Pakistan outmaneuvers India in digital and information warfare

The recent four-day military confrontation between India and Pakistan revealed a decisive victory for Islamabad on an often-overlooked battlefield: information warfare. While military tactics and diplomatic maneuvers played their part, the stark contrast in media strategies between the two nuclear-armed neighbors shaped both domestic and international perceptions of the conflict. Both countries engaged in military operations, but their digital and media strategies diverged sharply.

Pakistan made a strategic decision to lift social media restrictions as soon as hostilities began. Those restrictions arguably shouldn’t have existed in the first place—but that is a discussion for another time. Twitter and other platforms, previously subject to limitations, were made fully accessible to the public. In contrast, India imposed an information blackout by blocking thousands of social media accounts and websites, including international news outlets. This contrast revealed two fundamentally different approaches to managing wartime narratives.

Pakistan appeared committed to transparency, using open communication to counter Indian propaganda. The government also capitalised on the online presence of opposition supporters—particularly those affiliated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Despite internal political divisions, the public remained largely united behind Pakistan’s stance during the conflict. India’s actions, on the other hand, reflected an unwillingness to allow its citizens access to independent or foreign information. By blocking Pakistani digital media and international coverage, the Indian government inadvertently exposed its intent to control the narrative and suppress unfavorable truths—particularly about civilian casualties, battlefield setbacks, and behind-the-scenes efforts to de-escalate.

While Indian media outlets engaged in aggressive and often blatantly false reporting, neither the Indian government nor its military conducted any high-level press briefings. Their silence and apparent arrogance suggested a belief that the international community would not question their narrative. But in today’s digital age, that overconfidence backfired. The absence of verifiable information and a deluge of disinformation damaged India’s credibility. Meanwhile, the information vacuum was quickly filled by sensationalist and irresponsible media coverage.

Indian broadcast news descended into a spectacle of unverified claims and outright fabrications. Reports of events that never occurred—such as Indian naval strikes on Karachi’s port, ground forces crossing the international border, Pakistan’s prime minister fleeing to a bunker, and even a coup against Pakistan’s army chief—were presented as fact. Television screens lit up with blaring sirens and animated fighter jets while anchors issued outlandish calls like, “Set fire to Karachi! Blow up the entire city!” This hyper-nationalism directly contradicted the Indian government’s more measured messaging, which sought to portray India’s strikes as “non-escalatory” and “proportional” responses to alleged terrorism. Officials attempted to frame India as a restrained actor, while television networks painted a picture of a country on the brink of annihilating Pakistan.

In contrast, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) and government spokespeople delivered regular, composed briefings to both domestic and international media. These updates—evidence-based and grounded in international law—shaped global perception. The professionalism of the Pakistani military stood in stark contrast to the chaotic, misleading, or absent messaging from across the border. In a particularly symbolic moment, as India attempted to project strength through Bollywood-style propaganda, Pakistan responded with facts, clarity, and strategic media engagement. The result was a decisive win in the information war: Pakistan’s narrative dominated international news, and key global broadcasters acknowledged its claims—including the downing of six Indian fighter jets.

By May 8 or 9, many Indian citizens began to question the credibility of their national media. Reports indicated that large numbers resorted to VPNs to access Pakistani digital news platforms in search of a clearer, more accurate picture of events. Even the Indian government’s suspected false-flag attempts—such as targeting its own Sikh community to discredit their support for Pakistan—were widely disbelieved. Although Indian newspapers remained relatively credible, the nocturnal nature of cross-border attacks meant print media was often outdated by the time it reached readers.

The era in which governments could mislead their citizens during wartime without scrutiny is over. Information now flows freely, and the public demands honesty. This reality widened India’s credibility gap when U.S. President Donald Trump unexpectedly announced a ceasefire on May 10, creating a sense of anticlimax and confusion among an Indian public that had been primed for total victory. Opposition parties began demanding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi convene a parliamentary session to explain the abrupt shift in tone, especially after repeated claims of military success. Calls for Modi’s resignation have been gaining traction. Further adding to India’s embarrassment, CNN correspondent Nick Robertson later revealed that it was actually India that sought U.S. intervention to halt the conflict—after enduring significant setbacks at the hands of Pakistani forces.

India’s media strategy ultimately backfired on multiple fronts. Internationally, it emerged looking more like an aggressor than a victim of terrorism. Domestically, its government faced a credibility crisis when claims of victory failed to align with the facts on the ground.

While Pakistan may have won the information war, this episode offers valuable lessons for all governments. It illustrates that effective communication strategies must strike a balance between patriotism and credibility. When media abandon fact-checking in favor of jingoism, they damage national interests and erode public trust. It also underscores the risk of allowing state-aligned media to dominate the landscape—such channels quickly lose credibility in times of crisis. Had Pakistan’s mainstream media not been perceived as government mouthpieces, it might not have needed to rely so heavily on reopening Twitter and mobilizing citizen voices.

In a world where digital communication now shapes public opinion and international diplomacy, freedom of expression is not just a democratic value—it is a strategic asset. Transparency often proves more effective than censorship. And with a figure like Narendra Modi—once dubbed “The Butcher of Gujarat”—at the helm next door, Pakistan’s ability to present its case through diverse and independent voices became not only beneficial, but essential.

Ultimately, no government can wage modern information warfare alone. It requires an engaged public and a credible media. That’s a lesson Pakistan would do well to remember long after the guns fall silent.

The writer is Executive Producer, Geo News