Syed Ata Hasnain | After Sindoor, Taking The Indian Narrative Global…

India’s swift and decisive military operation in response to grave provocations from across the western border came in the form of ‘Operation Sindoor’, almost a fortnight after the horrific Pahalgam tragedy. The terrorist attack at Pahalgam’s scenic meadows against innocent Indian tourists crossed every Indian “red line”. Executed by a Pakistani-sponsored terrorist group, a few days after a particularly nasty India-focused speech delivered by Pakistan’s Army chief, Gen. Asim Munir, to a Pakistani diaspora group, it left India fuming. Surprisingly, despite countless such attacks over the past 36 years, the international community could not find the right sentiment to convey to Pakistan. A near hyphenation once again started to emerge, making it clear that the Indian narrative of being the longest victim of trans-national terrorism cut insufficient ice. For long the United States and several other nations have empathised with India but without any commensurate efforts to call out Pakistan seriously. Their only real concern has been about the possible dangers arising from a conventional stand-off between the two nuclear neighbours. ‘Operation Sindoor’, India’s conventional response, therefore had an inevitability about it.

The guns may have fallen silent after the Indian success gained in ‘Operation Sindoor’, which has achieved its strategic and tactical objectives. How-ever, the battle for hearts and minds and international legitimacy is just about beginning. It’s not a domain in which India has been particularly very active, but it’s good that this realisation has now come about. In the modern age of perception warfare, battlefield victories must be supplemented by diplomatic clarity and narrative dominance. In a landmark initiative, the Government of India has decided that seven all-party delegations comprising representatives from across the political spectrum will travel to key global capitals and think tanks to explain India's position. This is not just good diplomacy — it is essential statecraft. It re-minds one of 1994 when the then US assistant secretary of state, Robin Raphel, put India under pressure internationally. The all-party re-solution on J&K in India’s Parliament on February 22, 1994, provided a powerful message. The Indian narrative on J&K and on human rights was hugely assisted by the decision to send Atal Behari Vajpayee, then a senior Opposition leader, along with Dr Farooq Abdullah and Salman Khurshid, to fight India’s case at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The post-conflict phase is often the point at which long-term consequences are shaped. Conflict termination is a process and not just an end point. It’s important who won militarily, but equally so as to who succeeded in convincing the world of the justice of their cause. For too long, Pakistan has leveraged its narrative warfare effectively, presenting itself as a victim of regional instability while evading accountability for harbouring terrorism as state policy. The global discourse has at times been prone to false equivalence, urging “both sides to de-escalate”, even when only one side is the victim of proxy terror.

In this context, India’s decision to proactively explain its actions, intent and restraint is both timely and necessary. The narrative must shift from managing global perception to leading it; that can only happen with an Indian initiative, undertaken energetically and intellectually by well-informed people. India must ensure its legitimate security concerns are neither misunderstood nor overlooked. At a time when the international community is fairly exhausted with the violence in Ukraine and Gaza, it is important to refocus its attention to this conflict and the legitimacy of India’s stand.

The demonstration of bipartisan unity within India in strategic communication is rare and reassuring. It signals to foreign governments and strategic communities that this is not a partisan campaign or a political stunt. Rather, it is a deeply considered national effort supported by the entire political spectrum — from the ruling party to the Opposition, from national parties to key regional forces. Moreover, the inclusion of voices from different ideological and regional backgrounds ensures that the delegations are seen as representative of the Indian people, and not just the Indian State.

The choice of destinations — Washington, London, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Canberra and Moscow — is reflective of India’s nuanced diplomatic outreach. These are not merely friendly capitals — they are nodes of global influence. India’s presence in leading think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, Chatham House, Carnegie Endowment and CSIS will allow for meaningful enga-gement with strategic communities that shape long-term foreign policy. Think tanks are very important entities in the game of narrative building, influencing and leveraging. Most strategic affairs writers around the world subscribe to them or are on their rolls in one form or the other. Their published output is read across the world and many of the alumni work for governments at some stage or the other. It is always good to have, first, a strong Indian presence in these, and second, regular visits by Indian delegations to discuss Indian concerns. Add-itionally, engaging the In-dian diaspora, university campuses, editorial boards and civil society organisations will help India build enduring support networks abroad. We are not merely seeking sympathy; we wish to cultivate strategic understanding. And that can only come from sustained dialogue, not reactive posturing.

What India must say — and say clearly — is that at the heart of India’s messaging is the principle of legitimate self-defence under international law. ‘Opera-tion Sindoor’ was not a war of conquest, but a calibrated military action in response to grave provocations. India’s armed forces acted with precision, restraint and respect for civilian lives. No civilian infrastructure was targeted, and escalation thresholds were consciously managed. We could have escalated to attempt achieving loftier aims, which clearly would have led to a long spiral and related nuclear risk.

Predictably, Pakistan is already mounting a counter-narrative — portraying India as the aggressor, claiming violations of sovereignty, and appealing to the Islamic world by framing the conflict in communal terms. Where Pakis-tan invokes victimhood, India must invoke justice. Where Pakistan cries aggre-ssion, India must calmly point to evidence. The goal is to expose Pakistan's policies and protect India's right to defend itself.

For the first time in decades, India has a chance to reset the global perception of its role in regional security. The campaign must be continuous and not a one-off effort. India’s democratic strength, moral clarity, and strategic maturity can no longer be ignored. This is how democracies defend themselves — with unity at home, clarity abroad, and confidence in their cause.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, is a former GOC of the Srinagar-based 15 (‘Chinar’) Corps