India Won the Battle, Can It Win the Story?

0n December 31, 1999, while the world celebrated the arrival of the new millennium, the mood outside India's Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi was sombre. I stood among the journalists, waiting anxiously for news about Flight IC 814-hijacked six days earlier en route from Kathmandu to Delhi and diverted to Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Backed by Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the hijackers demanded the release of jailed militants. Under immense public pressure and with no viable military option, India conceded. Three terrorists, including Maulana Masood Azhar, were handed over in exchange for the hostages' safe return. That image-Indian officials escorting terrorists to freedom-was etched into the national memory as a moment of helplessness. It was a painful compromise. Though the hostages returned home, the psychological and strategic cost was immense.
As we celebrated a belated New Year on January 1, 2000, we were relaxed, but not happy.

Now, fast-forward to April-May 2025.

A terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, left 26 civilians dead. Victims were targeted by religion and brutally executed in front of their families. The aim was not just to kill, but to destroy harmony and undermine the normalcy returning to the region.

This time, India's response was different.

Public grief transformed into national unity. Arathi, whose father Ramachandran Nair was killed in the Pahalgam attack, told reporters, "I have got two brothers in Kashmir," referring to the two Kashmiri Muslim boys who supported her during those dark days. Her words defied the narrative of hatred and division.

For Pakistan, the real threat was never territorial-it was the risk that Kashmiris might choose coexistence within India. That would undermine the ideological foundation of Pakistan's claim to the region. It is this integration-not India's military might-that Pakistan fears most.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the army full operational freedom, the forces were already in a combat-ready mindset. After two weeks of quiet planning, India launched a swift and focused counter attack: Nine terror camps destroyed within 25 minutes, over 100 militants killed-including several on India's most-wanted list. For the first time, Indian forces struck deep into Pakistani territory. The target was terrorists, not the Pakistani army or civilians.

From Strategic Restraint to Assertive Engagement

India's 2025 response marked a sharp shift from its long-standing doctrine of restraint. After the 2001 Parliament attack, India leaned on diplomacy. Following the 2008 Mumbai carnage-which I covered closely-India submitted dossiers instead of deploying troops. Even Prime Minister Modi's 2015 goodwill visit to Lahore ended in disappointment, with the Pathankot airbase attacked just a week later.

Reflecting on that moment, Dr Shashi Tharoor- now part of India's global outreach-said, "Our Prime Minister invited peace, and what we got in return was an attack." Pakistani investigators were even invited to the Pathankot site, only to return home and deny any involvement.

After the 2016 Uri attack, India launched surgical strikes. In 2019, Pulwama prompted the Balakot airstrikes. The message was clear: India would no longer suffer provocations in silence.

Operation Sindoor: Symbolism and Strategy

In 1999, there was surrender. In 2025, there was strength.

The strikes on nine terror camps in PoK, Bahawalpur, and Muridke were precise. These were not random acts of revenge; the targets were selected for their central role in terrorism, not political or civilian value.

Bahawalpur, a long-time stronghold of Jaish-e-Mohammed and headquarters of Maulana Masood Azhar, and Muridke, home to LeT chief Hafiz Saeed, had been protected by the Pakistani establishment for years. In striking these places, India demonstrated a structured doctrine of calibrated retaliation.

But what truly stood out was communication. Two women officers led the media briefings-symbolising a new India: strong, inclusive, and unapologetic. The name Operation Sindoor, referencing the traditional vermilion mark worn by Indian women, embodied tradition and defiance, cultural identity and military strength.

The Indian Army adopted a transparent media strategy: real-time briefings, operational footage, and clearly stated objectives. It was a break from the opaque approach of the past.

The Parallel Battle: Information vs. Misinformation

Operation Sindoor was not only a military confrontation-it was also a war of narratives.

As the military acted, another battle raged on screens: social media, TV channels, messaging apps. Disinformation spread rapidly. Al-generated images, unverified clips, and visuals recycled from Gaza and Ukraine were falsely circulated as fresh content from the Line of Control.

Some reports claimed India had hit Pakistani nuclear facilities-later proven false. News channels raced to break stories, often sacrificing accuracy for sensationalism. Social media, unfiltered and viral, amplified both truth and propaganda.

Political scientist Daniel Silverman observed that such content is meant to stir emotions, not inform. In India's highly saturated media environment-with 450+ news channels and 200 million households watching TV-this had dangerous consequences.

Even seasoned anchors blurred the line between journalism and jingoism. In South Asia, a nuclear zone, this confusion is not just irresponsible- it's risky.

Malayalam TV journalism fell into the same trap. Channels competed with digitally recreated battlefields and exaggerated, graphic visuals. Reporters were sent to the frontlines without proper security. Fortunately, all returned safely. But this frenzy should serve as a wake-up call: spectacle. must never outweigh responsibility. 

Pakistan's Counterstrike and the Ceasefire

India reiterated that its strikes were strictly anti-terror operations, not acts of war. No civilian or military targets were hit. It stressed: unless provoked, there would be no further escalation.

Pakistan, claiming to be a victim of terrorism itself, objected. But Indian officials questioned the sincerity of that claim. If Pakistan were truly against terrorism, why shield these camps? India's analysts argued that Pakistan's strong reaction revealed the depth of its ties to the very groups it publicly disowned.

Eventually, direct military-level talks led to a ceasefire agreement on May 10.

Trump's Claim-And India's Rebuttal

In the middle of this delicate moment, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that the ceasefire had been brokered by the U.S. "After a long night of talks mediated by the United States... FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE," he posted.

India was caught off guard. For decades, India has insisted that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, not one for external mediation. Officials swiftly clarified that the ceasefire was achieved through direct communication between Indian and Pakistani military officials-no outside help involved.

Opposition leaders slammed the government for failing to control the narrative. The government clarified: Operation Sindoor was not over-it was paused. Any future provocation would trigger immediate retaliation.

A Military Win, But a Diplomatic Miss

While India executed a textbook military operation, its diplomatic machinery lagged behind. Trump's tweet gained traction before India could shape the narrative. Most countries acknowledged India's right to self-defence, but few offered open support.

Pakistan, meanwhile, received overt backing from China and Turkey and even secured an IMF loan amid the crisis.

India's diplomatic isolation revealed a deeper challenge: for all its global ambitions, it still struggles to coordinate messaging and build coalitions. No major country-except Israel-voiced unequivocal support. Not even Russia, from whom India purchased the S-400 system. Even France, soon to deliver 26 Rafale fighter jets in a deal worth 630 billion rupees ($7.4 billion), remained silent.

Perhaps the West's nostalgia still shields Pakistan. Pakistan's decades-long role as a utility ally for the West persists, with even its own ministers. acknowledging that they have carried out the "dirty jobs" for Western interests. India must now chart its own course, free from the constraints of past alliances and nostalgic goodwill.

The lack of narrative control allowed others, including Trump, to claim credit. To its credit, India did send bipartisan delegations abroad, including leaders like Tharoor and John Brittas, to communicate its position. It was a rare show of political unity-but a reactive one.

A New Chapter, With New Risks

India's journey-from Kandahar surrender to the assertion of Operation Sindoor-marks a decisive evolution in its national security doctrine. But even as military prowess increases, the digital battlefield grows more dangerous.

Disinformation, the decline of independent media, and propaganda now pose threats equal to bullets and bombs. India must now complement military readiness with diplomatic agility and media. intelligence.

The world must adjust to an India that is more assertive. India has shown it can win battles. The question now is: can it win the story?

For those of us who stood shivering outside the Ministry of External Affairs on that December night in 1999, the transformation is unmistakable.

The days of passive endurance are over. A new normal is in place in India-Pakistan relations.

(P.M.Narayanan is South Asia Producer of German TV)