India’s Operation Sindoor and Israel’s Operation Rising Lion have much in common – in that both were actions to neutralise future threats. The similarities end there. While India focused only on terrorist infrastructure and military installations, Israel went further and struck key figures in the political and military hierarchy, as also nuclear scientists – who are technically non-combatants – in the safety of their homes. The difference in the global reaction is even more stark.
While in the first case India was urged to show restraint, in spite of being the victim of terrorism for over four decades, no such restraint is being asked for from Israel, with Operation Rising Lion already in its 10th day. The US has even entered Israel’s war, striking key nuclear sites, including the deeply hidden Fordow, in Iran.
This comes after the US president loudly trumpeted his pretentious so-called role in brokering a ceasefire between Pakistan and India. Trump added insult to injury by hosting Pakistan Army Chief, Asim Munir, for lunch at the White House. This clearly shows that the so-called strategic ties between the US and India are pretty much superficial and transactional.
When American generals openly admit that they consider Pakistan an ally in the war on terrorism, they are rewarding Pakistan for its policy of state-sponsored terrorism against India. Clearly, we have not been able to convince the global community to initiate any action against Pakistan, which is a fair indication of India’s weakness in dominating the narrative and winning the perception battle – partly on account of an overactive and unbridled electronic media.
Various articles by international media publications support this view. The Washington Post points out that some media houses created a “parallel reality”, fuelled by several military experts giving their views on the subject. An article in the French daily L’ Opinion underscores the same point – while India won militarily, it completely lost the information war. And this helped Pakistan shape the narrative in its favour.
On a different note, an opinion article by Ashley J Tellis in Foreign Affairs is downright dismissive of Indian aspirations, perhaps stemming from India’s refusal to toe the American line. India did try to stage a comeback by sending seven all-party delegations led by senior leaders and diplomats from across the political spectrum to 32 countries, plus the European Union headquarters in Brussels, effectively covering 33 capitals. The primary aim was to highlight cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, and reinforce India’s messaging on counter‑terror and self‑defence after Operation Sindoor. By then, though, the horse had bolted.
Also read: Threats to India are not over. Why it must build fortress-like defences
China’s ‘Three Warfares Strategy’
What stands out is that winning the perception battle is a continuous, non-incident-related effort. It has to be a concerted policy drawn out at the highest levels, with the implementation left to various organs of the government, and clear directions on what is to be conveyed by whom and in which forum. Off-the-cuff disparaging remarks by ministers past and present do irreparable damage to the information war campaign. The ‘Three Warfares Strategy’ followed by the Chinese is quite enlightening. In brief, it entails:
Information warfare: This facet involves shaping perceptions through controlled narratives disseminated via state-owned media, diplomatic channels, and global platforms. The objective is to garner international support for China’s positions while undermining adversaries’ credibility. For instance, during the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling against China’s claims on territories in the region, Beijing utilised its media to label the ruling as a farce, thereby influencing global opinion in its favour.
Psychological warfare: Psychological tactics aim to demoralise and destabilise opponents by exploiting their fears and uncertainties. This includes the use of disinformation, threats, and historical references to induce doubt and hesitation. During the 2017 Doklam standoff, China invoked memories of the 1962 border conflict to intimidate India – though unsuccessfully – in an attempt to sway public sentiment and political will.
Legal warfare or ‘lawfare’: Legal warfare involves leveraging international laws and norms to legitimise own claims and actions and delegitimise those of adversaries. By framing its territorial claims and military activities within legal arguments, China seeks to gain diplomatic and legal advantages – as was evident when it dismissed the 2016 South China Sea ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, portraying itself as a defender of international law.
Also read: India has only pressed the pause button on Pakistan. It needs serious behavioural change
What India must do
Apropos, projecting the country’s image on a variety of issues is a long-term strategy covering a range of issues, which cannot be evolved overnight or limited as a response to a terrorist related incident. That we have not succeeded in isolating Pakistan makes it imperative for India to have its own version, incorporating:
Integrated strategy development: Develop an integrated strategy that combines military readiness with robust information and legal capabilities. This includes enhancing cyber capabilities, strengthening legal frameworks, and improving credible media outreach to counter adversarial narratives.
Psychological resilience: Building psychological resilience within the Armed Forces and the civilian population is crucial. Sadly, the Indian public is prone to mass hysteria, a negative trait that is often exploited by our adversaries. Training programmes that focus on information warfare and psychological tactics can prepare the public to respond effectively to adversarial strategies.
Legal preparedness: India should strengthen its legal apparatus to challenge adversaries’ actions in international forums. This involves training diplomats, defence attaches, and legal experts to navigate complex international laws and norms effectively.
Public diplomacy: Engaging in proactive public diplomacy can help shape international opinion in India’s favour. This includes transparent communication, strategic media engagements, and participation in international forums to present India’s perspectives.
While India’s media landscape during Operation Sindoor was instrumental in rallying national support and conveying the government’s message, it also faced challenges in managing the perception battle due to over-the-top reporting.
The amplification of nationalistic sentiment, coupled with the spread of misinformation, was actually detrimental to the national interest, highlighting the complexities of information warfare in contemporary conflicts. While this kind of coverage might have swayed domestic audiences, it did little in terms of garnering support internationally. Moving forward, a balanced information warfare strategy, which identifies the various target audiences and themes for each, along with the modes of dissemination, needs to be formulated.
A theme that works well for domestic audiences may fall flat on the global stage. Combining emotional resonance with factual reporting will be crucial in navigating the perception war, the campaign for which must start now.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
General Narvane writes “an opinion article by Ashley J Tellis in Foreign Affairs is downright dismissive of Indian aspirations, perhaps stemming from India’s refusal to toe the American line.”
Ashley J Tellis’s article is representative of western view (not just US view) on the shortcomings of Indian foreign policy hampered by its domestic politics. Dismssing it as US bias is delusion.