[By columnist Yao Yuanmei of Observer Network] From May 6 to 10, 2025, India and Pakistan erupted into war, drawing global attention. India initiated airstrikes against Pakistan under the pretext of counter-terrorism, launching an operation codenamed "Operation Sindoor" (Sindoor Action). In response, Pakistan retaliated under the pretext of defending national sovereignty and territorial integrity with an operation codenamed "Operation Bunyan al-Marsus" (Operation Copper Wall). Both sides clashed fiercely. Pakistan claimed to have destroyed six Indian aircraft, captured an Indian pilot alive, paralyzed 70% of India's power grid, and destroyed India's S-400 air defense system, while India dismissed all of Pakistan's claims as lies.
Finally, Pakistan declared victory in this war, whereas India claimed to have successfully struck terrorist bases. The world populace debated which fighter jets were superior, stock traders busied themselves buying military stocks, and online bloggers earned substantial profits by creating jokes based on this incident. U.S. President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, raising his prospects for the Nobel Peace Prize... This war produced an unprecedented effect where "everyone won," something unseen in the history of warfare, both ancient and modern. It was more thrilling than any Bollywood musical blockbuster.
This war achieved such an otherworldly effect due to a systematic review of India's actions, Pakistan's reactions, third-party responses, media reactions, public sentiment, and the effects of network technology. All becomes clear at a glance.
One, Counter-terrorism and Supporting Terrorism
The fuse of this war was lit by the "Pahalgam Gunshot Incident" that occurred in the Indian-controlled Kashmir region on April 22. India immediately characterized this gunshot incident as a "terrorist attack" and accused the "Resistance Front J&K" of being responsible for it, claiming it was a result of cross-border support for terrorism from Pakistan. Consequently, India imposed severe sanctions on Pakistan, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, and threatened military action.
Just when people believed India's claims to be true, on April 25, the "Resistance Front J&K" publicly denied responsibility for this "terrorist attack" through its Telegram social account and pointed out the possibility that India had staged the case itself, similar to the Pulwama attack in 2019, leaving the public baffled.
"Sindoor Operation"
In this critical moment, on the evening of April 30, the "Resistance Front J&K" again released a "top-secret document" via its Telegram social platform, containing such detailed information that it almost exposed India's suspected planning of this "Pahalgam terrorist attack" and its attempt to frame Pakistan to weaken and undermine it internally and externally. The content of the document can be found in the interpretation provided in the article "The Kashmir Dispute Has Transcended Traditional Issues and Become a Territorial Dispute of the 'Bharata Empire'."
Once this explosive content was posted online, it immediately sparked international public opinion, causing many countries that had previously supported India to subtly change their stance. On May 2, Pakistan informed the United Nations Security Council about this latest situation. On May 5, the UN Security Council held a closed-door meeting to discuss the "India-Pakistan issue." During the meeting, both sides blamed each other.
India accused Pakistan of cross-border support for terrorism, leading to long-term threats of terrorism, especially in the Indian-controlled Kashmir region, where the "Pahalgam terrorist attack" was one of them. Pakistan angrily refuted, not only pointing out that India was suspected of staging this gun attack and blaming Pakistan but also attempting to stop the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan to divide and weaken it internally and externally. Additionally, Pakistan accused India of secretly supporting "Balochistan Liberation Army" and "Balochistan Liberation Front" and other terrorist separatist forces within Pakistan, attempting to weaken and undermine Pakistan.
In short, Pakistan took this opportunity to expose India's double standards on terrorism: on the one hand, India criticized Pakistan for cross-border "supporting terrorism" under the guise of counter-terrorism to isolate, weaken, and pressure Pakistan; on the other hand, India engaged in cross-border "supporting terrorism" by backing "Balochistan Liberation Army" and other terrorist forces within Pakistan, leading to continuous terrorist attacks in Pakistan and serious difficulties in the country's survival and development.
Facing mutual accusations from India and Pakistan, the UN Security Council was caught between a rock and a hard place, unable to determine who was right or wrong between the two countries or who was "supporting terrorism" versus "opposing terrorism?" Therefore, after the closed-door meeting on May 5, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated his position of condemning the perpetrators of the "Pahalgam terrorist attack" and stated: "Attacks on civilians are unacceptable, and those responsible must be brought to justice through credible and legal means... Especially at this crucial moment, avoiding possible out-of-control military confrontations is also vital... Military actions are not a way to solve problems... Now is the time to exercise maximum restraint and pull back from the brink... The United Nations stands ready to support any initiative that promotes de-escalation, fosters diplomacy, and renews commitment to peace..." The UN Security Council subsequently issued relevant reports.
Before the UN Security Council could further mediate the conflict between India and Pakistan, at 1:05-1:30 AM on May 7, the Modi government launched a missile strike against Pakistan under the pretext of counter-terrorism. The codename of the operation was "Sindoor Action" ("Sindoor" is a symbol in Indian culture referring to the "vermilion mark" on married women's foreheads, translated by India as "Sindur Action" and domestically referred to as "Sindoor Action"). Thus, the 2025 India-Pakistan War erupted.
Two, Guiding Public Opinion and Misleading Public Opinion
After the outbreak of the India-Pakistan War, in the first round, India took preemptive action, fighting swiftly and methodically while actively guiding public opinion. At 1:44 AM on May 7, the Indian Ministry of Defense released a press release stating:
"Just now, the Indian Armed Forces launched the 'Sindoor Action' to strike terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the Pakistan-controlled Jammu and Kashmir region. These facilities had planned and directed terrorist attacks against India, with a total of nine targets. Our actions were precise, carefully considered, and non-escalatory. Pakistani military installations were not targeted. India demonstrated significant restraint in selecting targets and executing operations. These measures were taken following the barbaric Pahalgam terrorist attack, which resulted in the deaths of 25 Indians and one Nepalese citizen. We are committed to holding accountable those responsible for this attack. Further details regarding the 'Sindoor Action' will be provided later today."
Subsequently, India released a promotional video of this strike against Pakistan, emphasizing revenge for the 26 civilians killed in the "Pahalgam terrorist attack." Indian media followed up with positive promotion.
Pakistan then declared a state of emergency and also issued a press release. In stark contrast to India's viewpoint, Pakistan emphasized strong condemnation of India's blatant aggression. Pakistan stated:
"Pakistan strongly condemns India's blatant aggression. Without provocation, India's Air Force launched a war by using standoff weapons to violate Pakistan's sovereignty, crossing the international borders at Muridke and Bahawalpur, as well as the Line of Control in Kotli, Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu, and Kashmir. India targeted civilians in its aggression, resulting in civilian casualties including women and children, and severely threatening commercial air traffic. We strongly condemn India's cowardly behavior, which is a blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law, and established norms of inter-state relations. Following the Bahawalgan attack, Indian leaders once again used the pretext of combating terrorism to engage in their false victim narrative, endangering regional peace and security. India's reckless actions have brought these two nuclear-armed states closer to a major conflict. The situation continues to evolve. Pakistan reserves the right to respond appropriately at a time and place of its own choosing, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Facing India's aggression, the Pakistani government, armed forces, and people stand united. They will always take firm action to protect and uphold Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
Screenshot of Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release on May 7
India and Pakistan had diametrically opposed positions, and accordingly, their media reports were at odds. However, in the media's promotional coverage, an unexpected event occurred, leading to a world public opinion effect, namely the "three Indian aircraft shot down incident." Here’s how it happened: After India's air strikes against Pakistan, media outlets widely reported the incident with front-page headlines. Among them, India's main newspaper, The Tribune, published this news at 8:54 AM using its X account under the pseudonym of its deputy editor, Vijaita Singh. The report included text and images, stating: "At least three planes were shot down in the Aknau, Ramban, and Pamphoo regions of Kashmir (Indian-controlled), a government official told The Tribune."
Screenshot of The Tribune's X account
Simultaneously, the newspaper's official website, under the name of the editorial office, published the same content with the title still being "At least three aircraft were shot down in the Aknau, Ramban, and Pamphoo regions of Kashmir (Indian-controlled)." It emphasized that the information came from an Indian government official. Additionally, Reuters also published this message, pairing it with the same background image.
Google search screenshot of The Tribune's official website report
India initiated this war, and The Tribune is a mainstream major newspaper in India. Its deputy editor, Vijaita Singh, broadcasted this message, emphasizing that the source was an Indian government official. The report was made by the official media of the Indian side at the very first window of public opinion after India's air strikes against Pakistan. Using a sensational headline like "Three Indian Aircraft Shot Down," it was obviously easy for people to believe it.
Thus, this message was quickly widely quoted and reported by many international media outlets, leading to public opinion fermentation and forming a worldwide effect. According to the laws of public opinion dissemination, India, as the main party involved in the event, released this message through its official media, and international media responded positively, which falls under active "feeding." This was beneficial for guiding international public opinion.
However, surprisingly, as multiple international media outlets spread this information and public opinion fermented, The Tribune's report about "three Indian aircraft shot down" evolved into "three Indian 'Rafale' aircraft shot down by Pakistan's J-10 aircraft." Not only did the Pakistani government and media adopt this claim, but they also exaggerated it to say six Indian aircraft were shot down. On May 8, Pakistan confirmed that it indeed used J-10 aircraft to shoot down India's Rafale aircraft.
Such sensational information successfully diverted people's attention away from the right or wrong of this war and instead turned their focus to heated discussions about which fighter jets were stronger worldwide. This led to some fantastical scenes: shares of the military company producing J-10 aircraft surged, online blogger "Bro Haoge" capitalized on this by adapting a short video titled "Just Bought a Plane, Got Smashed" with over 100 million views spreading globally, French officials clarified that an Indian "Rafale" aircraft purchased by India was damaged during this war, The Washington Post reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down in this war, including a "Rafale," India denied that its three "Rafale" aircraft were shot down, Pakistan insisted that six Indian aircraft were shot down, and Indian media Firstpost criticized The Washington Post's report that India's "Rafale" aircraft was shot down as an attempt by the US to promote its aircraft...
Bro Haoge adapted Indian dance song "Look, My Plane Was Smashed" went viral
In this way, the truth about how many Indian aircraft were shot down by Pakistan was drowned out in various media reports. Some netizens joked that the flood of reports was essentially free advertising for the J-10 aircraft.
These fantastic scenes attracted some Indian netizens to trace the source of the information, only to find that most of the messages widely cited and forwarded internationally about "three Indian aircraft shot down" originated from reports by The Tribune and Reuters. Oddly enough, The Tribune quietly removed this message at 1:19 PM on May 7, leading Indian netizens to criticize The Tribune and its deputy editor, Vijaita Singh, for allegedly intentionally releasing false information to mislead the public. They questioned whether the Indian Broadcasting Information Department and its Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw should do something?
Screenshot of Indian netizen's X account
Careful netizens even pointed out that Reuters posted this information at 3:19 AM on May 7, using the same background photos as The Tribune. 3:19 AM is nighttime in India, yet the photo used for this message appears to be from daytime shooting, clearly suggesting intentional misinformation to mislead the public. Later, Reuters did not delete this message but changed the posting time to around 2 PM on May 7.
Screenshot of netizens "exposing" the source of the "three Indian aircraft shot down" message
Screenshot of Reuters' revised post time
Subsequently, India launched a "debunking" campaign. Indian media Firstpost and Indian embassies abroad pointed out which messages circulating online were "fake news," and the Indian Press Information Bureau's "Fact-Checking Office" (PIB Fact Check) took charge of this matter, specifically criticizing which media reports contained false information. Again, strangely enough, among the debunking efforts by the Indian side, the focus was on criticizing Chinese and Pakistani media, while the Tribune, which was suspected of actively feeding the "three Indian aircraft shot down" message, was not among the names criticized by the Indian side.
Three, Failure and Recovery
India initiated the war against Pakistan under the pretext of counter-terrorism at 1:00 AM on May 7, but after the "three Indian aircraft shot down" incident fermented, public opinion overwhelmingly reported that India's "Rafale" aircraft were shot down by Pakistan's J-10 aircraft, resulting in a 6:0 defeat. Regardless of whether the information was true, this kind of public sentiment was detrimental to the Modi government and made it feel "losing face."
Under such circumstances, on the evening of May 9, India launched missile attacks on several Pakistani military bases, including Nur Khan Air Base near Islamabad, prompting Pakistan to hold a press conference at around 3:00 AM on May 10 to denounce India and announce its intention to retaliate militarily against India. Subsequently, Pakistan launched a counterattack under the code name "Operation Copper Wall," retaliating fiercely.
Concurrently, Pakistan closed all airspace and launched a full-scale counteroffensive against India. Pakistan claimed: cyberattacks paralyzed approximately 70% of India's power grid, JF-17 fighters destroyed India's S-400 air defense systems, Pakistan's fighter jets conducted airstrikes on Indian airbases in Gujarat, Ambala, and Jalandar, Pakistani fighter jets entered Indian airspace, unmanned drones flew over Delhi, and an Indian female pilot was captured...
On the other hand, the Indian Press Information Bureau's "Fact-Checking Office" rebutted each of Pakistan's claims, accusing Pakistan of spreading rumors. This left the general public confused, unsure which side's information was true.
Following this, China, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries called for India and Pakistan to remain calm and restrained. On the evening of May 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced via his social media account that India and Pakistan agreed to an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire. Subsequently, both India and Pakistan confirmed this news, marking a temporary end to this India-Pakistan war. As a result, netizens jokingly suggested that President Trump might be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize.
On May 10, Pakistan declared victory in this war. On the same day, Prime Minister Modi convened a high-level security meeting and decided: "Any future terrorist act will be regarded as an act of war against India and will be met with corresponding responses."
On the evening of May 12, Prime Minister Modi delivered a national address, announcing India's victory in this war. The BJP decided to hold a nationwide campaign from May 13 to 23 to promote the results of the "Sindoor Action" (Tiranga Yatra).
Four, Conclusion
In summary, although this India-Pakistan war lasted only four days, it unfolded with unprecedented intensity, heart-stopping drama, and colorful spectacle, achieving an effect where "everyone won." The many bizarre outcomes of this war were due to its integration of modern aerial combat, technological warfare, information warfare, psychological warfare, cognitive warfare, and public opinion warfare, making it textbook-level in modern aerial combat. While this war serves as a topic of conversation over tea, there are many historical lessons worth reflection.
Overall, India came prepared for this war. From the occurrence of the "Pahalgam terrorist attack" until India preemptively attacked Pakistan on the evening of May 6, issuing press releases, video clips, and holding press conferences, India proceeded step by step, methodically. However, the ultimate outcome of the war left India dissatisfied. Now, with Pakistan declaring victory, the Modi government finds itself in a difficult position, unsure whether to acknowledge it or not, given the facts on the ground.
After this war, it is expected that the Modi government will reflect deeply on many issues, such as who supports terrorism and who opposes it between India and Pakistan, why the initial effort to guide public opinion turned into misleading public opinion regarding the "three Indian aircraft shot down," why India's advanced "multi-national" weapons couldn't match Pakistan's single "Chinese-made" weapons, how should India proceed with its major foreign policy, ethnic rise, and neighbor policies, and whether India should continue to pursue the "Akhand Bharat" mentality toward Pakistan? And so on.
Looking deeper, the most pressing issue for the Modi government to reflect upon is the "Akhand Bharat" mindset. This imperialistic mindset is the deep-rooted cause of this war, with counter-terrorism, supporting terrorism, the "Pahalgam terrorist attack," and the India-Pakistan Kashmir dispute all being mere surface phenomena. This is why, after the war broke out, instead of seeing the expected uprising of various factions within Pakistan to "seek independence" and assist India as anticipated by India, it actually strengthened the sense of national identity among the majority of the Pakistani populace.
In fact, the "Akhand Bharat" map envisioned by India is too large. This map was drawn in the 19th century by the British Indian government to advance its "scientific frontier" expansion strategy, a product of British colonialism and imperialism. Today, in the 21st century, with the world entering the AI era, the Modi government still adheres to this mindset in handling neighboring countries' affairs, implementing numerous measures to promote it. For example, in 2017, India launched a "cultural mapping" strategy; in 2019, unilaterally abolished Article 370 to abolish the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, renaming it as the "Ladakh Central Territory" (changing the regional status); in 2023, the new Indian Parliament building's mural covering Pakistan and Bangladesh territories among others; Modi's hosting of the G20 meeting with the renaming of the country as "Bharata"; RSS leaders repeatedly expressing intentions to achieve "Akhand Bharat" in the near future; and Indian media hyping "Balochistan independence" and repeating the experience of dismembering Pakistan in 1971, among countless examples.
In the 21st century, with the great development of science and technology, global industrial chains are closely interconnected, and the internet has made the earth akin to a village where everyone depends on each other. People generally seek happiness rather than the colonialism and imperialism of the 19th century. Clearly, the Modi government's "empire" mindset runs counter to the trends of the 21st century and does not align with the fundamental interests of the Indian people. Therefore, the "three Indian aircraft shot down" incident saw netizens worldwide joining the "anti-fake" movement, with meticulous netizens uncovering evidence of India's suspected intentional fabrication. Since cyberspace retains memory, even if false information is deleted or altered afterward, traces remain.
Whether the Modi government will conduct a profound reflection on this war and make corresponding policy adjustments remains to be seen.
This article is an exclusive contribution of the Observer Network. The content purely reflects the author's personal opinions and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action will be taken for violations. Follow the Observer Network WeChat public account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.
Original link: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7503731516145697321/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.