Written by: Nabiha Nur
The recent Pahalgam attack, which took the lives of 27 civilians in Indian-occupied Kashmir, has not only increased geopolitical tensions but also triggered an aggressive shift in India’s information warfare.
From banning Pakistani media outlets to designing one-sided domestic coverage, the Indian government’s response indicates that controlling public opinion has taken precedence over establishing facts. In response to this attack, the Indian government reacted with increased security protocols along with hard intervention designed to muzzle Pakistani media and online platforms. Indian authorities on April 28 blocked 16 Pakistani YouTube channels on the recommendations of its Ministry of Home Affairs. The channels included those of Dawn News, Samaa TV, ARY News, Geo News, Bol News, Suno News, Raftaar and other senior journalists.
In January 2022, 35 YouTubers from Pakistan were blocked on the same grounds, part of a trend towards increasing discomfort with cross-border views. These actions are usually framed as measures against misinformation, but also have the effect of shielding Indian audiences from critical viewpoints.
What adds to the controversy is the manner in which Indian media has portrayed the Pahalgam incident. Independent watchdogs have documented cases of recycled footage, AI-generated photos, and unverified reports being broadcasted on Indian TV for creating a particular narrative incriminating Pakistan.
India’s instant media reporting and concerted stifling of opposing voices have bred suspicions. In the past, incidents such as the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing have been questioned in terms of their timing and utilization to generate public opinion before elections for the legitimacy of their aggressive policies.
Likewise, while joining the dots of Pahalgam incident, one can clearly observe that the diplomatic tensions were already on the upswing and internal political pressure was mounting adding weight to the concerns. Furthermore, the recurring pattern of false flag narratives raises serious concerns about who actually stands to gain from such a tragedy, This, however, aligns with the Indian state’s failure to provide credible evidence connecting Pakistan to the incident, while also initiating a media blackout and inflaming nationalist sentiment.
Reports have also surfaced of unlawful demolitions and intensified surveillance, with the brunt of these actions falling on the Muslim community.
Beyond the digital realm, the impact of the narrative control has materialized violently on the ground. Credible instances of indiscriminate arrests, prolonged curfews, and additional deployment of army personnel in urban areas have arrived from Jammu & Kashmir, all justified on the pretext of preserving “order.”
Civil liberty organisations caution that the state is leveraging the attack as carte blanche for rights violations. The Pahalgam tragedy is being used not only against Pakistan but also against India’s own Muslim citizens, as witnessed in the inciting language and retaliatory attacks in a number of northern Indian states.
Such systematic stifling of voices, ranging from international media to internal minorities, points towards a state machinery more intent on narrative manipulation than open governance. India risks reducing the public’s capacity for critical involvement and turning its own citizens into passive consumers of state-controlled media by preventing them from accessing alternative reporting.
Under such circumstances, the Pahalgam episode has been one way or in another weaponized as a political tool to inflame communal divisions and consolidate support for majoritarian nationalism.
India’s baseless accusations have been rejected by DG ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry in his press conference following the Pahalgam attack. He provided evidence of Indian state-sponsored terrorism within Pakistan by revealing that Indian intelligence agencies have been actively running a covert terror network, supplying explosives, IEDs (improvised explosive devices), and other lethal materials to militant operatives. This shows that by falsely involving Pakistan, Indian media’s role has shifted from watchdog to amplifier of state propaganda.
This is now about ideological domination rather than security and in that pursuit, even a tragedy as grave as Pahalgam becomes an expendable pawn in the game of power.
Multimedia pluralism ought to be a fundamental component of any democracy, particularly one that claims to be world’s largest.
Fighting false information is a valid problem, but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for censorship. The decision to silence Pakistani media in the aftermath of Pahalgam reflects not just geopolitical hostility, but a deep-seated fear of losing control over the national grip.
If India is confident in its narrative, it should not be threatened by the existence of others. *The question must be asked: What is India afraid of? If the state is confident in its version of the Pahalgam incident, there should be no threat in allowing Pakistani media or even its own skeptical voices to present a different perspective.*
The decision to suppress information reveals a strategic insecurity, one that fears internal questioning more than external criticism. *A state that fears questions is one that likely has much to hide.*
