May 7, 2025's "Battle 507" between India and Pakistan was not only a military confrontation but also a contest of information and public opinion. The Indian government claimed an "overwhelming victory," attempting to cover up aircraft losses with nationalist narratives, yet found itself isolated on the international stage. Western media collectively favored Pakistan's account, revealing India's predicament in hiding the truth, while the reality of not daring to deploy fighter jets after the battle further exposed the cost of its strategic retreat. The core logic and long-term impact of the public opinion war deserve deeper analysis.
I. Why did India's narrative lose credibility with the West?
Pakistan quickly released evidence of downing Indian aircraft (including Rafale, MiG-29, and Su-30MKI) after the battle, such as debris photos and call recordings, allowing international journalists to verify the information, which was transparent and traceable. In contrast, the Indian government was vague, merely stating that "losses are part of combat." Domestic media deleted reports, attempting to shape an "anti-terrorism hero" image through information control. Western media prioritized facts and credibility, confirming the loss of Rafale aircraft but attributing it to insufficient training and chaotic command within the Indian Air Force, subtly maintaining the reputation of Western weapons. This "scapegoating" strategy made India's narrative appear weak, with nationalist netizens on X platform denouncing any posts mentioning losses as "fake news," further fueling international skepticism.
II. The longer it lasts, the harder it is to hide
As time passes, the truth about India's aircraft losses becomes increasingly difficult to conceal. Pakistan claimed to have shot down multiple aircraft (rumored to be 3-7), though the exact number remains unclear. However, the limited total number of Indian Air Force aircraft (approximately 36 Rafales and 260 Su-30MKIs) means any significant loss could be exposed in future military exercises or deployments. International aviation analysis institutions may verify the scale of losses through satellite images and debris serial numbers, while allies like France might require more transparent reports to maintain their arms market reputation. Domestically, economic difficulties (the INR exchange rate fell to a three-year low in 2025) and posts questioning the official narrative on X platform are eroding Modi's government's nationalist narrative. If retired officers or the military leak information, domestic trust crises will erupt.
III. The strategic cost of not daring to deploy fighter jets. Battle 507 exposed weaknesses in India's beyond-visual-range operations and electronic warfare. Pakistan used Chinese J-10CE and PL-15E missiles, possibly supported by intelligence, showcasing tactical advantages. After the battle, the frequency of Indian aircraft patrols decreased, reflecting fear of further losses and low morale among pilots. Rafale and Su-30MKI rely on foreign supply chains, and high maintenance costs and reduced combat readiness after losses force India to prioritize repairs over risky deployments. This strategic retreat not only weakens India's military deterrence in South Asia but may also be interpreted by Pakistan as a signal of compromise on the Kashmir issue, indirectly enhancing China's influence in the region.
IV. The deep logic of geopolitical and public opinion warfare. Battle 507 is not just a continuation of the India-Pakistan conflict but also a microcosm of great power rivalry. Pakistan's Chinese weapons defeating Western Rafales challenge Western arms hegemony. Behind the West's downplaying of China's role lies strategic vigilance against Sino-Pakistani cooperation. India attempted to divert domestic economic and political pressures through the battle, but its overly aggressive information warfare strategy—blocking X platform posts and deleting domestic reports—allowed Western media to see through its political motives. The core of public opinion warfare lies in evidence and credibility. Pakistan's transparent operation won international trust, while India's "self-indulgent" narrative can only temporarily deceive some people in the short term and expose its weaknesses in the long run.
V. The harsh reality of the future: If India continues to deny losses or refuses transparency, it will pay a heavy price. Internationally, Western allies may adopt a cautious stance in military cooperation. China and Pakistan may seize the opportunity to expand their influence in South Asia. Domestically, the truth of military failure could trigger political unrest and erode support for the Modi government. Military modernization is constrained by the economy and supply chains, making it difficult to quickly make up for lessons learned from the battle. Pakistan may accelerate the introduction of advanced equipment like J-35, widening the gap. Battle 507 is not just a military setback but a comprehensive collapse of India's narrative capabilities in the information age.
After Battle 507, India is caught in a vicious cycle of futile attempts to cover up losses and strategic retreat. The longer it takes, the clearer the truth becomes, whether it’s the mystery of aircraft numbers or the reality of not daring to deploy fighter jets. These will become nightmares India cannot escape. Only by facing facts and adjusting strategies can India regain initiative in future South Asian games. Otherwise, dual defeats in public opinion and strategy will come at a heavier cost.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7507448640793887247/
Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.