The domestically constructed second battlefield targeted Indian Muslims as a whole, along with all opposition camps labeled as their supporters.
Published May 13, 2025 | 3:25 PM ⚊ Updated May 13, 2025 | 5:02 PM
The official Indian stance presented a balanced message, even including a Muslim woman and a Kashmiri Pandit as representatives of the Operation Sindoor narrative. (PIB)
Synopsis: While India responded to the Pahalgam massacre and the consequent Pakistani offensive in a measured and calibrated manner, a jingoistic media went on an overdrive, even as certain elements targeted minorities, including dissenting and alternative voices.
Until Saturday evening, we were in a tense, tragic, strange, and volatile situation. It doesn’t mean that the situation has completely changed now, but there is a sense of relief.
For almost 20 days, a chain of developments unfolded as reactions to each other, none of which the people wanted. Amid the flood of truths and falsehoods crashing over them, the people were suffocating, with no room to pause, reflect, or choose how to respond.
The Indian Military declared that justice had been served through Operation Sindoor. If there had been no response from Pakistan, the armed conflict might have ended there. But that’s not what happened. Airstrikes, drone attacks, infiltration attempts, and gunfire continued from both sides.
The anxiety lingered—would this turn into a prolonged low-intensity conflict or escalate into a full-scale war?
There was a clear disconnect between what happened and how the media in both countries portrayed it. Both nations unofficially allowed jingoistic propaganda to flourish while censoring the efforts to present different viewpoints.
Initially, the US limited itself to offering advice, but eventually, it brokered a compromise.
The atmosphere that formed from 7 May onwards (when India targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir and mainland Pakistan) will not dissipate quickly.
Many reviews and political criticisms will continue to heat things up. Those who longed for war may feel disappointed, saying vengeance is incomplete. Those who did not want war and believed peace is best for the nation will be pleased. A war of criticism will continue between the two camps.
When there is anger against the enemy, revenge feels like the immediate duty. But once a conflict begins, its hardships and sorrows reveal themselves.
Draupadi mocked the Pandavas for being willing to compromise through diplomacy. Yet when she lost her five sons in battle, she wept like any ordinary mother. Even after victory, Yudhishthira was deeply dissatisfied.
Therefore, those who oppose war are not admirers of the enemy—they are simply those who seek alternative solutions and want to save lives on their side. They wish only that the brave soldiers return home alive.
Peace is a courageous aspiration—it is neither cowardice nor treachery. Pushing all advocates of peace into the enemy camp has become a suicidal habit in today’s propaganda war.
It is one way to think that the current phase of conflict began in Pahalgam. Another way is to trace it back to Nehru’s era over the past 75 years. If we understand how political and historical disputes and government failures since the 1980s led to extremism and terrorism, and how that in turn led to multiple wars and authoritarian regimes, we develop discernment. But today, discernment itself has become a forbidden concept. It is a fact that we are trapped in a situation spiraling out of the present.
Some may think that killing innocent tourists, particularly on religious grounds, achieves something or benefits their backers. People, in grief and anger, may be swept up into thinking a strong retaliation or military strike is the only solution to stop such attacks. Or a charged emotional atmosphere may be deliberately manufactured. It’s unclear whether a narrative is driving the events or the events are being used to create a narrative.
What has happened between India and Pakistan now is a conflict. Technically, it cannot be called a war—neither country has officially declared war on the other. Even the Kargil incident 25 years ago was not a “war,” but a “conflict.”
However, our information media—especially visual media—have run a parallel war from their newsrooms. With heightened emotions, they shouted themselves hoarse, dramatising as if they were present on the battlefield, sometimes even pretending to attack the enemy themselves.
On social media, too, those who took it upon themselves—either voluntarily or institutionally—to shape public opinion, spread baseless, non-existent, and unverified information. They circulated news that was neither confirmed nor announced officially by the Indian government. Some even posted information that the government’s own Press Information Bureau had debunked it as false. The government had to disown some of the attacks and claims announced by these “media warriors.”
Even a slight difference in opinion invited obscene, uncivil abuse. Their intensity went so far as to want to physically eliminate those with independent views.
The same scenario played out on the Pakistani side. Their media projected the country as heroically fighting a mighty war against India, causing massive losses, though reality did not match these claims.
Simultaneously, Pakistan wanted to portray itself internationally as a victim being wronged by a powerful India. As one analyst remarked, war is not only waged against the enemy, but is also a theatrical to the home audience.
During wartime, national emotions surge. Internal divisions fade, and unity comes to the forefront. All opposition parties rally behind the ruling party. In critical times where unity is essential, national governments are formed beyond political lines. The side that leads the nation in conflict and brings victory, or at least minimises losses—gains in post-war politics.
While it is a grave accusation to say wars are deliberately provoked for political gain, India has seen many instances where the emotions from war-like atmospheres and victories were politically exploited. History also shows how national defeat and despair have led to the emergence of new political forces.
Surprisingly, immediately after the Pahalgam attack on 22 April, two battlefields emerged in our country. They continued even during Operation Sindoor. Within hours of the Baisaran massacre, social media posts began targeting secularists, democrats, and progressives more than even Pakistan. As if they were responsible for the attack or represented the attackers, they were blamed, insulted, and viciously abused! While the attack likely involved some organised effort, many
people—unprompted and unprovoked—began attacking individuals and groups from India’s opposition camps.
Even those who had upheld progressive values in the Telugu community joined in or are joining this digital lynching. This change is disturbing and destructive.
However, the Indian government’s official stance in press statements and media briefings has been different. When officials referred to the victims of the Pahalgam attack as “Indians” and “tourists” instead of “Hindus,” some social media groups erupted, demanding a religious label. But when the government described them officially as “Indians” and a “Nepali,” those same groups did not object. Nowhere did official statements frame the attack as targeting a religious group.
While lower-level political leaders and state heads may have spoken differently, the Prime Minister and Home Minister were careful in their expressions. Even the stern pledge made in Bihar was aimed at terrorists sheltered in Pakistan, not directly at Pakistan, and did not target social groups within India.
Yet, the domestically constructed second battlefield targeted Indian Muslims as a whole, along with all opposition camps labeled as their supporters. This extended from mainstream media to social platforms. This war contradicts not only the government’s official stance, it undermines it. Still, while the government vows to act against anti-national propaganda, this social media army remains untouched.
As they rampage freely, platforms like The Wire, which offer alternative perspectives, face restrictions. At a time when national unity is crucial in a potentially warlike phase, portraying over 60 per cent of the country’s opposition public as traitors or Pakistan sympathisers is not only reckless—it is treasonous and extremely dangerous.
On one hand, the official Indian stance attempts to present a balanced message, even including a Muslim woman and a Kashmiri Pandit as representatives of the Operation Sindoor narrative.
On the other hand, how is it that a campaign that suspects and vilifies all minorities in the country gets not only permission but active encouragement? Looking at the situation, it seems like it’s being supported.
Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy said those posting pro-Pakistan content would be punished, which is natural, but why can’t he act against those who brand Congress as anti-national and run a hate campaign?
On one hand, some claim to revere Sanatana Dharma, but on the other, they use abusive language that insults Indian culture. Why are governments tolerating propaganda machines that spread hatred against fellow Indians, especially in times of crisis like this?
In times of conflict, people are not merely spectators. Some technical matters may remain confidential, but the transparent truth is what gives citizens a proper understanding and a chance to express patriotism in the right way. A nation is its people.
War should never come, but if it does, justice must win. And our side must be the just one. Before, during, and after war, humanity must not be defeated. Discernment must not disappear. Freedoms must not shrink.
(Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
