Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
India refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the CDS tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed
Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn’t agree. Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens.
Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that “the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented” — an implicit way of saying: “It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.” But India didn’t “win” in any conventional sense. The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan’s nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war.
Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country’s military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn’t disagree more. “We have shattered India’s illusion of superiority,” says its prime minister. “New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.”
Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. “I talked trade with them,” he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who’s telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version.
Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi’s position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India’s position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan’s duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India’s account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn’t India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media?
Back home, few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that’s the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn’t agree. In matters of deterrence, the deterree’s perception is what counts. If Pakistan’s military believes it lived to fight another day, then it did.
The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan’s strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic.
This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there’s a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It’s this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it’s important to retain the element of surprise.
In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan’s military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets — after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It’s also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake.
It’s worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest — but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance.
The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Share
