The ideological grounding of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) adds another layer to the disturbing scenario as the entire propaganda was rundown by the BJP and knowing the fact that Narendra Modi is not just a political leader or Indian prime minister; he is a product of a movement steeped in religious extremism ‘Hindutva.’ The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the BJP, has not hidden its admiration for fascist methods. From the glorification of violence to the marginalization of minorities — especially Muslims and Christians— the echoes of history are ominous. When the leadership celebrates the erasure of the other, it becomes easier to justify violence, both real and symbolic. In such an environment, it is hardly surprising when communal flashpoints are either ignored or manipulated.
Once, the founder of RSS termed that the Indian Muslim must be annihilated as German ‘Nazi’ did with the Jews. Such a fascist womb unfortunately bore the BJP and Narendra Modi, so it is not surprising for Pakistan and the Muslims around the world that Modi is known as ‘Bucher of Gujrat’, while BJP and RSS destroyed number of mosques across India one including the legendary ‘Babri Masjid.’ It is a curious, even disquieting, reflection of our times when the idea of peace is sold as a favor rather than a mutual responsibility. That the Indian media has chosen to spin the recent ceasefire narrative as something Pakistan begged for — rather than an outcome necessitated by regional stability — reveals more about the nature of India’s media culture than it does about diplomacy itself.
For a country that prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, it is a sobering sign when its press operates less as a watchdog of power and more as an amplifier of state propaganda. The tragedy at Pahalgam, while heart-wrenching, has not just exposed the fault lines of national security but also the ethical decay within India’s media ecosystem. What should have prompted sober reflection and measured journalism has instead unleashed a storm of theatrical performances — with anchors turning studios into battlegrounds, and debate shows morphing into war rooms. Veteran journalists, who once held reputations as voices of reason, now participate in this media frenzy with a vigor that borders on the fanatical. The Indian newsroom today is less concerned with facts and more obsessed with noise, where decibels have replaced dialogue.
Among the loudest voices is retired General Bakshi — a man who once held the dignity of uniform but now appears trapped in a cycle of televised rage. His appearances have become emblematic of what happens when commentary is replaced with chest-thumping. It is no longer clear whether his outbursts serve any strategic purpose, or if they exist solely to fuel the bloodlust of primetime audiences, also reminding WWF ‘Norakushti,’ when Hulk Hogan theatrically trembled after being beaten by the opponent. What is clear is that when a general’s growls become entertainment, the military discourse is reduced to farce. One wonders if even his co-panelists take him seriously anymore — or if they merely tolerate his fury for the sake of ratings (TRP).
Then comes Major Gaurav Arya, a figure perhaps even more perplexing. Once in uniform, now an ever-present face in studios, he delivers his threats against Pakistan with a flair more suited to fiction than strategy. His calls for ‘wiping out’ Pakistan are laughably hollow — not because Pakistan is beyond harm, but because those who have truly seen war rarely romanticize it. Studio warriors seldom understand what real war entails. Their narratives are curated for applause, not accountability. The question that persists is simple: if such destruction was genuinely within reach, why talk and not act? And if it is not, then what purpose do these threats serve, except to keep the fires of hate alight?
But even if one were to take the Indian narrative at face value — that cross-border terror is being orchestrated from Pakistani soil — it does little to explain the long history of internal extremism rooted within India’s own institutions. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s premier intelligence agency, has long operated in murky waters. Accusations of false-flag operations and covert manipulations are not new. In a healthy democracy, such allegations would prompt introspection. In India, they are drowned out by jingoism.
This dangerous drift towards extremism has left India striking at shadows. In its attempt to silence Pakistan, it has revived an issue the world had all but forgotten: Kashmir. The region’s struggle, long buried under layers of bureaucratic denial and global indifference, found new oxygen amid India’s reckless posturing. Modi’s grandstanding — particularly his bizarre invocation of water treaties and threats of surgical strikes — may play well to domestic audiences, but they sound alarmingly hollow to the international community. If anything, they have only served to reinforce the idea that India is the provocateur, not the victim.
Amid all this, the role of the United States and its Western allies remains depressingly predictable. Their concern is performative at best. Washington’s foreign policy has never been consistent, and its relationship with Pakistan is defined more by strategic convenience than genuine partnership. For years, the US supported extremist proxies across the world when it suited its objectives — from Latin America to the Middle East. Pakistan too has been both a beneficiary and a scapegoat in this double game. Now that Islamabad charts its own course, refusing to act as a clown state, it is easy for Washington to return to its favorite pastime: blaming Pakistan.
What India did not anticipate was Pakistan’s measured but resolute response. There was no sabre-rattling from Islamabad, no media circus. Instead, there was calm strength. When Pakistan targeted key operatives believed to be responsible for past attacks, it sent a clear message: we will not be provoked, but we will respond with precision. It is this maturity that has forced a pause — not Indian goodwill or benevolence. For the first time in years, it is India that finds itself cornered diplomatically, its bravado undercut by its own missteps. This ceasefire, if it can be called that, is not a gift from India. It is a necessary reset — born not of generosity but of miscalculation. And any path forward must not be dictated by Delhi’s political whims. If there is to be dialogue, it must begin with honesty. That includes acknowledging the propaganda, the threats, the false flags, and the media circus that have defined recent weeks.
