather than combat actual falsehoods.

3. Judicial Backlogs and Inefficiency: Even with an appeals process, India’s overburdened judiciary may not be able to provide timely recourse. This could lead to prolonged, unjust takedowns of truthful content — effectively silencing voices when they are most needed.

4. Self-Censorship by Media and Citizens: If penalties are harsh and definitions are unclear, news organizations and social media users may begin to censor themselves preemptively. This chilling effect can erode democratic discourse and public debate.

5. Misuse by Non-State Actors: A poorly drafted law could be exploited not just by the state, but by private entities and troll networks. They could file false complaints to harass journalists, rivals, or activists under the pretense of fighting misinformation.

6. Stifling Innovation: Startups in the information, content, or social media space may find compliance too burdensome. This would favor big tech companies with legal teams and further concentrate control over digital communication.

Lessons from Other Countries

A look at international examples offers insight into how India could structure a balanced Misinformation Act.

Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) compels large digital platforms to remove illegal content — like hate speech and incitement — within 24 hours, or face heavy fines. However, the definitions of what constitutes illegal content are derived from existing German law, not arbitrary government claims. Although critics warn that this law leads to over-censorship by platforms, Germany’s strong judicial oversight acts as a check on government overreach.

The United States offers a contrasting approach. Its First Amendment protects nearly all speech, including misinformation, unless it causes direct harm (like libel or incitement to violence). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, allowing them to moderate without fear of lawsuits. However, this hands-off approach has allowed the unchecked spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation — from election denial to vaccine falsehoods — highlighting the risks of under-regulation.

Singapore takes a stricter stance through its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which allows government ministries to issue correction or takedown orders against online misinformation. While there is a formal appeals process through the courts, critics argue that it is slow, rarely successful, and often used against opposition figures, raising concerns about authoritarian misuse.

What Should India Do?

India urgently needs a legal framework tailored to its unique socio-political context and media landscape. But such a law must balance the need to curb harmful disinformation with the constitutional right to free speech.

A robust Misinformation Act should incorporate the following principles:

1. Independent Oversight: Truth should not be dictated by the government alone. An independent misinformation review board — composed of retired judges, media experts, and civil society members — should oversee decisions about what constitutes misinformation.

2. Appeals Process: Any takedown or correction order must be subject to appeal in a time-bound judicial framework. This would prevent arbitrary censorship and build trust among citizens and platforms.

3. Transparency and Reporting: Platforms and government agencies must publish regular transparency reports, listing the number and type of misinformation takedowns requested and executed.

4. Public-Private Cooperation: Rather than controlling platforms, the government should partner with fact-checking organizations, academia, and tech companies to build a resilient information ecosystem.

5. Digital and Media Literacy: Education remains the most sustainable solution. A national curriculum on digital literacy — covering how to detect fake news, verify sources, and identify manipulated media — should be introduced in schools and public service training.

Conclusion

India sits at a critical crossroads. As digital access deepens, so does the reach of misinformation — threatening social cohesion, public health, and democratic integrity. The current legal patchwork is inadequate and often misapplied. However, any attempt to legislate against fake news must not become a tool for authoritarian control. A carefully drafted Misinformation Act, with independent checks and transparency at its core, could be the way forward — but only if the risks of abuse, overreach, and suppression are addressed head-on.

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.