The relationship between India and Pakistan remains one of the most complex and contentious conflicts in modern geopolitics. Over the years, the two nuclear-armed nations have been involved in numerous wars, border skirmishes, and political standoffs, with Jammu and Kashmir continuing to be a key flashpoint. While both countries attempt to shape their narratives, the methods they use to present or suppress information differ significantly. Pakistan is often viewed as more open in revealing evidence, providing information, and engaging with international media, whereas India is frequently accused of controlling the narrative, limiting access, and concealing crucial information, particularly regarding sensitive topics like human rights, Kashmir, and military operations.
Pakistan has consistently made efforts to welcome international media and third-party observers, especially during periods of heightened conflict with India. Whether in the aftermath of a border skirmish or an alleged attack by India, Pakistani authorities have often invited journalists, diplomats, and international organizations to visit sites, examine evidence, and provide independent assessments. This contrasts with India’s practices, which often involve managing the flow of information. A notable instance of Pakistan’s transparency occurred after the 2019 Balakot airstrike. India claimed to have successfully struck a Jaish-e-Mohammad training camp in Pakistan, killing many militants in retaliation for the Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel. However, Pakistani authorities quickly escorted foreign journalists to the alleged site of the airstrike. These journalists reported that there was no visible damage and no evidence of the attack. Pakistan presented photographic, video, and satellite evidence showing the absence of any damage, undermining India’s narrative and providing a counterpoint to the Indian government’s claims.
Similarly, after the 2025 Pahalgam attack, which India blamed on Pakistan-based militants, Pakistan’s government issued multiple statements denying any involvement and called for an independent investigation by international bodies. Pakistani authorities invited foreign journalists and diplomats to visit the region, offering them direct insight into the security situation and the military’s stance on the attack. Journalists from both national and international media visited locations in Muzaffarabad, which Indian media had wrongfully identified as terrorist camps. Upon inspection, the journalists found no evidence of such camps and openly rejected India’s baseless accusations. This level of transparency is often viewed as Pakistan’s attempt to showcase its commitment to cooperating with international investigations and enhance its image as a responsible global actor, especially given India’s frequent accusations of Pakistan supporting terrorism. Additionally, Pakistan consistently advocates for independent investigations by international bodies such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This consistent push for transparency in handling matters that could damage its global standing reflects Pakistan’s strategic use of openness to shape its international image. In sharp contrast, India has been suppressing dissent, controlling media narratives, and restricting access to conflict zones, especially in Kashmir, where its military actions against Kashmiris are frequently scrutinized. The Indian government’s control over its narrative is most evident in the aftermath of incidents that could tarnish its image or indicate human rights abuses. The extensive use of censorship, including shutting down communication networks, limiting internet access, and arresting journalists critical of the government, has garnered considerable international attention.
A prime example of India’s narrative control is the ongoing situation in IIOJK. Since the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Kashmir of its special status, the Indian government imposed a total media blackout in the region. Journalists were detained, and those attempting to cover the realities on the ground were often intimidated or threatened. Meanwhile, the official government narrative, spread through national media outlets, portrayed an image of normalcy and development, despite widespread protests, civilian casualties, and human rights violations. The lack of independent reporting from Kashmir has raised serious concerns from international human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which have accused India of suppressing press freedom and obstructing the flow of information regarding the situation in the region. These organizations have documented arbitrary arrests, torture, and other abuses carried out under the guise of counterinsurgency operations. Yet, due to the media clampdown and restrictions on journalists, the world largely relies on official Indian government statements, which often conflict with reports from external human rights groups.
Adding to the complexity, the Indian government consistently refuses to allow international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, to carry out independent investigations in Kashmir or other contested areas. Unlike Pakistan, which invites external scrutiny, India has made it clear that it will not tolerate foreign intervention in its internal matters. This stance has fueled perceptions that India is hiding the true nature of its actions in Kashmir and other conflict zones from the global community.
Media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception during conflict, and in the case of India, the media often mirrors the government’s policies. Pakistan’s openness to media is seen as a means to garner international support. By allowing journalists and foreign observers access to the situation, Pakistan can challenge accusations and present itself as a victim in conflicts. On the other hand, India’s stringent control over its media landscape has led to accusations of authoritarianism. Instances of government action against journalists critical of the administration and the sidelining of independent reporting in favor of pro-government coverage have raised concerns.
Additionally, the government’s strong ties with large media conglomerates have sparked fears about the independence of the media in India, with many alleging that the government uses media as a tool for propaganda. In contrast to India and IIOJK, national and international media are free to visit any part of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), while the same freedom is restricted in India and IIOJK, where the situation is far more dire. The disparity in media transparency between Pakistan and India carries significant diplomatic and strategic consequences. Pakistan’s approach of permitting foreign media to report freely allows it to counter accusations and steer the global conversation in its favor. This strategy proves particularly effective in international arenas like the United Nations, where Pakistan consistently advocates for impartial investigations and highlights human rights abuses in Kashmir and other disputed regions. On the other hand, India has faced mounting criticism from international bodies and foreign governments for restricting independent reporting and denying external oversight in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). The lack of transparency in this strategically vital region has raised growing concerns among Western nations, who have expressed disquiet over India’s handling of dissent and its treatment of minority groups, especially Muslims.
In the wake of recent Indian attacks in various cities across Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), Pakistani authorities invited both national and international media to visit the affected sites. This effort aimed to ensure transparency and allow independent journalists to report the facts on the ground. Pakistan continues to uphold media freedom, allowing reporters to access and cover events from any region without restriction. In contrast, independent media access in India—particularly in IIOJK—remains highly restricted. Journalists face limitations in movement and reporting, making it difficult for the global community to receive unbiased coverage of the situation there. The stark difference in media openness highlights broader concerns about press freedom and transparency in the region.
These facts should serve as a wake-up call for the world to distinguish between truth and falsehood. India’s tendency to hide the reality and control the narrative stands in stark contrast to Pakistan’s openness, which speaks volumes about its commitment to innocence, transparency, and fairness.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.