South Asian Crisis Reveals Deadliest Tool: Not Nuclear Weapons, but Narrative
In recent tensions along the Line of Control, India initiated Operation Sindoor and Pakistan responded with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. The global community braced for potential escalation, as analysts watched closely. Social media erupted with opinions. The disputed border, a lingering reminder of unfulfilled national aspirations, flared up once more.
However, if one believes this clash was merely a military standoff, they have missed the main narrative. This was a war—one of missiles, yes, but also a war of narratives. The battleground shifted from the military to the media, with the struggle taking place in headlines, hashtags, and nightly broadcasts. The ammunition: discourse. Regrettably, the casualties included nuance, complexity, and truth.
What transpired was the culmination of what scholars call discursive warfare, the deliberate construction of identity, legitimacy, and power through language. Indian and Pakistani media used every violent act as material for a scripted performance, every curated image as propaganda, every reported casualty as political fodder. This was not reporting; it was theatrics.
Scene One: The Righteous Strike
On May 6, India launched the first attack. Upon Indian media's framing, however, it was India that defended first.
Operation Sindoor, announced dramatically, saw twenty-four strikes in twenty-five minutes, nine "terror hubs" claimed to be destroyed, and civilians reportedly left unharmed. The antagonists, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and "terror factories" across Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan, were said to have been reduced to rubble.
Noteworthy Highlights
- Government officials hailed the operation as a "proportionate response" to the Pahalgam massacre that had taken the lives of 26 Indian tourists.
- The Indian Defense Minister, Rajnath Singh, stated, "They attacked India's forehead; we wounded their chest."
- According to the media, this wasn't aggression—it was catharsis. It wasn't war—it was therapy.
Scene Two: The Sacred Defence
Three days later, Pakistan retaliated with Operation Bunyan Marsoos, or "Iron Wall" in Arabic. The name alone indicated a moral assertion, a national sermon. The alleged response to the 1971 war, in which Pakistan allowed Bangladesh to secede, spoke volumes about the narrative's mythic underpinnings.
Pakistani missile attacks reportedly targeted multiple military facilities in Punjab and Jammu, including brigade headquarters and an S-400 system. The Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, declared that they had "avenged the 1971 war."
Key Points
- The media echoed this narrative with patriotic ardor, portraying Indian strikes as war crimes, mosques as targets, and civilians as victims.
- Visual imagery of destruction and bloodshed accompanied captions about martyrdom while the response was praised for its precision, morality, and resolve.
While India and Pakistan each portrayed themselves as defenders, they shared a common claim: that they had no choice. This simplicity of narrative belies the intricacies of identity construction and the manipulation of language in shaping perceptions during these discordant episodes.
The Enemy, the Victim, and Constructive Dialogue
The symmetry between both countries wasn't accidental; it was orchestrated in newsrooms and battlefields. Both India and Pakistan constructed their enemies and victims accordingly.
India depicted Pakistan as a rogue nation, a terror factory filled with deceit and danger. Pakistan, in turn, cast India as a fascist state led by a majoritarian regime, eager to erase Muslims. In such binary portrayals, dialogue and diplomacy became challenging.
Moreover, the media outlets in both countries demonstrated selective mourning, focusing on the domestic victims while marginalizing the lives lost on the other side. This moral indictment calls into question the notion of justice and the value of human life beyond borders.
A Contest for Legitimacy
Beyond the sought-after territorial advantages and tactical superiority, the India-Pakistan skirmishes represented a battle for legitimacy. Each side aimed to convince their respective populations—and the world—that they were acting righteously.
Indian media leaned on the global "war on terror" narrative, justifying Indian military actions and showcasing its role as a responsible global actor in the international security landscape. Meanwhile, Pakistan emphasized its right to sovereignty and painted India as an aggressor, violating sacred spaces and disregarding human rights.
In the global discourse, gaining legitimacy is essential to preserving national interests and achieving diplomatic and strategic goals. Both India and Pakistan use discursive warfare to achieve these objectives, further underscoring the importance of language in shaping perceptions and influencing the broader conflict dynamics between these nations.
Tensions between India and Pakistan pose significant problems for international security, and the potential for escalation remains. In examining these skirmishes, it is crucial to note the two sides' reliance on discursive warfare to construct narratives, assert legitimacy, and influence public perceptions. Until both countries learn to listen to differing perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue, the potential for future conflicts remains.
The true weapon in South Asia's never-ending struggle is not nuclear—it is narrative.
- The recent dispute, involving Operation Sindoor initiated by India and the response with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos by Pakistan, unfolded as a war of narratives in addition to a military standoff.
- On May 6, India began the conflict with Operation Sindoor, a series of twenty-four strikes in twenty-five minutes, claiming the destruction of nine "terror hubs," and portraying it as a "proportionate response" to the Pahalgam massacre.
- Orchestrating their enemy and victim narratives, Pakistan, in response, launched Operation Bunyan Marsoos (Iron Wall) and declared they had "avenged the 1971 war."
- Beyond territorial and tactical advantages, the skirmishes between India and Pakistan represented a battle for legitimacy, with each side seeking to convince their populations and the world that they were acting righteously.
