The nature of conflict in South Asia has changed. Power is no longer counted merely in boots on the ground, barrels of guns, or lines on a map, but by the ability to shape how events are understood.
In this environment, India has moved decisively to treat information not as commentary, but as a strategic use, a strategic asset in its own right.
The messaging command
At the centre of this effort is the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR) under India’s Ministry of Defence. Officially described as a communication office, DPR, in practice, operates as a centralised system for strategic messaging and perception management.
It does not simply tell India’s story: it decides which story will be told, when, and how. Its role extends beyond informing the public to actively framing how India’s military actions, intentions, and regional posture are perceived at home and abroad.
Structurally, DPR resembles a permanent command rather than a conventional press office. Headquartered in New Delhi, supported by around 25 regional offices, and reinforced by service-aligned units within the Army, Navy, and Air Force, it allows India to speak with one voice across platforms and crises. In moments of friction, this unity ensures that no mixed signals slip through the cracks. Its workforce, running into the thousands, includes media professionals, digital specialists, analysts, and support staff, reflecting how seriously information is treated as an operational domain.
Managing the narrative
Operationally, this machinery goes far beyond press releases. It produces high-quality military exercise videos, runs coordinated social media campaigns, engages influencers, hosts foreign journalists, and monitors opposing narratives in real time. Nothing is left to chance; the information space is managed inch by inch. During moments of tension, this enables India to move first in the information space, setting the tempo and framing the chessboard before alternative perspectives are fully heard.
Supporting this structure is a network of defence-oriented think tanks, including Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS), Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), and the National Maritime Foundation.
While formally independent, their research papers, seminars, and expert commentary frequently reinforce official positions. This is where the lines blur between scholarship and statecraft. This creates a reinforcing loop. State messaging gains analytical cover, media amplification follows, and narratives acquire the appearance of objective consensus.
Cinema as amplifier
Alongside official institutions, India’s perception management benefits from a powerful cultural amplifier, Bollywood. As one of the world’s largest film industries, its influence extends far beyond entertainment, shaping emotional narratives about heroism, victimhood, and national identity across global audiences.
Films centred on military, intelligence, and security themes increasingly mirror state framings, merging fiction with policy outcomes, and embedding political assumptions within popular culture rather than open debate.
This matters because cultural storytelling reduces scepticism. When the heart is captured first, the mind often follows. When audiences absorb narratives emotionally through cinema, they are more likely to accept similar framings later in news coverage or political messaging.
For international viewers unfamiliar with regional complexities, fictionalised portrayals can quietly become reference points for reality. In this way, popular culture acts as a force multiplier, reinforcing official messaging without ever raising a red flag.
At its core, this combined effort is about shaping default assumptions. By ensuring its narrative is early, persistent, and emotionally resonant, India seeks to enter any future crisis with the benefit of belief already secured.
In the battle for perception, first impressions are often the last word. When one side is treated as credible by default and the other as questionable by habit, facts struggle to compete with perception.
The cost of silence
For states like Pakistan, recognising this reality is not about rivalry or grievance, but about safeguarding diplomatic space in an increasingly crowded information environment.
When narratives are shaped at scale and repeated with authority, silence is easily mistaken for weakness, and restraint risks being misread. Ensuring that responsibility, context, and proportionality are heard requires institutional clarity and timely engagement, not escalation, but coherence.
The scale of investment behind this ecosystem is revealing. Estimates suggest hundreds of millions of dollars annually are devoted to defence communication, strategic outreach, and affiliated research bodies. This is not cosmetic spending; it reflects long-term intent. It shows a clear strategic judgement. Perception management is treated as a force multiplier, supporting military and diplomatic objectives without firing a single shot.
This is not to argue that India alone shapes narratives, nor that all Indian media or cinema functions as propaganda. Information operations and cultural influence are now global realities. But to dismiss India’s dominance in this space as organic or incidental is to miss the forest for the trees, ignoring the institutional, financial, and cultural architecture sustaining it.
Narrative as power
The implication is straightforward. Ignoring the information battlefield does not preserve neutrality. It leaves the field open to those willing to occupy it. It cedes ground. In a region where narratives often travel faster than facts, strategic communication, timely engagement, and institutional coherence are essential to safeguarding national interests.
In contemporary conflict, narratives are not noise on the margins of power. They are power itself.
