How India defeated Pakistan in the war of narratives too – Firstpost

After the dust of Operation Sindoor settled, India and Pakistan turned swiftly to the international arena—not to wage war, but to win the war of narratives. From Washington to Doha, London to The Hague, both nations dispatched delegations of diplomats, ex-generals, lawmakers, and lobbyists. Their task: to claim moral high ground, frame the facts, and influence global opinion.

India, which launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May 2025 in response to the killing of 24 pilgrims and soldiers in the Pahalgam Valley, targeted nine terrorist bases in Pakistan with precision airstrikes. But it was the diplomatic campaign that followed which truly stunned observers. Seven all-party delegations—comprising 51 MPs from across the political spectrum, including Shashi Tharoor, Ravi Shankar Prasad, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi—fanned out to 33 countries, from the United States and United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Brazil. High-ranking female officers, both Hindu and Muslim, fronted briefings, projecting India’s democratic pluralism. In key capitals like Washington, London, and Abu Dhabi, India presented evidence of Pakistan’s “state complicity” in cross-border terrorism.

As one senior British official privately remarked, “India walked into this prepared—not just with talking points, but with the optics.” The delegations, framed by a rare bipartisan unity, justified not only the strikes but also India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—moves that resonated in Western corridors of power.

Pakistan, by contrast, faltered in its response. A high-profile delegation led by Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari—including former ministers Hina Rabbani Khar and Khurram Dastgir Khan—targeted the United States in hopes of countering India’s narrative and calling for an international investigation. Yet Pakistan’s broader effort, vaguely described as a “peace mission” to unnamed capitals, lacked both India’s scope and strategic clarity.

In a diplomatic own goal, Pakistan’s Defence Minister admitted to Yalda Hakim on Sky News UK that the country had engaged in covert operations for Western powers. “Well, we have been doing this dirty work for the United States and the West for three decades,” he confessed. The admission, perhaps meant to evoke sympathy, instead triggered unease in a world still reckoning with the legacy of 9/11 and the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul.

The reputational fallout deepened at the Middle East Institute in Washington, where former US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson delivered a bracing verdict: “First to admit that I was shocked that India did not have to present any evidence at all,” she said. “They simply said that Pakistan was still engaged in terrorism, and international observers—I hate to say—tended to believe India’s claim because of its relations with the US and [Pakistan’s] previous support for these groups.” Patterson’s remarks laid bare Pakistan’s credibility crisis—one rooted in a security doctrine that allied with Washington by day, while allegedly sheltering terror proxies by night.

She pointed to a lingering “serious hangover” from the war in Afghanistan, where Pakistan’s duplicity—serving as both ally and enabler—fuelled the perception of American failure. That same ambiguity continues to haunt Islamabad’s diplomatic standing.

India, by contrast, shrewdly leveraged its international relationships, weaving its narrative into the language of global values: democracy, gender equality, and secularism. Its disciplined messaging, inclusive visuals, and high-level access helped recast a military operation as a morally justified act of self-defence. Malaysia, despite Pakistan’s alleged attempts to obstruct India’s visit, hosted constructive talks. The United States and United Kingdom offered tacit support. Whether India’s domestic realities fully reflect these ideals is open to scrutiny, but in diplomacy, perception matters as much as policy.

Pakistan’s messaging remains reactive and disjointed. Its recent appointment as vice-chair of the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee, touted as a diplomatic win, instead drew attention to contradictions that India expertly exploited. Bilawal’s delegation faced an uphill battle in Washington—especially as Indian officials, including Tharoor, delivered coordinated counter-narratives.

Patterson’s closing remark—“We need to put all that behind us… the international community and Pakistan need to continue to press on an international investigation”—was a quiet olive branch. But it came with a condition: Pakistan must confront its past with honesty, not deflection.

In the theatre of global perception, silence is not neutrality. India understood this—launching a coordinated, image-conscious campaign that outmanoeuvred Pakistan’s fragmented efforts. Pakistan cannot ‘out talk’ India abroad until it speaks the truth to itself at home.

The author is a strategist in international relations and economic development. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.