Information warfare

Tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbours long at odds, recently escalated to a boiling point, with both sides accusing the other of launching cross-border missile strikes and drone incursions. In the fog of conflict, the truth was once again the first casualty.

A US-brokered ceasefire was agreed upon, an encouraging step back from the brink. But while the guns may have fallen silent for now, another battle rages on with undiminished force: the battle for truth. The real danger still haunting South Asia is information warfare.

In this digital age, wars are no longer fought solely on the battlefield. They are waged through headlines, hashtags and manipulated video clips, beamed directly into the minds of millions. The weapons of this war aren’t tanks or fighter jets, but tweets, doctored footage, and misleading infographics.

On May 10, The Telegraph's UK correspondent in Mumbai, Samaan Lateef, published an article with the provocative headline: “India Sends Warships to Pakistan.” The piece immediately triggered outrage in Pakistan, fuelling public anxiety at a time when tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours were already running high. The headline, lacking the necessary nuance and context, was later edited by The Telegraph – a tacit acknowledgement of its recklessness. Such lapses are not just editorial oversights but examples of irresponsible journalism with potentially destabilising consequences.

The entirely fabricated story spread rapidly across social media platforms, sparking fear, confusion, and anger. Within hours, it had created widespread panic in WhatsApp groups, provoked inflammatory tweets from political figures, and even made its way into partisan television coverage.

This is not just reckless; it’s dangerous. When journalists, politicians, influencers and indeed ordinary citizens share unverified or deliberately false information, they do not merely mislead but weaponise uncertainty. They deepen divisions, making peace ever more elusive.

We must remember that every rumour shared in haste, every meme crafted in malice, and every fake video circulated without scrutiny are not harmless acts. They are sparks. And in a region already soaked in historical animosity and nationalist fervour, they can ignite wildfires.

Information warfare thrives in ambiguity. It feeds on our biases and fans the flames of polarisation in societies already struggling with sectarian and ethnic divides.

In both India and Pakistan, nationalism is increasingly tied to online echo chambers where alternative views are dismissed as traitorous, and truth becomes subjective. This moment calls for more than military restraint. It demands informational discipline from governments, the press, public figures and citizens alike. Before sharing, we must pause. Before believing, we must verify.

Still, there is space for cautious optimism. Within South Asia, a pragmatic undercurrent shaped by realpolitik recognises that deterrence, economic survival and regional stability are shared imperatives. The delicate balance between India and Pakistan can be better understood through the lens of Nuclear Deterrence Theory, particularly as developed by scholars like Robert Powell.

Powell highlights how the possibility of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) – a concept rooted in cold-war logic – creates a strategic stalemate, where neither side escalates conflict for fear of total annihilation.

This paradoxically stabilises otherwise volatile relations, as both sides understand the catastrophic costs of direct war. This nuclear equilibrium, though fragile, has functioned as a deterrent and forces both nations to seek alternative, often diplomatic, routes to conflict management. In this context, coexistence is not idealism but a strategic necessity.

A framework for ongoing dialogue must be built and sustained to prevent future escalations. The UN, while symbolically important, has proven increasingly ineffective in such regional conflicts, constrained by the anarchic world structure in which sovereign power often trumps collective will. In that vacuum, the recent role of the US in brokering a ceasefire signals the importance of third-party states with regional leverage.

Nations like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the US may be uniquely placed to offer good offices and backchannel diplomacy when formal mechanisms fail. South Asia cannot afford another war. Not in this century. Not in this climate. Not in this economy. The region stands at a critical juncture, grappling with a growing climate crisis that has already brought devastating floods, rising sea levels and extreme heatwaves. These environmental shocks are displacing millions and triggering food insecurity and water scarcity on an unprecedented scale. Simultaneously, preventable diseases continue to burden overstretched healthcare systems, while poverty deepens amid inflation, debt, and fragile economic structures.

Let us not forget: the fiercest battles may not be those waged with bombs but those fought over what people believe to be true. And in that battle, truth must be our most powerful defence. As the dust settles and nationalist drums quieten, let cool heads and honest voices cocoon the region from chaos. Peace may not trend, but it must prevail.

The writer is an environmentalist and a professor of environmental law.