aljazeera.com
India-Pakistan Media War: Narratives Shape Conflict
In early May 2024, India launched "Operation Sindoor," conducting 24 airstrikes in Pakistan, targeting militant groups; Pakistan retaliated with "Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos," leading to a media-driven conflict characterized by competing narratives and the downplaying of civilian casualties.
- What were the immediate impacts of the media's role in framing the India-Pakistan conflict in early May 2024?
- In early May, India launched "Operation Sindoor," conducting 24 airstrikes in Pakistan, claiming to target militant groups. Pakistan retaliated with "Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos," resulting in a media-driven conflict where both nations used narratives to justify their actions and shape public opinion.
- What long-term implications does this "discursive war" have for future India-Pakistan relations and regional stability?
- This media-driven conflict highlights the danger of constructing enemy identities through narratives. The focus on nationalistic narratives overshadowed the human cost of the conflict, hindering de-escalation and future conflict resolution. The constructed narratives created an environment where dialogue is difficult, and violence becomes more likely.
- How did the contrasting national narratives constructed by Indian and Pakistani media shape public perception and international response to the conflict?
- The conflict between India and Pakistan escalated into a "discursive war," where each nation's media crafted narratives portraying themselves as righteous defenders and the other as the aggressor. This involved selective reporting, emphasizing their own casualties while downplaying or ignoring the other's.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing bias is evident in the way the article presents both India's Operation Sindoor and Pakistan's Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. Each operation is described with language that reinforces the narrative crafted by each country's media. For example, India's operation is presented as a righteous response, while Pakistan's is described as a theological assertion. Headlines and descriptions of official statements are used to support this biased framing.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded language to describe the actions of both countries, such as 'triumphalist headlines,' 'theological assertion,' and 'patriotic zeal.' These words carry strong connotations and contribute to a biased portrayal of the events. While the article acknowledges this bias, it doesn't offer specific neutral alternatives for these terms.
Bias by Omission
The article mentions civilian casualties on both sides but focuses more on the narrative of each country's military actions, potentially omitting the full extent of civilian suffering and displacement. The human stories of those affected are described as buried beneath the rhetoric, suggesting a bias by omission regarding the impact on ordinary people.
False Dichotomy
The article highlights a false dichotomy by portraying both India and Pakistan as solely victims and defenders, ignoring the complexities and potential shared responsibilities in the conflict. It shows how both sides constructed narratives to claim moral high ground, neglecting the nuances and multiple perspectives of the situation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of discursive warfare between India and Pakistan, escalating tensions and hindering peace-building efforts. The construction of opposing narratives, demonizing the "other," and the selective portrayal of victims fuels conflict and undermines efforts towards peaceful resolution. The focus on nationalistic narratives, rather than facts and diplomacy, directly impedes progress towards peaceful and inclusive societies.