India’s Disinformation Playbook: Propaganda from Wars to the Pahalgam Attack
Historical Echoes – Indo-Pak Wars and Propaganda
Information warfare between India and Pakistan is not new. Since the earliest Indo-Pakistani wars, both states have used propaganda to shape perceptions and morale. During the 1965 war, for example, All India Radio broadcasts and Pakistani radio programmes (such as the satirical Jhootistan show) traded barbs to counter each other’s claims. In 1971, as India supported Bengali separatists in East Pakistan, media on each side disseminated starkly different narratives of the conflict, each accusing the other of deceit and aggression. This historical backdrop set the stage for a decades-long battle of narratives, where each military clash or crisis is accompanied by competing claims, exaggerated “victories,” and blame games. Both nations learned early on that controlling the narrative can be as important as controlling territory, sowing the seeds for sophisticated disinformation strategies in the years to come.
State-Sponsored Networks of Disinformation
Over time, India has been repeatedly accused of operating extensive disinformation networks targeting Pakistan. A watershed moment came in 2019-2020, when the EU DisinfoLab – a Brussels-based NGO – exposed a 15-year-long pro-India influence operation dubbed “Indian Chronicles.” This sprawling network involved over 260 fake news sites across 65 countries, all traced back to the New Delhi-based Srivastava Group. These phantom media outlets and resurrected NGOs were used to discredit India’s rivals (mainly Pakistan) and even influence international forums like the UN Human Rights Council and European Parliament. The operation’s tactics were brazen: it resurrected defunct UN-accredited NGOs (some named after deceased activists), impersonated EU institutions, and laundered propaganda by publishing anti-Pakistan content on fake “news” sites – content which was then amplified by legitimate Indian media.
India’s Disinformation Against Pakistan: From Indo-Pak Wars to Pahalgam Attack
At the heart of this web was Asian News International (ANI) – India’s largest news agency – which unwittingly or willfully acted as a conduit. ANI repeatedly cited these fake outlets (with names like EP Today or EU Chronicle ) as if they were credible European media. By doing so, false anti-Pakistan stories planted abroad entered the Indian news bloodstream and reached millions . One EU DisinfoLab report revealed how ANI even quoted “think tanks” dissolved years ago and ghost “experts” who don’t exist. In one case, a defunct Canada-based think tank (IFFRAS) that had been legally dissolved in 2014 was still being cited by ANI twice a week in 2023. The think tank’s website falsely listed real professors as participants in a conference they never attended – complete with concocted quotes – all to fabricate legitimacy for anti-Pakistan narratives. Such “ghost” sources and fake experts have become a hallmark of this disinformation campaign , showing the lengths to which elements of the Indian establishment (or those aligned with it) will go to malign Pakistan.
Notably, India’s government has officially denied orchestrating these networks , but the pattern is telling. The disinformation empire uncovered by investigators was expansive and sustained. It even involved arranging staged visits to Kashmir by sympathetic foreign MPs to endorse India’s positions. The Indian Chronicles exposé made clear that state-linked actors systematically exploited global platforms to smear Pakistan , while presenting India’s Hindu nationalist government in a favorable light. Despite the damning evidence, these fake news farms have largely operated with impunity, and the same ANI-centered ecosystem continues to peddle misleading content targeting Pakistan and even China.
Digital Propaganda – Bots, Trolls and AI Amplifiers
In the digital era, India’s information operations have extended to social media, often using inauthentic accounts and bots to amplify anti-Pakistan narratives. Pakistani officials have frequently raised alarms about coordinated campaigns originating from Indian soil in the cyberspace . A 2021 report by Pakistan’s Digital Media Wing dissected anti-Pakistan Twitter trends from 2019–2021, revealing that many were artificially boosted: “These hashtags are initiated through 40% of bot activity,” observed Pakistan’s National Security Adviser. He noted that scores of accounts – some linked to Indian state apparatus – deliberately ran disinformation campaigns to defame Pakistan internationally . For instance, as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in 2021, hashtags like “#SanctionPakistan” trended widely – later analysis showed a large portion of the traffic came from Indian and Afghan accounts working in tandem. Islamabad pointed out that many such accounts were using AI-generated profiles and coordinated posting patterns to push a singular agenda : blaming Pakistan for regional ills and discrediting its government and army.
Another facet is the role of India’s officially sponsored messaging. The BJP’s IT Cell – a well-oiled social media team – has often been accused of deploying trolls and bots to set narratives. Anti-Pakistan sentiments online frequently show signs of inauthentic amplification , suggesting bot networks at work. Pakistani authorities have attempted to counter this by banning or flagging dozens of accounts they identified as Indian-controlled propaganda pages. Pakistan’s telecom regulator (PTA) has conducted crackdowns on “Indian backed bots” that run coordinated anti-Pakistan campaigns on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. These battles play out in real-time – each side accusing the other of “flooding cyberspace with fake news.”
However, independent observers note that Indian networks have a far greater reach due to the country’s huge social media footprint and tech savvy . During crises, Twitter and Facebook see swarms of freshly made accounts, many with AI-generated photos and generic names, pumping out identical anti-Pakistan messages within minutes of each other . Such synchronized behavior strongly indicates automation and centralized control. A vivid illustration came after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack: within hours, hashtags vilifying Pakistan (and even calling for war) trended in India, while images and videos – some unrelated or doctored – circulated to inflame anger . Indian officials concurrently used their own outlets to discredit any counter-narrative, branding them as “Pakistani propaganda.” The information battlefield had become as important as the physical one.
Indian state-run fact-check graphic labeling purported “Pakistani disinformation” after the Pahalgam attack. India’s PIB fact-check unit flagged social media posts (example tweets above) that claimed an Indian general was removed for the security lapse – stamping them as “FAKE”. Such efforts are part of India’s narrative control, though critics argue they also serve to swiftly dismiss any account that challenges New Delhi’s version of events.
The Pahalgam Terror Attack: A Case Study in Narrative Warfare
The deadly attack on April 22, 2025 in Pahalgam – a tourist resort in Indian-administered Kashmir – offers a prime example of India’s disinformation strategies in action. On that day, gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists, killing 26 people (25 Indian nationals and 1 Nepali) . It was one of the worst attacks on civilians in Kashmir in years, and Indian officials immediately pointed the finger at Pakistan . Without waiting for any thorough inquiry, New Delhi’s narrative was set: the attackers were Pakistani nationals and proxies of Pakistan’s military establishment. “India accuses Pakistan of backing the perpetrators of the worst attack on civilians in years in Kashmir,” reported AFP, “an accusation rejected by Islamabad.” . In Indian media, the assault was unequivocally described as a Pakistan-sponsored “terror strike,” with newscasters asserting that the militants were controlled by Hafiz Saeed – the Lashkar-e-Taiba chief long implicated (by India) in cross-border terror. By contrast, Pakistani officials categorically denied any role and urged India to produce evidence .
Notably, a lesser-known Kashmiri militant group seeking separation from India reportedly claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam massacre. Yet this inconvenient detail received scant coverage in India’s press. Instead, the coverage coalesced around a familiar storyline: “cross-border terrorism” . The disputed region’s complex local militancy was glossed over in favor of blaming Pakistan’s state sponsorship . Indian TV channels carried fever-pitch debates with graphics like “Pakistan’s Bloody Hand” and “Time to Teach Pak a Lesson”. The framing was clear – Pakistan was guilty by default , and any questioning of that narrative could be treated as disinformation emanating from Pakistan itself.
To reinforce its narrative and pre-empt Pakistan’s counter-claims, India deployed state resources for information control . The government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) went on a high alert fact-checking spree – though tellingly, its “fact-checks” were almost entirely focused on debunking claims that embarrassed India’s security forces . For example, in the days after the attack, multiple social media posts (many by accounts sympathetic to Pakistan) suggested that the Indian Army’s Northern Command chief Lt. Gen. Suchindra Kumar was sacked or arrested for the massive security lapse at Pahalgam. Another viral rumor claimed Pakistan’s military had shot down an Indian Air Force Rafale fighter jet amid the ensuing border tensions. India’s PIB loudly refuted these reports – stating that Lt. Gen. Kumar was merely retiring at month’s end (a scheduled move) and no Indian jet had been downed. The PIB blasted these stories as “false propaganda by Pakistani users” and urged Indian citizens to “exercise caution while sharing unverified claims” . In effect, any narrative diverging from the official Indian line was branded as fake news fomented by Pakistan.
Indian news outlets amplified these official denials. NDTV , for instance, ran primetime segments boasting that “Pak propaganda” had been “punctured” by swift Indian fact-checks. The Times of India highlighted how posts from “Pakistani users” were spreading misinformation in the wake of Pahalgam, which the government was actively debunking. This coordinated messaging served two purposes: demonize Pakistan further by portraying it as peddling lies to cover up its alleged terror sponsorship, and bolster the credibility of the Indian government’s narrative as the sole truth . Any domestic voices raising uncomfortable questions could be dismissed as dupes of Pakistani disinformation. Indeed, by controlling the flow of information, New Delhi managed to keep the public focus on Pakistan’s alleged guilt rather than on security lapses or local discontent in Kashmir that might have enabled the attack.
On the ground in India, this narrative had real consequences. As media and officials whipped up anger at Pakistan, Kashmiri Muslims and even ordinary Pakistani visitors in India became targets of harassment . Mobs in some cities attacked Kashmiri students and traders, echoing a pattern seen after previous incidents like Pulwama in 2019. “We’re cursed,” said one Kashmiri student in India, describing how locals turned hostile after Pahalgam, conflating all Kashmiris with “terrorists”. Such public anger, while genuine, was stoked by round-the-clock coverage that often blurred the line between fact and conjecture. In New Delhi, enraged protestors gathered near Pakistan’s High Commission, chanting slogans and even pelting stones – scenes eagerly broadcast on Indian channels. The Pahalgam attack thus not only escalated tensions at the border, but also served as fuel for India’s domestic propaganda mill , uniting the populace against a common enemy.
Exploiting the Crisis – Political and Diplomatic Gains
Analysts note that the Indian government’s handling of the Pahalgam incident fits into a pattern of narrative exploitation for political ends . In the past, crises with Pakistan have often been used by ruling parties in India to burnish their nationalist credentials. This time was no different. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, facing various domestic pressures, swiftly turned the Pahalgam tragedy into a rallying cry. Modi vowed to hunt down the perpetrators “to the ends of the earth” and promised they “will be punished beyond their imagination” . Such rhetoric was lapped up by the public and media, drowning out more measured voices. Calls for military retaliation against Pakistan grew louder in New Delhi’s power corridors. “New Delhi could use it to bolster its image as strong and tough on terror,” observed Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst, adding that a crisis like this allows the government to project strength.
Indeed, political foes within India closed ranks after the attack. Opposition parties, which ordinarily criticize the ruling regime, unanimously passed resolutions supporting the government’s stand against Pakistan. In Pakistan too, a sense of siege temporarily united a fractured polity – an outcome not lost on observers. “The fallout of the Kashmir attack has entirely diverted attention with one common enemy,” noted Pakistani political scientist Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, referring to how Pakistan’s opposition toned down criticism of the army amid war fears. This suits the establishments on both sides: crises like these allow civilian and military leaders to shore up domestic support by invoking nationalism . In India’s case, with national elections on the horizon (or recent, given 2024 was an election year), the timing of a Pakistan-centric security crisis was politically advantageous – just as the Balakot episode in 2019 helped rally voters behind Modi’s BJP.
On the diplomatic front, India wasted no time in leveraging the incident to isolate Pakistan. A slew of punitive measures was unleashed in immediate response to Pahalgam , marking one of the harshest diplomatic offensives by India in years. New Delhi suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty – a critical water-sharing agreement – as a form of retribution. It also moved to downgrade diplomatic relations, expel Pakistani diplomats and citizens, revoke visas, and halt all bilateral trade . Indian officials even hinted at opposing international relief for Pakistan; for instance, there was talk of India lobbying against a pending $1.3 billion IMF loan for Pakistan’s struggling economy. The message was clear: Pakistan would pay a price on multiple fronts for the Pahalgam attack . By tightening the screws, India’s government stood to gain diplomatically (by painting Pakistan as a pariah state) and domestically (by showing a tough, unyielding stance). Indian media, in line with this, highlighted how the United States and other Western powers “backed India” in condemning the terror attack, even if those nations stopped short of explicitly blaming Pakistan.
Critics argue that such moves were disproportionate collective punishment, enabled by a narrative that had already convicted Pakistan in the court of public opinion . The attack site, as Pakistan pointed out, was deep inside Indian territory (over 100 km from the Line of Control), raising questions about India’s own security lapses. But instead of introspection, India’s narrative managed to externalize the blame entirely. This narrative discipline provided political cover to implement long-desired aggressive policies (such as tinkering with water flows or shutting borders) under the guise of countering “Pakistani terrorism.” In essence, the fog of disinformation created the domestic consent needed for escalatory actions that India’s hardliners had wanted to take anyway .
Pakistan’s Counter-Narrative and Independent Reporting
Facing a barrage of accusations, Pakistan vehemently pushed back with its own narrative and calls for transparency. Pakistani leaders condemned the Pahalgam killings but rejected India’s allegations as “baseless” and part of a familiar blame game . Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif cautioned that “the recent tragedy in Pahalgam is yet another example of this perpetual blame game, which must come to a grinding halt.” He decried what he called a “pattern of exploitation” by India – exploiting terror incidents to malign Pakistan without evidence. Rather than trading barbs, Islamabad took the notable step of requesting an independent inquiry: “Pakistan is fully prepared to cooperate with any neutral investigators to ensure the truth is uncovered and justice is served,” announced Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, offering to join a neutral probe into the incident. This was a calculated move to undercut India’s narrative by inviting impartial fact-finding – something India, confident in its version, showed no interest in accepting. (Tellingly, Indian officials did not immediately respond to Pakistan’s offer of a neutral investigation.)
Pakistan also undertook diplomatic outreach to present its case. Its foreign ministry briefed envoys of key countries, stressing that India had provided no proof of Pakistani involvement despite sweeping accusations . In forums like the UN, Pakistan highlighted that India “implied cross-border links without evidence,” as noted by independent observers. The United Nations Security Council did condemn the attack as a terrorist act – as it would for any such atrocity – but did not endorse India’s version blaming Pakistan. In fact, the UNSC statement came alongside a note that Pakistan’s government had “rejected the accusations” and was urging calm. Some international voices echoed Pakistan’s concerns: Washington urged India to act with restraint. The U.S. Vice President (J.D. Vance) stated publicly that “we hope India’s response…doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict,” implicitly counseling against rash action. Importantly, neutral media reports took care to point out the lack of hard evidence behind India’s claims . Reuters, for example, noted that “India has implied cross-border links (to Pakistan) without evidence, while Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership have rejected the accusation and called for a neutral probe.”
This independent reporting provides a reality check on the competing narratives. It reminds readers that, so far, no conclusive proof has been made public tying Pakistan to the Pahalgam attackers , aside from Indian intelligence assertions. Meanwhile, Pakistani officials underscore their own sacrifices in fighting terrorism and question why they would imperil nascent peace efforts (the LoC had been relatively calm for four years prior to this incident). Pakistan’s supporters argue that India’s knee-jerk blame of Pakistan for every incident in Kashmir conveniently absolves New Delhi of addressing its own policy failures in the troubled region . By calling for a neutral investigation – potentially under UN or international observers – Pakistan positioned itself as the party with nothing to hide, effectively challenging India to “put up or shut up.” India’s refusal to countenance such an inquiry only fuels Pakistan’s claims that India is more interested in leveraging the incident for political gain than finding the truth .
Pakistan also tried to turn the tables by highlighting India’s role in fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan – a narrative of “reverse propaganda” that Islamabad has consistently pushed. In the information war, Pakistani officials pointed to the DisinfoLab revelations and instances like the 2019 Balakot episode to cast doubt on India’s credibility . They recalled how India claimed to kill “a very large number” of militants at Balakot in 2019, only for independent satellite imagery to later show the bombed structures largely intact, with no evidence of terrorist casualties . Even some Indian ministers eventually conceded that the strikes were only meant as a warning shot, not to actually inflict fatalities. By reminding the world of such episodes, Pakistan aimed to reinforce the idea that India has a track record of exaggeration and misinformation to score points . Foreign journalists and analysts did note parallels: once again, India was making lofty claims (this time about “Pakistani attackers”) while withholding any concrete proof under the guise of security . As one commentary quipped, it was “Pulwama-Balakot redux – accusations first, evidence later (if ever).”
Battling Narratives in a Nuclear Shadow
The Pahalgam attack and its aftermath underscore the high stakes of disinformation in the Indo-Pak rivalry. India’s swift narrative – portraying Pakistan as the mastermind – reflects a longstanding strategy of managing public perception and diplomatic outcomes through aggressive information campaigns . By controlling the story domestically, New Delhi gains freedom to act tough without facing internal dissent, and by pushing its narrative internationally, it seeks to keep Pakistan on the defensive. Pakistan, on the other hand, finds itself in a reactive posture – scrambling to counter Indian claims, defend its image, and avoid global censure. The net result is a perilous amplification of tensions. As Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani diplomat, observed, the bellicose rhetoric from Indian media and officials after Pahalgam created a “sombre mood” in Pakistan – a real fear that the crisis could escalate into a broader conflict . When two nuclear-armed neighbors are at odds, propaganda can become a catalyst for miscalculation. Each side’s populace, fed on a diet of half-truths and nationalist fervor, pressures their leaders for confrontation, shrinking the space for calm diplomacy.
For Pakistan, defending against India’s disinformation onslaught is not just about honor, but about averting potentially disastrous consequences . As Islamabad has repeatedly pointed out, “false flag” operations and fabricated pretexts could be used by India to justify military adventurism. (Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan famously alleged that the 2019 Balakot airstrike was orchestrated by India’s ruling party for electoral gain – a charge he buttressed by citing leaked chats of an Indian TV anchor that hinted at foreknowledge of a “big event”.) While India vehemently denies such claims, the atmosphere of mistrust is deep. Each new incident is viewed through a lens of suspicion sharpened by years of propaganda. Truth becomes the first casualty , as narratives race ahead of facts.
The international community, for its part, has a role in breaking this dangerous cycle. Independent and credible investigations into major incidents like Pahalgam could pierce the fog of misinformation. Greater scrutiny of disinformation networks – such as those exposed by EU DisinfoLab – is needed to hold purveyors of fake news accountable, be they state or non-state actors. Ultimately, peace in South Asia may remain elusive as long as disinformation continues to inflame hostility and zero-sum thinking . Pakistan’s stance in the Pahalgam episode – urging neutral inquiry and restraint – suggests it seeks to de-escalate, but it also reflects frustration at being perpetually cast as the villain by Indian narrative management. Until both nations agree on facts through impartial means, each will continue to accuse the other of deceit. In this battle of narratives, defending Pakistan’s position means shining a light on India’s information warfare tactics and urging the world to see beyond the smoke and mirrors. Only by calling out propaganda and insisting on evidence-based conclusions can the cycle of mutual recrimination be broken – a necessary step if the region is to step back from the brink and pursue a path toward stability and truth.
Sources: To ensure a balanced and well-substantiated analysis, supporting information and quotes have been drawn from a range of credible outlets, including investigative NGO reports, international news agencies, and reputable media coverage (Al Jazeera, Reuters, Dawn, AFP). All claims are backed by references in the text, highlighting the documented reality of disinformation campaigns and the competing narratives surrounding the Pahalgam attack.
Related
