In today’s world, the first signs of victory in any conflict are often not on the battlefield but in the narrative space. The side that controls the story controls perception. How people feel about a news event can matter as much as the event itself. Emotion shapes belief faster than evidence, and opinions now compete with facts for space and attention. This reality makes perception a decisive front in any modern conflict. Pakistan has long understood this and has spent considerable time and effort honing its skills. However, of late, India has responded with equal measure and skill. Hence, today more than ever, it must be understood that strategic communication for us is no longer optional; it is a prerequisite for national security.
Understanding the phases of Pakistan’s playbook
Whenever India responds to cross-border attacks in the kinetic domain, Pakistan’s information reaction follows a clear pattern: denial, victimhood, retaliation, and de-escalation. Knowing this pattern allows India to plan responses in advance.
In the first phase of Denial, post an Indian strike, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) quickly denies and underplays the extent of damage caused and accuses India of blatant aggression. For Pakistan, this is understandably necessary, as the scale and magnitude of damage caused affect public perception not just of India’s capability and intent but also the factors considered in its decision-making (for example, striking terror camps only). India, post kinetic action, must respond with verified visuals and affirm its right to respond through appropriate legal framing (such as Article 51 of the UN Charter).
In the second phase of Victimhood (for internationalisation), Pakistan turns to claims of humanitarian excesses by India and uses international platforms to portray itself as the victim. This is done with the aim of establishing a narrative of jus ad bellum, or ‘Just War’, against the evil neighbour. India’s counter should include dynamic diplomatic outreach, synergised diaspora engagement, and pre-drafted briefs that reach key capitals early to tell our story of justice served with restraint and proportionality of response. Where a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a million, and verified visuals of strikes as well as post-strike damage will be useful in fighting the misinformation waged by Rawalpindi. India must prioritise the use of its superior Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to obtain these in real time to fight the perception battle.
Pakistan, in the third phase, carries out Retaliatory Signalling, showcasing strength through symbolic and often diversionary conventional responses. This is often done in consonance with issuing grave threats of an impending nuclear response to a counter-response by India. Again, this enhances the perception of a capable and decisive Pakistan Armed Forces — the defenders of Islam in the subcontinent who must save the hapless Muslims in general, and Pakistanis in particular, against perpetual Indian aggression. India’s counter should highlight its robust defensive posture and restraint while exposing Pakistan’s actions in real time. Care must be taken in exposing Pakistani reverses, as this may increase pressure on the Pakistan Army to urgently pursue its “notion of victory”, which can raise escalation risks.
Finally, in the phase of De-escalation Management, after counteractions, Pakistan seeks to appear responsible. This is partly to provide itself an off-ramp and signal India to de-escalate, as prolonging a conflict follows the law of diminishing returns, with risks rising faster than gains for Pakistan. India should continue the pursuit of its desired objectives and, once those are met, must declare them clearly while maintaining readiness and deterrence. It is important not to lose sight of the long durée perspective — wars are the pursuit of national objectives through military means and must not be prolonged once the objectives are met.
Operation Sindoor as a case study
In 2025, after the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor, a precision strike on terror infrastructure. Pakistan followed its familiar script of denial and victimhood, but India’s clear communication, verified visuals, and steady media engagement blunted the misinformation to a large extent. However, a clear lesson from the operation is that even decisive military outcomes are judged not only by battlefield results but by the perceptions they leave, which depend directly on the strength of the strategic communication plan.
From reaction to preparedness
India’s future advantage lies in planning. A pre-positioned content vault with verified visuals, diplomatic talking points, and nuanced legal framing with appropriate references can ensure fast and credible responses. Truth told quickly and effectively is stronger than propaganda told loudly.
The way forward
Strategic communication must now be treated as a primary operational domain. A 24x7 Strategic Communications Operations Room, bringing together experienced subject-matter experts from all stakeholders and ministries at the apex level, can ensure unified messaging. Future wars will be fought as much on screens as in the field. While India is adept at striking precisely, it must also be geared to speak quickly and precisely. In the age of information, the story can shape the outcome.
(Colonel Ashish Upreti is a serving Indian Army officer with over 25 years of experience in operations, crisis management, and strategic communications. A practitioner in defence communication, he has represented India at international forums and authored papers in leading military journals. In his present assignment, he plays a key role in information outreach and digital social media engagement.)
(The views expressed, suggestions made & quoting of prominent personalities in the article are solely the responsibility of the author and do not have any official endorsement)
