Pakistan outmaneuvers India in digital and information warfare

#Pakistan #outmaneuvers #India #digital #information #warfare

The recent four -day military conflict between India and Pakistan revealed a decisive victory on the Information Warfare, often neglected for Islamabad. Although military tactics and diplomatic plans played their role, media strategies between two nuclear weapons -equipped neighbors were created as a domestic and international impact on the contrary. The two countries are engaged in military operations, but their digital and media strategies have turned rapidly.

Pakistan made a strategic decision to lift sanctions on social media as the hostility began. These restrictions should not have been in the first place – but this is a debate for another time. Twitter and other platforms, which were previously subject to limits, were made completely accessible to the public. On the contrary, India blocked thousands of social media accounts and websites and blocked an information, including international news outlets. On the contrary, two different ways were revealed to handle the statement during the war.

Pakistan appeared to be bound to transparency using open communication to counter Indian propaganda. The government has also taken advantage of the presence of opposition supporters-especially those who are affiliated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Despite the internal political division, the people remained widely behind Pakistan’s position during the dispute. On the other hand, India’s actions reflect a dislike of allowing its citizens to access free or foreign information. By blocking Pakistani digital media and international coverage, the Indian government exposes its intention to inadvertently control the story and suppress inappropriate truths-especially on civilian casualties, failures in the battlefield, and then the curtains.

Although the Indian media is aggressive and often engaged in false reporting, neither the Indian government nor its army made a high level press briefing. His silence and clear arrogance suggested a belief that the international community would not question his statement. But in today’s digital period, excessive confidence was backfire. The absence of verified information and a flood of defective information damaged India’s reputation. Meanwhile, the information space was quickly filled by sensational and irresponsible media coverage.

Indian Broadcasting News came into the spectacle of unverified claims and clear fabrications. Reports of the incidents that have never happened – as the Indian Navy attacked the port of Karachi, the ground troops crossing the international border, the Prime Minister of Pakistan fled to a bunker, and even the rebellion against the Pakistani army chief was presented as a reality. Television screens were brightened with billing sirens and dynamic fighter jets, while anchors issued foreign calls, such as, “Fire Karachi! Blow the whole city!” This hyper -nationalism directly contradicts the Indian government’s more measured messaging, trying to present India’s strikes as a “instability” and “proportional” response to the alleged terrorism. Officials tried to frame India as an actor, while television networks painted a country picture on the brink of eliminating Pakistan.

On the contrary, a spokesman for Pakistan’s Bank Services Public Relations (ISPR) and the government regularly prepared a briefing to both the domestic and international media. It changed the freshness-based and international law-based-based global impression. The Pakistani army’s professionalism stands in the opposite of chaos, misleading, or absent messaging across the border. Especially in the symbolic moment, when India tried to present power through Bollywood -style propaganda, Pakistan responded with facts, explanation and strategic media engagement. The result was a decisive win in the informational war: Pakistan’s story dominates international news, and key global broadcasters acknowledged its claims – including the shortage of six Indian fighter jets.

By May 8 or 9, many Indian citizens started questioning the reputation of their national media. Reports indicate that VPN has been resorted to to access the Pakistani digital news platform in search of a clear, more accurate picture of a large number of events. Even the Indian government’s suspected false flag efforts-such as targeting its Sikh community to defame their support for Pakistan. Although Indian newspapers have been relatively reliable, the nature of the night cross -border attacks meant that when the print media was often old when the readers reached the readers.

A period in which governments can mislead their citizens during the war without any scrutiny. Information now flows freely, and the public demands honesty. This fact expanded the difference between India’s reputation when US President Donald Trump unexpectedly declared a ceasefire on May 10, which created a sense of anti -public and confusion among an Indian people, which were intended to be a complete victory. Opposition parties began demanding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi convened a parliamentary meeting to explain the sudden change in the tone, especially after repeated claims of military success. Demanding Modi’s resignation. Increasing India’s embarrassment, CNN representative Nick Robertson later revealed that it was India who tried to intervene to stop the conflict – after that there was a significant shock in the hands of Pakistani forces.

India’s media strategy eventually withdrew on several fronts. Internationally, it looks more like an aggressor than a terrorist victim. Homely, his government suffered a reputation crisis when the claims of victory failed to be in accordance with the facts on the ground.

Although Pakistan has won an informational war, this incident offers valuable lessons for all governments. It makes it clear that effective communication strategies should maintain a balance between patriotism and credibility. When the media abandons the facts in favor of warism, they harm national interests and eliminate public confidence. It also indicates the danger of allowing the media to dominate the landscape. If the media in the mainstream of Pakistan was not considered as the official mouth, it would probably not have to be so much relying so much on reopening Twitter and mobilizing the voices of citizens.

In a world where digital communication now forms public opinion and international diplomacy, freedom of expression is not just a democratic value – it is a strategic asset. Transparency is often more effective than censorship. And with a person like Narendra Modi, once the “butcher of Gujarat” is dubbed, at the next door, Pakistan’s ability to present his case through diverse and independent voices has become not only beneficial, but also necessary.

After all, no government can just fight modern information. This requires a busy public and reliable media. It is a lesson that Pakistan will do well to remember it after being silenced by the gun.

Author Executive Producer, Geo News is