As tensions flare once again between India and Pakistan, we find ourselves not only confronting the risks of military escalation, but also the dangerous erosion of truth. Misinformation, strategic distortion, and emotionally charged narratives dominate headlines and social media feeds. In this climate, truth is no longer just a victim- it is a target.
The adage “In times of war, the first casualty is truth” has echoed across generations and conflicts. In South Asia, its relevance is both historical and immediate. From full-scale wars to low-intensity border skirmishes, and from diplomatic standoffs to digital propaganda campaigns, truth has repeatedly been obscured, manipulated, or sacrificed to advance political or military aims.
Since the 1947 Partition, India and Pakistan have been locked in a complex relationship defined by conflict, mistrust, and ideological divergence. Wars in 1947- 48, 1965, 1971, and 1999, as well as repeated confrontations over Jammu and Kashmir, have left behind a legacy of unresolved disputes and hardened narratives. These narratives are not just political; they are deeply embedded in textbooks, media, cinema, and national consciousness.
Each country has cultivated its version of history, often portraying itself as the victim and the other as the aggressor. This dynamic has contributed to a regional climate in which facts are viewed through the prism of nationalism, and uncomfortable truths are often dismissed as disloyalty or propaganda.
The Pulwama-Balakot episode in 2019 is a recent and instructive example. Competing claims about airstrikes, casualties, and downed aircraft were presented with confidence but without independent verification. By the time international observers began to offer clarifications, the damage to public discourse had already been done.
In times of crisis, media outlets should act as guardians of truth probing official claims, fact-checking rapidly spreading rumours, and offering context and nuance. Unfortunately, in both India and Pakistan, parts of the media have instead become megaphones for militaristic posturing. During escalations, prime-time news often turns into performative patriotism. Rhetoric replaces reason. Dissenting perspectives are drowned out or vilified as “anti-national” or “sympathizers.” Such coverage not only misinforms viewers but also narrows the democratic space needed for reasoned debate and de-escalation. What’s more, reporting from the frontlines— especially in conflict-prone areas like Kashmir is increasingly restricted. Journalists face not only physical dangers but also legal and institutional pressures. This vacuum is then filled by rumour, speculation, and government-issued bulletins that are rarely scrutinized.
With the rise of social media, the nature of wartime disinformation has changed dramatically. Governments, troll farms, and partisan users now deploy images, videos, and hashtags as tools of influence. In both countries, online platforms become arenas for digital nationalism where truth is distorted for viral effect.
Old videos resurface as “proof” of fresh military victories. CGI images are often passed off as real strikes. Photoshopped and AI-generated deepfakes add layers of confusion. While fact-checkers work tirelessly to debunk falsehoods, their corrections often arrive too late to prevent public outrage or diplomatic fallout. The result is a digital fog of war in which perception becomes more influential than reality. As misinformation spreads unchecked, leaders face growing public pressure to escalate rather than resolve conflicts.
Truth may be the first casualty in times of war, but it does not have to be the final one. If South Asia is to move beyond the cycle of suspicion and hostility, it must begin by reclaiming truth not as a luxury, but as a foundation for peace.
The collapse of truth in wartime is not just a philosophical concern; it has real, human consequences. Misinformation fuels anger, dehumanizes the “enemy,” and prolongs suffering. Civilians living along the LoC, in Indian-administered Kashmir, and in border towns on both sides bear the brunt of this escalating hostility. When false narratives dominate, there is no room for empathy or dialogue. Those advocating for peace are labeled naïve or even traitorous. This climate makes reconciliation virtually impossible, as each new incident becomes another layer in an already burdened history.
Moreover, the deliberate obfuscation of facts undermines democratic accountability. If citizens are denied a clear picture of what their governments are doing in their name, how can they meaningfully participate in shaping national policy or demanding restraint?
In such a fraught environment, defending truth becomes not just a journalistic responsibility but a civic and moral imperative. Governments must resist the temptation to use misinformation as a tool of short-term advantage. Any tactical gain achieved by misleading the public comes at the cost of long-term instability and mistrust. Institutions should protect not punish journalists and whistleblowers who seek to uncover inconvenient facts. Media outlets, especially in democracies, must hold themselves to higher standards. It is possible, and indeed necessary to be patriotic without being uncritical. The public deserves more than dramatized conflict and selective outrage. Citizens, too, have a role to play. In an era where anyone with a smartphone can amplify information, media literacy is essential. Before forwarding a viral video or incendiary quote, we must pause to ask: Is this real? Who benefits from this narrative? Could it escalate violence?
Despite the many failures, there is still hope. Independent fact-checkers in Pakistan, at least continue to do the important work. A growing number of young voices are calling for peace, mutual understanding, and responsible journalism. Scholars and historians are revisiting official accounts and challenging sanitized versions of history.
Truth may be the first casualty in times of war, but it does not have to be the final one. If South Asia is to move beyond the cycle of suspicion and hostility, it must begin by reclaiming truth not as a luxury, but as a foundation for peace.
