In an age where information travels faster than truth, narrative sovereignty is no longer a luxury—it is a strategic imperative for India. The global media landscape is disproportionately influenced by Western editorial frameworks that often distort, oversimplify, or misrepresent India’s internal affairs, foreign policy decisions, and cultural uniqueness. Whether in the framing of counter-terror operations as “crackdowns” or the labelling of democratic decisions as “authoritarian,” such portrayals reflect an underlying epistemic asymmetry. Narrative sovereignty empowers India to challenge these frames—not with censorship, but with credible storytelling rooted in facts, values, and national interest. It enables the country to set its own discursive agenda, foster regional alliances in media cooperation, and amplify indigenous voices in global discourse. In a multipolar world, controlling one’s narrative is as essential as securing borders. Without it, a nation is vulnerable not just to bombs or bullets, but to perception warfare that shapes international legitimacy.
How Western Media Narratives Distorted India’s Legitimate Actions “Operation Sindoor”?
Prominent outlets such as the BBC, CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times swiftly shifted focus from the massacre in Pahalgam to narratives of “escalation” and “regional tensions.” Their coverage foregrounded India’s retaliatory operation—Operation Sindoor—while the terror attack itself was downplayed or buried deep within the story. This editorial framing subtly but powerfully inverted the roles, portraying a nation responding to civilian slaughter as a source of instability rather than a target of unprovoked violence. It was not just a failure of journalism—it was a distortion of justice.
This was no isolated editorial decision. The pattern revealed a deeper tendency in global media: a flattening of asymmetries and an erasure of context. Terrorists were labelled “militants” or “gunmen,” and India’s calibrated, targeted response was painted as provocative. Such distortions not only misrepresent the events but create a false moral equivalence—where state action under international law is treated as equal to non-state terrorism.
British commentator David Vance called the coverage “absolutely atrocious and pro-Pakistan.” Analyst Gajanan Khergamker noted the complete disregard for the precision of India’s response, which focused solely on terror infrastructure. Worse still, some outlets uncritically echoed false Pakistani claims—such as reports of Indian jets being shot down, later debunked using satellite imagery and official statements.
Even The Diplomat, in a piece by Umair Jamal, mischaracterized Operation Sindoor as a diplomatic disaster, disregarding its measured scope and strategic restraint. This speaks not merely to editorial laziness, but to an ingrained ideological bias that questions India’s legitimacy while legitimizing unverified counter-narratives.
MP Delegations Undermined by Global Media Bias
The foreign media’s coverage of India’s all-party MP delegations following Operation Sindoor revealed a quiet but telling editorial bias—one that worked to downplay India’s legitimate diplomatic outreach and mute the global impact of a terrorist atrocity. These delegations, comprising representatives from across the political spectrum—BJP, Congress, DMK, JD(U), NCP, and Shiv Sena—represented an extraordinary show of national togetherness, including MPs representing all religions also. Their purpose was clear: to present factual accounts of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, counter Pakistan’s proliferated disinformation, and reaffirm India’s right to self-defence against cross-border terrorism. Yet, major foreign outlets such as The Washington Post and Financial Times characterized these efforts merely as a “charm offensive,” a term that trivialized the seriousness of India’s mission and diluted its moral clarity. While India’s response was restrained, precise, and devoid of civilian casualties supported by satellite imagery and independent verification, much of the global coverage gave disproportionate space to unverified Pakistani claims. These editorial choices—failing to headline India’s bipartisan initiative, overlooking its strategic intent, and amplifying counter-narratives—reflect a pattern of bias by omission and placement. For marginalizing India’s diplomatic message and elevating speculative narratives, sections of the global press contributed to a distorted international understanding. This is not merely a lapse in journalistic balance; it is a disservice to democratic values and to the global fight against terrorism. India’s delegations were not symbolic—they were a dignified assertion of narrative sovereignty, rooted in truth, unity, and the pursuit of peace.
Framing India: Bias, Injustice, and Structural Prejudices
Euphemisms like “militants” soften the reality of terrorism, creating a false moral equivalence. Such misrepresentation is a moral failure that delegitimizes India’s sovereign right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
This bias extends to selective sourcing. Indian claims—supported by satellite data and official statements—are often prefaced with qualifiers like “alleged,” while Pakistani narratives are reported uncritically. This reflects what is called “hierarchies of credibility,” where democratic India is mistrusted, and autocratic voices are accepted without scrutiny—an epistemic injustice that warps global understanding.
These tendencies seem to be rooted in structural and ideological factors. Cold War loyalties, colonial-era thinking, and skepticism towards India’s Non-Western identity all shape editorial judgments. Indian leaders are branded “nationalist” even for rhetoric less loud than that of Western counterparts. Moreover, the economic model of global media favours narratives of poverty or unrest over stories of innovation and civilizational resilience, commodifying India into digestible stereotypes. This is not caution—its prejudice dressed as objectivity, and it distorts the world’s perception of India’s actions, intentions, and civilizational discourse.
Disinformation, Diplomacy, G7 Summit and PM
In recent weeks, a wave of disinformation swept through sections of Western media and digital commentary, falsely claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had not been invited to the 2025 G7 Summit—portraying it as a deliberate diplomatic slight. This misleading narrative, however, quickly collapsed when diplomatic sources confirmed India’s formal invitation from Canada, the host country. As the world’s fifth-largest economy and a vital strategic partner, India’s inclusion in global forums like the G7 is neither optional nor symbolic—it is essential.
What stood out was Prime Minister Modi’s dignified and strategic response. Rather than directly countering the falsehoods, he chose silence, allowing facts, diplomacy, and international acknowledgment to speak louder than reactive rebuttals. This posture reflected India’s rising confidence on the world stage and its capacity to engage with misinformation through calm assertion rather than confrontation.
Simultaneously, another wave of misinformation targeted the India–U.S. equation. After an Indian parliamentary delegation visited Washington, rumors circulated online that Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, had been invited to the U.S. Independence Day parade—an apparent diplomatic affront to India. The U.S. swiftly clarified that no such invitation had been extended, but by then the story had gained viral traction. While General Munir was later invited to a luncheon hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump, foreign policy analysts viewed the gesture in the context of broader Middle East tensions—particularly the Iran-Israel situation—rather than any recalibration in U.S.–India relations.
Yet the disinformation campaign did not stop there. A particularly baseless social media narrative claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump had publicly ignored Prime Minister Modi at a recent event—casting it as a sign of deteriorating ties. This claim was swiftly debunked by India’s Ministry of External Affairs. On June 17, 2025, the MEA released an official statement confirming that Prime Minister Modi and President Trump had engaged in a cordial and substantive 35-minute phone conversation, covering bilateral relations, regional security, economic cooperation, and strategic alignment.
These orchestrated narratives reveal more than isolated incidents—they reflect a persistent pattern of selective bias and agenda-driven reporting by certain sections of global media. The speed with which misinformation spreads—often before any corrective can be issued—points to a dangerous epistemic asymmetry, where perception precedes reality, and falsehoods are amplified before facts.
Historical Pattern of Misrepresentation
After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, despite overwhelming evidence of ISI involvement, Western outlets often used euphemisms, portraying the crisis as a “regional dispute” rather than cross-border terrorism. The 1999 Kargil conflict similarly saw disproportionate focus on India’s military response, with minimal scrutiny of Pakistan’s illegal intrusion across the Line of Control.
Even India’s internal constitutional decisions have been misrepresented. The abrogation of Article 370 in 2019—passed through parliamentary procedures but executed under President’s Rule—was portrayed alarmingly by some global outlets, overlooking its constitutional basis and the historical context of insurgency and underdevelopment in the region.
During global crises, India’s efforts have often struggled to find balanced representation. While India’s massive vaccination drive received international recognition, visuals from the second wave sometimes overshadowed its public health achievements. The COVID 19 wave was a global problem, and media coverage of cremations, though striking, often risked eclipsing India’s logistical accomplishments.
Even India’s scientific achievements face reductive framing. On September 28, 2014, the International New York Times published an editorial cartoon by Heng Kim Song, depicting a turban-clad Indian farmer with a cow knocking on the door of the “Elite Space Club,” just as India entered Mars orbit. The cartoon provoked widespread backlash for trivializing a landmark technological feat and reinforcing stereotypes, ultimately leading to a public apology from the editorial board. Such portrayals ignore India’s pluralistic and innovative core, reducing broader humanist philosophy of the nation to outdated caricatures.
From Passive Silence to Proactive Sovereignty
India must evolve from reactive rebuttals to a sustained, proactive narrative strategy. Media bias is not just an editorial issue—it is a strategic vulnerability. Narrative sovereignty must become as essential as territorial sovereignty. To counter this, India must build a robust ecosystem for global narrative engagement:
Strategic Communication Training: Mass Communication, Political Science, and IR students should be trained in government-supported internships that focus on narrative building and media diplomacy.
Global Media Fellowship Programs: Invite international journalists to India on curated fellowships centered on Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) to foster deeper understanding.
Academic Infrastructure in foreign universities: Establish India-funded Chairs and Study Centres at major global universities to produce research that informs international discourse on India.
Narrative Monitoring: A Global Media Monitoring and Response Cell within the Ministry of External Affairs should be activated. Indian missions abroad must act as nodes of narrative diplomacy, issuing timely rebuttals and clarifications.
Media Modernization: Elevate DD International with editorial autonomy and multilingual content, enhancing its credibility as a voice of the Indian state.
Diaspora Activation: The Indian diaspora must be engaged as a decentralized first-response force. Their local credibility and digital fluency make them powerful counters to misinformation.
Publishing Access: Indian scholars, diplomats, and journalists must be supported with editorial and translation assistance to publish in top-tier global outlets.
Reclaiming the Right to Be Understood
In the contemporary era, where perception often precedes policy, control over one’s narrative is no longer a matter of soft power—it is an assertion of sovereignty. India today faces not only the tangible threat of terrorism but also the intangible, yet equally insidious, distortion of its actions and intentions by segments of the global media. From Pahalgam to Pulwama, we have witnessed how acts of national self-defence are recast as aggression, and how victims are reframed as perpetrators in a theatre of editorial sleight. Operation Sindoor was not merely a tactical military success—it was a turning point in India’s awakening to the power of narrative warfare. In a world where images can eclipse truths and headlines can outweigh history, the battle for narrative sovereignty is a battle for legitimacy, for justice, and for the very identity of the nation. India can no longer afford to be a passive subject of external interpretations. It must build an intellectual, diplomatic, and media ecosystem that projects with moral clarity, strategic depth, and civilisational confidence. This means nurturing independent global media platforms, empowering indigenous scholarship, leveraging technology for digital diplomacy, and training a new generation of storytellers rooted in national ethos but fluent in global idioms. Ultimately, India must reclaim the right to be understood—not as others define it, but as it truly is: a pluralistic democracy, an ancient civilization, and an emerging power with its own moral compass. Narrative sovereignty, thus, is not a cultural luxury or a diplomatic footnote—it is a strategic imperative for a nation that seeks not just to exist in the world, but to lead it.
Comments