An escalation of tension between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, was witnessed recently. The situation got exacerbated after the launch of Operation Sindoor by India to target Pakistan-backed militant groups after the April 22 Pahalgam attack.
AFTER India launched Operation Sindoor in the intervening night of May 6-7, Pakistan unleashed a series of drone attacks and resorted to heavy shelling along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir the next day. The Indian response to this aggression continued on the second and third day, too, and a ceasefire was announced on the fourth day (May 10).
India’s political and military leadership adopted a principled stand of not tolerating any terrorist activity on Indian soil, and showed a commitment to giving a fitting reply to any such offensive. New Delhi further boosted its stand by a deft use of its diplomatic outreach.
However, another pillar of any functioning democracy, i.e. the media, particularly electronic, showed its immaturity by airing often inaccurate and speculative information, in addition to completely unnecessary analyses, bordering on sowing the seeds of religious animosity.
The country’s electronic and social media reported the situation as per their script, despite a circular issued by the government not to disseminate sensational and unconfirmed reports.
In the latest episode, India’s TV channels, which have now scripted a completely new ecosystem of reporting devoid of following any known journalistic standards, went on a completely different track of over-reporting the Indian successes. In this, they were helped by the dime-a-dozen defence and strategic affairs experts, who, while offering an insight or analysing the given situation, offered their own biased and sensational insights into the unfolding events.
Not to be outdone, social media, which in India has evolved its unique ecosystem of peddling unconfirmed and largely fake reports, added its two cents to the situation. On different platforms, every layman posed as an expert offering his/her twisted interpretation of the unfolding events.
One such issue discussed on some TV channels, most social media platforms, and even in some newspapers was which country is going to favour whom, or in other words, which Islamic countries will be extending support to Pakistan in case of a full-fledged war between the two nuclear nations.
These experts or pundits, with no clue of the warfare or the geo-political realities, transformed the whole question of support, based on religion, i.e., which Islamic country is going to support and help Pakistan and which will be on India’s side.
Now, if we go by the definitions of these experts, then India will only have one country in its support, i.e., Nepal, as it is the only country which declares itself to be a Hindu nation. But on the contrary, many Arab nations, which are often described as Islamic nations, supported India.
Further, these experts clubbed all Muslim majority nations as Islamic countries, though in the real sense, not even one country out of these could be described as an Islamic nation, as none of them fulfils the true definition of an Islamic nation.
International diplomacy is a nuanced arena where overt alliances often mask complex strategic calculations. For instance, while countries like Turkey and China have supported Pakistan at multilateral forums, their positions are also driven by broader geopolitical rivalries and their regional interests.
These experts also wondered whether countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Iran, Oman, Qatar will support Islamabad in the name of Ummah or the global community of Muslims? The bigger question was whether the Islamic countries would nurture their own economic and geopolitical benefits by staying neutral and limiting their support to rhetoric? Based on their regional aspirations and geopolitical interests, their responses varied, but the message was the same.
In the current conflict, Saudi Arabia chose diplomacy as the ultimate tool. Riyadh currently has bigger investment plans for India rather than Pakistan, in addition to employing some 2.6 million Indians working in the country. When the Kashmir attack unfolded, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Jeddah to discuss the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor and advance an investment deal worth $100 billion.
Further, on Thursday (May 8), Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir made a surprise visit to India to meet External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and help broker a climbdown.
Similarly, the UAE has already announced plans to invest billions of dollars in India to diversify its oil-based economy, so its commitment to India and to safeguarding the Indian interest are much larger, and it showed in its support to India.
Iran made its intentions clear by sending Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Pakistan and India to hold talks and ease the tension. At present, India is delivering on an agreement to develop and operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar Port, including a $120 million investment and a $250 million credit line for infrastructure development. Against this background, Iran cannot jeopardise its interests with India.
The most vitriolic slander campaign was started against Turkey, as Pakistan used some of the Turkish-made drones in its attacks on Indian targets. But this fact does not prove that Turkey would have supported Pakistan in every military campaign. In fact, India’s trade with Turkey has seen significant growth in recent years, with bilateral trade reaching $10.43 billion in FY2023-24, whereas Turkey’s trade with Pakistan reached a historical high of $1.4 billion only last year.
The bold stand taken by India made it very clear that it will not tolerate any further Pakistan-sponsored terrorist threats. This stand was further supported by the diplomatic outreach by India, and after briefing the UK and US about the Operation Sindoor, it raised the issues with Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, and other so-called Islamic countries, most of whom supported India, as evidenced by the priority given by both Saudi Arabia and Iran by involving their foreign ministers to initiate a dialogue between the two countries.
The lessons learnt by Operation Sindoor relating to media make it very clear that the Indian media, particularly electronic, needs to monitor and improve itself while following the journalistic ethos and norms. Just to increase TRPs or the eyeballs by running often malicious and false information on their screens will not help them in establishing their credibility.
The government, on its part, did well by deploying Col Sophiya Qureshi as the defence ministry spokesperson and acknowledging the contribution of every soldier martyred during the conflict. Only such a mature and religion-free narrative will be able to save the country and the Indian media.
With Operation Sindoor, India has delivered a clear and assertive message to global powers: Henceforth, India will play according to its playbook. Hope the world takes notice of it positively.
_______________
Asad Mirza is a New Delhi-based senior journalist and a media consultant. The views expressed here are the author’s personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at asad.mirza.nd@gmail.com
