Message is also strategy
(Source: The Indian Express, Editorial Page)
Also Read: The Indian Express Editorial Analysis: 07 July 2025
Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 07 July 2025
| Topic: GS Paper 2 (Governance, International Relations), GS Paper 3 (Internal Security) |
| Context |
|
Operation Sindoor: Messaging Gaps and Missteps
- Lack of Clarity Pre-Operation: Before Operation Sindoor began, the government failed to clearly communicate that the objective was limited to targeting terror camps across the LoC. This led to misplaced public expectations, especially regarding Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), fueled by political rhetoric.
- Poor Communication During and After the Operation: During the conflict, there was no real-time briefing for Indian citizens or the international community on India’s strategic intent. Post-operation confusion arose over whether the ceasefire was tactical, temporary, or strategic.
- Mixed Signals from Leadership: Contradictory statements by senior military officers and government representatives abroad created the perception of disjointed civil-military messaging, reducing policy credibility.
Lessons from Past Governments
- NSAB and Strategic Media Handling under Vajpayee: The National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) under Vajpayee included experienced editors and diplomats who crafted clear media narratives. Regular briefings by NSA Brajesh Mishra and Foreign Secretary K. Sibal ensured clarity and minimized misinformation.
- Manmohan Singh’s Diplomatic Sophistication: Singh’s government prioritized diplomatic optics and long-term fallout, especially in handling the Musharraf visit in 2005. Rather than loud messaging, he worked with backchannels and subtle cues, reflecting maturity in media management.
PM-wise Strategic Communication Practices
| Aspect | Operation Sindoor (Modi Era) | Vajpayee Era | Manmohan Singh Era |
|---|---|---|---|
| Media Briefings | Irregular, contradictory | Regular via NSA & MEA | Strategic and subtle |
| Clarity of Objectives | Vague, shifting postures | Clearly defined military objectives | Focused diplomatic messaging |
| Civil-Military Coherence | Lacking, mixed signals | High level of synchronization | Careful, consensus-driven |
| International Communication | Weak outreach | Strong NSAB role | Engaged through diplomatic channels |
| Strategic Narrative Management | Absent | Institutionalized | Balanced and discreet |
Way Forward/Conclusion
Operation Sindoor highlights that military success must be matched with a robust communication strategy. Strategic communication is not an afterthought but a core pillar of national security in today’s geopolitical environment.
India must take the following steps to institutionalize this approach:
- Establish a dedicated Strategic Communications Unit under the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) or the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), on the lines of the US National Security Council.
- Ensure clarity, transparency, and consistency in public messaging during conflict to boost public confidence and international credibility.
- Train bureaucrats, diplomats, and military spokespersons in crisis communication and media handling to reduce contradictory narratives.
- Introduce a permanent spokesperson or media cell for national security affairs, responsible for daily briefings and media engagement.
- Leverage modern platforms like social media, visual storytelling, and diplomatic outreach to control the narrative and counter misinformation rapidly.
- Integrate communication into operation planning, ensuring messaging is aligned with military and diplomatic goals from the start.
By treating communication as strategic infrastructure, India can ensure better crisis management, safeguard its global reputation, and maintain narrative dominance in the age of information warfare.
| Practice Question: (GS-2 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) Discuss the importance of strategic communication in national security. In light of Operation Sindoor, how can India improve its civil-military messaging and media management? |
