The technologically advanced media of the present century, coupled with the intricate interplay of politics, propaganda, and public opinion, has changed the way war is being reported today. Propaganda, particularly in times of war, serves as a powerful tool to shape public sympathies, direct national narratives, and justify state actions. The three key themes which can be identified from the literature on war and media coverage evolve around i) the importance of nationhood and leadership, ii) the justifications of why war happens and iii) how interested parties drum up mass support in times of war against identified and targeted enemies. Based on this, the author of this paper discusses here, the evolution of war-time media coverage, focusing on psychological operations (psyops), the rise of fake news, and new-age disinformation strategies. It integrates a critical analysis of Operation Sindoor, an Indian counte-rinsurgency initiative, to highlight the current implications of propaganda in regional conflicts and the role of Indian media in constructing nationalistic narratives.
Propaganda:
Propaganda is difficult to define but easy to recognize in practice. Edward Bernays (1942), often credited as the father of public relations, defined propaganda as an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine. The early 20th century saw this concept applied broadly, from wartime slogans to news editorials, advertising, and political messaging. Walter Lippmann (1922) emphasized the psychological dimensions of propaganda, suggesting that the press functions as a mediator between public opinion and policymakers. Harold Lasswell (1927) further categorized propaganda as the management of collective attitudes through the manipulation of symbols. His study of WWI propaganda listed key techniques that have remained remarkably relevant: blaming the enemy, proclaiming national unity, appealing to cultural ideals, highlighting enemy depravity, suppressing dissenting voices, and employing horror stories to justify violence.
The Institute of Propaganda Analysis (IPA) issued a structure for the investigation of propaganda in the year 1937. The framework mentioned seven common propaganda devices namely Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folk, Card Stacking, and Bandwagon - all of which continue to appear in contemporary political and military communication.
The Media-War Complex: A Historical Continuum
The First and Second World Wars reshaped the media's role in diplomacy and mass persuasion. From psychological operations (psyops) to perception management and war propaganda, control of information has become a key battleground. The Vietnam War was the first major conflict to be televised extensively, allowing real-time transmission of battlefield images into the living rooms of American citizens (Hammond, 1989). This visual access shifted public perception and contributed to anti-war sentiment. The press, unregulated and often unsupervised in war zones, showed graphic and emotionally charged images of death and destruction. The war highlighted how uncontrolled media coverage could erode public support and ultimately influence the outcome of military engagements.
From Cold War to Soft Power: The Rise of Psychological Operations
After the fall of Saigon in South Vietnam, American military strategists reassessed their approach to psychological operations. The unexpected U.S. defeat led to a period of condemnation and decline in the use of psyops (Short, 1983). However, the 1980s witnessed a revival, particularly in the context of the Cold War. The United States and its allies focused on infiltrating Soviet information systems and broadcasting Western propaganda (Sorenson, 1968; Reuth, 1993). Satellite television and communication technologies allowed for a broader and more sophisticated delivery of strategic narratives, subtly influencing populations behind the Iron Curtain.
Operation Desert Storm and the Media War
The Gulf War, an international conflict that erupted in 1990-1991 following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, marked a new era of coordinated psychological warfare. Psyops were no longer an auxiliary effort but an integrated element of military campaigns. During Operation Desert Storm, the United States distributed more than 29 million leaflets between December 1990 and February 1991, which reportedly led to the surrender of over 69,000 Iraqi soldiers—far more than were killed in combat (Cull, 2012).
In addition to printed materials, U.S. forces launched extensive radio transmissions, appealing both to enemy soldiers and civilian populations. These broadcasts delivered warnings, surrender instructions, and reassurances of humane treatment, creating psychological pressure that undermined enemy morale. This dual-pronged approach—threat and persuasion—proved highly effective.
Media Strategy in the Second Gulf War and Afghanistan
By the time of the Second Gulf War in 2003, psychological operations had evolved to include multimedia campaigns. Coalition forces again used leaflet drops and radio programs, emphasizing surrender and survival over resistance. In the early days of the war, over 17 million leaflets were distributed, many of which offered precise instructions for safe surrender (Cull, 2012).
In Afghanistan, psyops targeted both combatants and civilians. The goal was twofold: to extract intelligence by encouraging civilians to inform on Taliban or Al-Qaeda fighters, and to soften resistance through sustained psychological pressure. The United States used local-language broadcasts and customized content to reach diverse audiences, tailoring narratives to regional values and beliefs.
The Kosovo War (1999), an armed conflict in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999, primarily involving the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which controlled Kosovo at the time, marked the media's transition to digital and satellite platforms, and later conflicts like the Afghanistan War and the Syria crisis underlined the role of perception management. Governments increasingly used real-time 24/7 media as both surveillance and propaganda tools, often leading to what critics describe as "war pornography"—gory visuals aired without context, desensitizing the public and even unintentionally aiding adversaries (CNN, 2021)
As communication technologies evolve, so do the tools of propaganda. Terror groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS have mastered the digital realm, using social media for recruitment, misinformation, and ideological warfare. Al-Qaeda was an early adopter of the internet, while ISIS leveraged encrypted apps and social media platforms to disseminate propaganda globally, effectively bridging the asymmetry between themselves and state powers.
India too has seen a rise in fake news and cyber warfare, particularly on platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter). The BJP’s IT cell has often been accused of coordinating misinformation campaigns to influence electoral outcomes and discredit critics. The 2019 Pulwama attack and subsequent Balakot airstrike saw a flood of fake news glorifying military action, while obscuring questions about intelligence failures or strategic blunders.
BuzzFeed News (Silverman, 2016) documented how fake news on social media outperformed mainstream media in reach and engagement during the U.S. 2016 election—a phenomenon mirrored in India’s recent elections. Fake news is now recognized not just as misinformation but as strategic propaganda.
Social Media, Disinformation, and the Post-Truth Condition
In the post-truth era (Ball, 2017; D’Ancona, 2017), public discourse is shaped more by emotional appeal and belief than facts. Algorithms on digital platforms reinforce echo chambers, tailoring content to ideological preferences and suppressing counter-narratives. The viral nature of falsehoods erodes journalistic credibility and amplifies conspiracies.
For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unleashed a global propaganda battle. Russian state media like RT and Sputnik pushed narratives blaming NATO aggression and denying war crimes, while Ukrainian media highlighted Russian atrocities and civilian resistance. Social media platforms like Telegram became battlegrounds for both disinformation and citizen journalism. Deepfakes and manipulated footage circulated widely, muddying the waters of public truth (BBC, 2022).
Republic TV Coverage of Operation Sindoor (Picture - Republic TV)
The Indian Context: Operation Sindoor and Nationalist Media Propaganda
The year 2025 marked a sharp escalation in the already tense relations between India and Pakistan. What began as a brutal terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir rapidly escalated into a limited but intense conflict involving airstrikes, drone incursions, cyber propaganda, and diplomatic fallout. This confrontation was not only waged on battlefields but also in the media and cyberspace, making it a key case study in hybrid warfare. On April 22, 2025, a terrorist assault in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir claimed the lives of 26 civilians, mainly tourists. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), reigniting long-standing tensions. The government cited intelligence linking the assailants to handlers across the Line of Control (LoC), prompting national outrage
In response, India launched Operation Sindoor in early May 2025, a coordinated military strike involving:
The operation was declared a strategic success, with Indian officials claiming that no civilian or military casualties occurred on the Indian side. Over 29 million leaflets were also reportedly disseminated along the LoC, drawing comparisons with past psyops from Gulf and Afghan wars.
“Godi” Media & Nationalist Narratives
Mainstream Indian channels—especially Times Now, Zee News, and Aaj Tak—have been widely criticized for echoing BJP-aligned propaganda, amplifying calls for retaliation and presenting unverified claims like downed Pakistani jets or strikes on nuclear sites. An example: A false “coup” in Pakistan circulated widely via WhatsApp and was reported by multiple outlets before being debunked.
War-Driven Rhetoric
Channels such as Times Now used headlines like “Time to Respond” and “Country Must Retaliate Harshly”, urging military escalation. This mirrors patterns seen during past standoffs (e.g., 2019), where hyper nationalist anchors fuelled public fervour.
Fact-checking Pushback
The government's Press Information Bureau (PIB) actively countered misinformation, warning the public to “not fall prey” to fake combat videos (often gaming footage) circulating online
West Bengal Media: Regional Framing & Political Dynamics
In West Bengal, media outlets presented a more nuanced narrative:
Outlets like BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters emphasized independent verification, urge de-escalation, and contextualize events—countering false claims with fact checks
ABP Ananda Coverage of Operation Sindoor (Picture - ABP Ananda)
Implications: Misinformation & Narrative Warfare
In addition to physical propaganda, India deployed digital psyops via social media and encrypted messaging platforms, targeting both Pakistani soldiers and civilians. Fake voice messages, geotargeted WhatsApp forwards, and AI-generated imagery were circulated to create confusion and sow distrust in Pakistan’s chain of command.
At the domestic level, psyops also included carefully orchestrated media briefings, patriotic visuals, and influencer coordination, designed to amplify nationalist sentiment and suppress dissent. Television networks carried emotionally charged coverage that framed the operation as a "clean strike" with no civilian casualties, while anchors echoed phrases like “surgical and sacred retaliation.” The symbolism of the operation’s name (Sindoor) was also part of the psyops landscape—connoting protection, sacrifice, and righteous fury within Hindu traditions, subtly infusing the mission with civilizational legitimacy. The choice of the term “Sindoor” for the 2025 Indian military operation carries significant symbolic and socio-political weight. Sindoor (vermilion) is a traditional red cosmetic powder worn by many Hindu married women as a sign of marital status and auspiciousness. While the use of culturally resonant terms for military operations is not new, this particular nomenclature risks alienating minority communities, especially Muslims, who do not share the same cultural or religious practices. Such naming practices, consciously or otherwise, reinforce a majoritarian Hindu identity in national narratives, subtly recasting state actions in civilizational or religious terms. In a secular and pluralistic society, this symbolic coding of military action blurs the line between national security and religious nationalism, deepening societal divides. The term evokes a form of saffronized militarism, aligning warfare with Hindu iconography and potentially legitimizing exclusionary narratives. By embedding cultural symbols within state power and military discourse, the operation not only waged war on geopolitical fronts but also intensified India’s ongoing struggle over national identity, secularism, and minority representation. Furthermore, Indian cyber units reportedly intercepted and manipulated Pakistani radio frequencies, spreading false battlefield updates to induce strategic missteps.
This layered approach to psyops—combining print, broadcast, cyber, and cultural messaging—represents a hybrid warfare strategy where narrative control becomes as critical as territorial dominance. Operation Sindoor thus serves as a case study in how modern psyops blend military objectives with information warfare, redefining victory not just by terrain seized, but by hearts and minds influenced.
NDTV coverage of Operation Sindoor (Picture - NDTV)
The 2025 India–Pakistan conflict—epitomized by Operation Sindoor—reaffirmed a crucial truth of modern geopolitics: the media is no longer a passive chronicler of war; it is a decisive battleground in itself. From orchestrated government briefings and emotive visual storytelling to AI-generated misinformation and social media manipulation, war today is fought not only on terrain but also in the public imagination. The operation’s code name, “Sindoor,” resonates deeply within Hindu cultural practices—symbolizing marital status and protection through the red vermilion worn by married Hindu women. On one hand, this choice of name for a military campaign introduces a potent cultural-religious symbolism that risks reinforcing a majoritarian narrative. Yet, at the same time, the high-profile appearance of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a Muslim woman officer, at the helm of the Operation Sindoor press briefings added a layer of secular counter-symbolism. Her central role in presenting strategic military information disrupted attempts to recast the mission as overtly Hindu-nationalist. Qureshi’s presence was widely praised—in media, sports, and political arenas—and lauded as a “powerful symbol of secular India”. Her prominence, however, also triggered backlash: a state minister derisively referred to her as “a sister from the terrorists’ community,” and opposition parties condemned the comment as communal and misogynistic. This dynamic reveals the tension between cultural messaging and communal faultlines: while the term Sindoor employs familiar symbolism that can unify—or exclude—the naming of the operation, the choice of Col. Qureshi to represent it signaled an intentional break from exclusivist symbolism toward an inclusive national identity. Nevertheless, the reaction—both praise and slur—underscores how military branding, cultural symbols, and communal identities can become deeply entangled, deepening religious divides even amidst attempts to transcend them.
The Indian mainstream media, particularly television networks, amplified nationalist sentiment and constructed a hyper-masculine narrative of military triumph, often blurring the line between information and propaganda. In contrast, regional media—especially in West Bengal—displayed internal dissent and a more critical, nuanced coverage, revealing the cracks within the federal media fabric. This dichotomy within Indian media underscored how domestic political agendas shape wartime reporting.
The conflict underscored that information warfare, psychological operations, and perception management are now intrinsic to military strategy. Governments increasingly view the media not as a watchdog but as an asset to be managed—if not manipulated. This has dangerous implications: uncritical media coverage can inflame public opinion, legitimize military actions without scrutiny, and marginalize voices of peace or dissent.
Ultimately, the India–Pakistan conflict of 2025 reveals that wars in the 21st century are no longer won solely through firepower but through the control of narrative, symbols, and screens. In such a context, media literacy, ethical journalism, and a free yet responsible press are not luxuries—they are democratic imperatives. Without them, the media ceases to be a mirror of reality and becomes a weapon of distortion. A well-informed citizenry is the only real defence against propaganda-fuelled polarization and manufactured consent.
References
Ball, J. (2017). Post-truth: How bullshit conquered the world. Biteback Publishing.
BBC. (2022, February 28). Ukraine conflict: How misinformation is spreading online. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
Bernays, E. L. (1942). Public relations. University of Oklahoma Press.
Cull, N. J. (2012). The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American propaganda and public diplomacy, 1945–1989. Cambridge University Press.
D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post-truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. Ebury Press.
Hammond, W. M. (1989). Public affairs: The media and the military, 1968–1973. U.S. Army Center of Military History. https://history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-13/CMH_Pub_91-13.pdf
Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda technique in the world war. Alfred A. Knopf.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. Harcourt, Brace and Company. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6456
Reuth, R. G. (1993). Goebbels. Harcourt Brace.
Short, M. (1983). The rise and fall of the Third Reich revisited. Encounter, 61(3), 20–29.
Silverman, C. (2016, November 16). This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook
Sorensen, T. C. (1968). Decision-making in the White House: The olive branch or the arrows. Columbia University Press.
