Hakikat ve Hikmet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15,534
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
When Allah-u Azimushshan honors someone he can't be dishonored, when HE dishonors someone he can't be honored...
Feb 2019 Battle: How India Lost Battle, Worldwide Humiliated and Surprised by Pakistan
- Thread starter Asian.Century
- Start date
SABRE
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
It is my strong belief that is not the case with the majority of BD's Musalmaan population. In fact, to call another Musalmaan a Kafir or Mushrik is strongly forbidden in Islam. Sheikh Hasina is overzealous in her words and actions to please India since India provides her with all sorts of support to ensure she continues to rule BD. I am quite sure the majority of BD's population does not adhere to her ideology. I see people from BD in London quite regularly. They are very religious and hard working people.
Hakikat ve Hikmet
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
- Messages
- 15,534
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Hence, I have used a probabilistic model!!! For the deterministic particulars are known to Allah-u Azimushshan alone...
By the by, BD folks took down "Saya-i Huda-i Zul Jelal" of the Pak national anthem, and replaced it with a song written by Tagore to commemorate the Hindu victory over the Muslims pertaining to the annulment of the "Division of Bengal". Zul Jelal El Ikram is one of the most powerful Sifat of Allah-u Azimushshan used in the Kuran-i Kerim. Now, if the majority of the BD folks are OK and happy with such blatant replacements of Hak with Ba'til, and such gross Tejavvuz on the Izzet-i Ilahi (which has no recourse for Keffara in Ahiret), it's very difficult not to question their intent in general. Both Iman and Kufr are pronounced with words and actions...
Last edited:
Ultima Thule
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 16,725
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
how sooooooooon, first your govt/DOD/IAF tell your public that all jets of IAF were accounted for, suddenly your IAF said 1 MIG-21 gown down and 1 pilot missing, as for balakot strike your Mighty IAF said we did cross Pakistani airspace and stayed 21 min then few days later IAF suddenly change its narrative and tell you that we didn't cross Pakistani airspace and used SOW (stand off weapons) and last thing that can you believes 2/2.5 gen jet can down 4.5th modern jet (F-16D), if your upgraded Bison (Mig-21) how much used advance avionics/weapons on it air-frame has its limitations like such a small dia for radar that can detect F-16 let say 70-80 Km and F-16D uses APG-68V9 which can detect 300 Km, and which advance BVR your Bison can carry Derby which has range of only 60 km, you can't used R-77 or Derby-ER because of radar on you Bison (Mig-21) whereas our F-16D uses AIM-120D which has a range of 105 Km, so your all claims BY your govt/DOD/IAF are ridiculous and just for face saving, your countries and religion believes in lies and deceptions, think logically and use commonsense @chanikyaJust chill... Soon you will know..
And GAY HYPERPOWA OF THE UNIVERSE HIND @chanikya
chanikya
BANNED
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 618
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
First of all I don't have any problem with Muslims.
Second if religion is so powerful then there should be no problems in islamic world. Right? (again I am just giving an example don't misinterpret).
I would like to discuss on technical or political views not on personal. I believe in knowledge not in bashing.how sooooooooon, first your govt/DOD/IAF tell your public that all jets of IAF were accounted for, suddenly your IAF said 1 MIG-21 gown down and 1 pilot missing, as for balakot strike your Mighty IAF said we did cross Pakistani airspace and stayed 21 min then few days later IAF suddenly change its narrative and tell you that we didn't cross Pakistani airspace and used SOW (stand off weapons) and last thing that can you believes 2/2.5 gen jet can down 4.5th modern jet (F-16D), if your upgraded Bison (Mig-21) how much used advance avionics/weapons on it air-frame has its limitations like such a small dia for radar that can detect F-16 let say 70-80 Km and F-16D uses APG-68V9 which can detect 300 Km, and which advance BVR your Bison can carry Derby which has range of only 60 km, you can't used R-77 or Derby-ER because of radar on you Bison (Mig-21) whereas our F-16D uses AIM-120D which has a range of 105 Km, so your all claims BY your govt/DOD/IAF are ridiculous and just for face saving, your countries and religion believes in lies and deceptions, think logically and use commonsense @chanikya
And GAY HYPERPOWA OF THE UNIVERSE HIND @chanikya
Ultima Thule
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 16,725
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
you are bashing in your previous post and most of this post of mine was technical not bashing you're bashing not me @chanikya
Riz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 9,162
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Unka aik WVR nissile fire hoa aor seedha F-16 ko ja laga... Jubky hamary 4 Amraams keunky China k bany they unky jets ko aik bhi laga.. Balky kaan k kareeb ja kar patakhy sa phat gay.. Hahaha
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
No proof India shot down Pakistan F-16
Rumors that the son of a Pakistani Air Marshal was shot down in his F-16 were untrue
The clash between India and Pakistan involving their respective air forces last week has led to claims and counter-claims from the two South Asian rivals. While India claimed its air force entered Pakistan air space in the early hours of February 26, Pakistan claimed a similar air attack on Indian positions a day later.
However, one claim from India has taken a bizarre turn. In response to the Pakistan air raid in the morning on February 27, Indian fighter jets gave chase as part of the air defense measures. While the Pakistan jets turned back in a matter of seconds, an Indian MiG-21 gave chase and crossed into Pakistan’s air space. It was brought down by Pakistan’s air defense surface-to-air missiles and the pilot was captured.
However, Indian Air Force (IAF) officials were quick to claim that before being shot down, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman managed to shoot down a Pakistani F-16. The IAF also put out a series of tweets claiming that an F-16 had been shot down.
Did India down an F-16?
However, by March 1, rumors started flying that Abhinandan had shot down a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) pilot named Shahaz-ud-Din, who was from 19 Squadron, also known as the sher-dils, or lion-hearted. On March 2, FirstPost, a well-known Indian news website, published a story written by consulting editor Praveen Swami, claiming: “The news that Shahaz-ud-Din’s plane was shot down was first reported by London-based lawyer Khalid Umar, who says he received it privately, from individuals related to the F-16 pilot’s family.”
Quoting Umar’s Facebook post, Swami also reported that the pilot had ejected “possibly in the Laam Valley” and had been mistaken for an Indian pilot by locals on the ground. They allegedly lynched him, and Swami wrote that “Shahaz-ud-Din, Umar has claimed, was hospitalized, but succumbed to his injuries.”
Swami also claimed that both the downed pilots, Varthaman and Shahaz-d-Din, were sons of Air Marshals in the IAF and PAF. “Shahaz-ud-Din’s father, Waseem-ud-Din, is also an Air Marshal of the Pakistan Air Force, who has flown F-16 and Mirages,” he wrote.
However, an investigation by Asia Times revealed that while Air Marshal Wasimuddin did serve in the PAF before retiring, he did not have a son named Shahaz-ud-Din.
Non-existent pilot
Air Marshal Wasimuddin has two sons, Aleem Uddin and Waqar Uddin. Waqar is studying in Warwickshire in the United Kingdom, while Aleem, who has studied at Royal Holloway, the University of London, works in the telecom sector.
“I have only two sons and neither of them has been a part of the PAF, nor has either ever flown a plane,” he said. “I have not considered any legal action [against the Indian media reports]. I actually laughed them off. My sons have been abroad for years. Unfortunately, they have been needlessly dragged into all this,” Wasimuddin said.
Air Marshal Wasimuddin (center) with his son Waqar (left) and Aseem. Photo: Courtesy Kunwar Khuldune Shahid/Asia Times
PAF officials confirmed that the retired air marshal had been asked to record a video as a rebuttal to claims in the India media. However, Wasimuddin said he wanted to avoid it because he did not want any undue attention on him or his family given the current crisis.
This raises a set of bigger questions.
If there is no “Wing Commander Shahaz-ud-Din” in the PAF, then who was piloting the F-16 that was allegedly shot down by the IAF? Or did the IAf really shoot down an F-16?
Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail is a former F-16 fighter pilot in the PAF and the author of Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force, a seminal book on its wartime history. He believes the Indian claim has no merit.
“It is relatively easy to provide incontrovertible evidence for such a kill by the IAF,” Tufail told Asia Times in several text messages in response to queries. “The MiG-21 pilot should have been in touch with his fighter controller on the ground. Also, the other Indian fighter aircraft engaging the PAF fighter jets would have been monitoring the situation. They would have the data that can prove if an F-16 was shot down. Why isn’t India releasing that data?”
“The trace of the ground and airborne radar scope is always recorded, and usually, all radars preserve this for up to 72 hours, before being overwritten,” he said. “These traces can easily provide the incoming aircraft. And the sudden disappearance of the blip from the (radar) scope of this incoming aircraft will imply a ‘kill.’ There couldn’t be better evidence than this.”
“The IAF can (also) provide audio recording(s) of the interception in which the (MiG-21) pilot must have transmitted to his flight controller. There would be ‘radar contact,’ ‘visual contact,’ target shot down.’ These recordings should be available with the ground radar as well as the airborne radar that was flying that day,” he added.
Indians lost face?
Asia Times spoke to multiple IAF fighter pilots both serving and retired to ascertain their version of events. Most agreed with Air Commodore Tufail’s analysis of the sequence of events.
“It is true that the MiG-21 pilot would have had made some recordings of the air engagement, both audio and video,” a former IAF fighter pilot said on condition of anonymity. “Right from the 1970s, MiG-21s had cameras in the gun and missile pods. Any launch is recorded and if there are any ‘kills’ it should have been recorded. This should also be available in the on-board avionics. But the Pakistanis have it now,” he said.
“However, even a radio transmission, as well as data from the Airborne Early Warning (AEW) that had taken off when the first PAF fighters were detected, should have some data, including the loss of a radar blip, if the MiG-21 had shot it down. Even Wing Commander Abhinandan’s radio transmissions should be available and we can check them to see if he did report a ‘kill’ before going down,” the Indian fighter pilot said.
Some IAF officials privately feel the loss of the MiG-21 was a major “loss of face.” Even though Wing Commander Abhinandan “displayed high professional acumen and took on an F-16 in his MiG-21, the fact that we lost it was very embarrassing a day after we took out a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror camp deep inside Pakistan,” another senior IAF official told Asia Times.
A former IAF fighter pilot told Asia Times that unlike past analogous radars, the present Synthetic Display Radars (SDR) were incapable of distinguishing between aircraft. “The SDR would not be in a position to tell whether it was an F-16 or not. But the other data would have definitely recorded an F-16 ‘kill’ by the MiG-21.”
Confusing statements
What added to the confusion was Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Major General Asif Ghafoor’s press conference on Wednesday, where he mentioned that Pakistan had captured two Indian pilots. One was Wing Commander Varthaman and the other was taken to the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) after being severely injured.
That claim came after Ghafoor’s initial tweet suggested there were actually three Indian pilots on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control. This was also reported by prime minister Imran Khan in his address to the National Assembly.
Much later Ghafoor said only one pilot was in Pakistani custody. PAF officials told Asia Times they were planning a display of all their fighter jets for neutral observers as evidence that none of their aircraft had been taken down by the IAF.
According to a Pakistani official, on condition of anonymity, F-16s had indeed been used to strike targets inside Indian territory. “I don’t know why [Asif Ghafoor] said that. Perhaps it would’ve been better if an air force person was dealing with the briefing. Even if somebody had asked him [about the F-16s] during the presser it would’ve been best to say something open-ended and not something as categorical as what he said,” the official said.
Analysts think one of the reasons behind Ghafoor’s statement could be to address concerns by the American State Department over the use of US-made F-16 fighter jets.
While Indian officials have showcased parts of an AMRAAM missile as evidence that Pakistan did use an American-made F-16, PAF officials say that part of the missile being discovered was ‘conclusive evidence’ that the Pakistan jets were not shot down.
“AMRAAM only goes with the F-16, but what the Indians don’t seem to realize is how the AMRAAM got there. There’s a reason why no debris of the jet has been recovered and only the remains of the missile have been found,” said Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, a former PAF F-16 fighter pilot.
An Indian Airforce officer stated, “When a missile hits a jet it breaks down into small pieces just like the aircraft it targets – it doesn’t vaporize. If it doesn’t hit the target, its rocket fuel finishes in 20-25 seconds, and it just falls down on the ground intact. So the fact that an AMRAAM piece was recovered proves that the F-16 did strike a target.”
Meanwhile, locals on the ground reiterated that no Pakistani pilot bailed out along with Wing Commander Varthaman. “Only the Indian pilot landed here, and while the locals initially did try to physically harm him, he was protected by Pakistan Army officials. There was no Pakistani pilot who parachuted along with him, let alone being killed by a mob,” Fiaz Mahmood, a local businessman in the Bhimber district of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, told Asia Times.
The episode has raised several questions about India’s deteriorating military capabilities due its faulty procurement policies and lack of political will. Last year India’s Vice-Chief of Army Staff told Parliament’s standing committee on defense that the Narendra Modi government’s financial squeeze had left the forces bereft of funds.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/no-proof-india-shot-down-pakistan-f-16/
Rumors that the son of a Pakistani Air Marshal was shot down in his F-16 were untrue
The clash between India and Pakistan involving their respective air forces last week has led to claims and counter-claims from the two South Asian rivals. While India claimed its air force entered Pakistan air space in the early hours of February 26, Pakistan claimed a similar air attack on Indian positions a day later.
However, one claim from India has taken a bizarre turn. In response to the Pakistan air raid in the morning on February 27, Indian fighter jets gave chase as part of the air defense measures. While the Pakistan jets turned back in a matter of seconds, an Indian MiG-21 gave chase and crossed into Pakistan’s air space. It was brought down by Pakistan’s air defense surface-to-air missiles and the pilot was captured.
However, Indian Air Force (IAF) officials were quick to claim that before being shot down, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman managed to shoot down a Pakistani F-16. The IAF also put out a series of tweets claiming that an F-16 had been shot down.
Did India down an F-16?
However, by March 1, rumors started flying that Abhinandan had shot down a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) pilot named Shahaz-ud-Din, who was from 19 Squadron, also known as the sher-dils, or lion-hearted. On March 2, FirstPost, a well-known Indian news website, published a story written by consulting editor Praveen Swami, claiming: “The news that Shahaz-ud-Din’s plane was shot down was first reported by London-based lawyer Khalid Umar, who says he received it privately, from individuals related to the F-16 pilot’s family.”
Quoting Umar’s Facebook post, Swami also reported that the pilot had ejected “possibly in the Laam Valley” and had been mistaken for an Indian pilot by locals on the ground. They allegedly lynched him, and Swami wrote that “Shahaz-ud-Din, Umar has claimed, was hospitalized, but succumbed to his injuries.”
Swami also claimed that both the downed pilots, Varthaman and Shahaz-d-Din, were sons of Air Marshals in the IAF and PAF. “Shahaz-ud-Din’s father, Waseem-ud-Din, is also an Air Marshal of the Pakistan Air Force, who has flown F-16 and Mirages,” he wrote.
However, an investigation by Asia Times revealed that while Air Marshal Wasimuddin did serve in the PAF before retiring, he did not have a son named Shahaz-ud-Din.
Non-existent pilot
Air Marshal Wasimuddin has two sons, Aleem Uddin and Waqar Uddin. Waqar is studying in Warwickshire in the United Kingdom, while Aleem, who has studied at Royal Holloway, the University of London, works in the telecom sector.
“I have only two sons and neither of them has been a part of the PAF, nor has either ever flown a plane,” he said. “I have not considered any legal action [against the Indian media reports]. I actually laughed them off. My sons have been abroad for years. Unfortunately, they have been needlessly dragged into all this,” Wasimuddin said.
Air Marshal Wasimuddin (center) with his son Waqar (left) and Aseem. Photo: Courtesy Kunwar Khuldune Shahid/Asia Times
PAF officials confirmed that the retired air marshal had been asked to record a video as a rebuttal to claims in the India media. However, Wasimuddin said he wanted to avoid it because he did not want any undue attention on him or his family given the current crisis.
This raises a set of bigger questions.
If there is no “Wing Commander Shahaz-ud-Din” in the PAF, then who was piloting the F-16 that was allegedly shot down by the IAF? Or did the IAf really shoot down an F-16?
Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail is a former F-16 fighter pilot in the PAF and the author of Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force, a seminal book on its wartime history. He believes the Indian claim has no merit.
“It is relatively easy to provide incontrovertible evidence for such a kill by the IAF,” Tufail told Asia Times in several text messages in response to queries. “The MiG-21 pilot should have been in touch with his fighter controller on the ground. Also, the other Indian fighter aircraft engaging the PAF fighter jets would have been monitoring the situation. They would have the data that can prove if an F-16 was shot down. Why isn’t India releasing that data?”
“The trace of the ground and airborne radar scope is always recorded, and usually, all radars preserve this for up to 72 hours, before being overwritten,” he said. “These traces can easily provide the incoming aircraft. And the sudden disappearance of the blip from the (radar) scope of this incoming aircraft will imply a ‘kill.’ There couldn’t be better evidence than this.”
“The IAF can (also) provide audio recording(s) of the interception in which the (MiG-21) pilot must have transmitted to his flight controller. There would be ‘radar contact,’ ‘visual contact,’ target shot down.’ These recordings should be available with the ground radar as well as the airborne radar that was flying that day,” he added.
Indians lost face?
Asia Times spoke to multiple IAF fighter pilots both serving and retired to ascertain their version of events. Most agreed with Air Commodore Tufail’s analysis of the sequence of events.
“It is true that the MiG-21 pilot would have had made some recordings of the air engagement, both audio and video,” a former IAF fighter pilot said on condition of anonymity. “Right from the 1970s, MiG-21s had cameras in the gun and missile pods. Any launch is recorded and if there are any ‘kills’ it should have been recorded. This should also be available in the on-board avionics. But the Pakistanis have it now,” he said.
“However, even a radio transmission, as well as data from the Airborne Early Warning (AEW) that had taken off when the first PAF fighters were detected, should have some data, including the loss of a radar blip, if the MiG-21 had shot it down. Even Wing Commander Abhinandan’s radio transmissions should be available and we can check them to see if he did report a ‘kill’ before going down,” the Indian fighter pilot said.
Some IAF officials privately feel the loss of the MiG-21 was a major “loss of face.” Even though Wing Commander Abhinandan “displayed high professional acumen and took on an F-16 in his MiG-21, the fact that we lost it was very embarrassing a day after we took out a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror camp deep inside Pakistan,” another senior IAF official told Asia Times.
A former IAF fighter pilot told Asia Times that unlike past analogous radars, the present Synthetic Display Radars (SDR) were incapable of distinguishing between aircraft. “The SDR would not be in a position to tell whether it was an F-16 or not. But the other data would have definitely recorded an F-16 ‘kill’ by the MiG-21.”
Confusing statements
What added to the confusion was Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Major General Asif Ghafoor’s press conference on Wednesday, where he mentioned that Pakistan had captured two Indian pilots. One was Wing Commander Varthaman and the other was taken to the Combined Military Hospital (CMH) after being severely injured.
That claim came after Ghafoor’s initial tweet suggested there were actually three Indian pilots on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control. This was also reported by prime minister Imran Khan in his address to the National Assembly.
Much later Ghafoor said only one pilot was in Pakistani custody. PAF officials told Asia Times they were planning a display of all their fighter jets for neutral observers as evidence that none of their aircraft had been taken down by the IAF.
According to a Pakistani official, on condition of anonymity, F-16s had indeed been used to strike targets inside Indian territory. “I don’t know why [Asif Ghafoor] said that. Perhaps it would’ve been better if an air force person was dealing with the briefing. Even if somebody had asked him [about the F-16s] during the presser it would’ve been best to say something open-ended and not something as categorical as what he said,” the official said.
Analysts think one of the reasons behind Ghafoor’s statement could be to address concerns by the American State Department over the use of US-made F-16 fighter jets.
While Indian officials have showcased parts of an AMRAAM missile as evidence that Pakistan did use an American-made F-16, PAF officials say that part of the missile being discovered was ‘conclusive evidence’ that the Pakistan jets were not shot down.
“AMRAAM only goes with the F-16, but what the Indians don’t seem to realize is how the AMRAAM got there. There’s a reason why no debris of the jet has been recovered and only the remains of the missile have been found,” said Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, a former PAF F-16 fighter pilot.
An Indian Airforce officer stated, “When a missile hits a jet it breaks down into small pieces just like the aircraft it targets – it doesn’t vaporize. If it doesn’t hit the target, its rocket fuel finishes in 20-25 seconds, and it just falls down on the ground intact. So the fact that an AMRAAM piece was recovered proves that the F-16 did strike a target.”
Meanwhile, locals on the ground reiterated that no Pakistani pilot bailed out along with Wing Commander Varthaman. “Only the Indian pilot landed here, and while the locals initially did try to physically harm him, he was protected by Pakistan Army officials. There was no Pakistani pilot who parachuted along with him, let alone being killed by a mob,” Fiaz Mahmood, a local businessman in the Bhimber district of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, told Asia Times.
The episode has raised several questions about India’s deteriorating military capabilities due its faulty procurement policies and lack of political will. Last year India’s Vice-Chief of Army Staff told Parliament’s standing committee on defense that the Narendra Modi government’s financial squeeze had left the forces bereft of funds.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/no-proof-india-shot-down-pakistan-f-16/
American Pakistani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 15,374
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Maybe you as an individual don't but majority of your country men do. And the easiest way of revenge is Muslim increasing their population. The way they must be thinking right now, only a fellow Muslim can understand not you, their population increase is due to the strong revenge desires.
Muslim world have population because they didn't build up their defenses in the past and are now paying for international game.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Credibility and safeguarding truth is the first thing a nation's character is known, losing aircrafts is not a big point in a skirmish battle, what the world, USA and Pakistan laughs, looks down on and makes a big joke about is, everyone now knows IAF losses and India's actual claims, yet keep lying flat like a broken record. Pakistan has dented India's credibility, its exposed Indian media and political government. Made a world-wide crap about a 1.2 billion Indians by hitting the Indian's narrowed minded Chanakya psyche.
The more truth India hides, and the more cover-ups it makes, it keeps destroying the leftover little credibility of the biggest democracy. India hides a couple of jets downed, a helicopter down, unsuccessful balakot strike and false claims of F16 shot down, while every proofs and imagery exposes Indian claims....its even can not defend its claims properly.
In-fact it has battered international image of India badly. Indians look narrow minded and naive.
Look at Russia when its jet was shot by Turkey, it was not hidden/covered up but Russia actually admitted it and came out loud to take revenge of it. India on the other hand is total opposite, a laughing lying clown in world.
The more truth India hides, and the more cover-ups it makes, it keeps destroying the leftover little credibility of the biggest democracy. India hides a couple of jets downed, a helicopter down, unsuccessful balakot strike and false claims of F16 shot down, while every proofs and imagery exposes Indian claims....its even can not defend its claims properly.
In-fact it has battered international image of India badly. Indians look narrow minded and naive.
Look at Russia when its jet was shot by Turkey, it was not hidden/covered up but Russia actually admitted it and came out loud to take revenge of it. India on the other hand is total opposite, a laughing lying clown in world.
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
That "soon" unfortunately for you will never come.Haha funny one..
Just chill... Soon you will know..
vi-va
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
India diplomacy during Indo-Pak Feb 2019 Battle is a disaster. Modi can fool Indians for 1-2 terms, but the whole world are laughing at India.
The world and its media is slapping india
Pakistan has little to do with it
We Chinese media had quite a lot of fun when we see the captured pilot video. Thank you, PAF.
and also thanks to the locals who chased after him.Modi eager for the votes desperately.
crankthatskunk
BANNED
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
The Pulwama attack on 14 February 2019 not only led to the deaths of 40 Indian paramilitary personnel but also lobbed Pakistan and India into yet another narrative war – and more ominously, the potential of a real one. Before any investigation was conducted, the Indian military, political leadership, and media began a jingoistic propaganda offensive against their neighbour – stating that Pakistan was behind the attack. Soon after the Pulwama attack, Pakistan and Indian fighter jets were embroiled in a dogfight (details ahead) in which Pakistan destroyed two Indian jets and subsequently captured one pilot, Abhinandan (now released). The article examines the unfolding narrative war brought forth by these events. It primarily deliberates on the role of both countries’ media in said narrative war. The article highlights the distorted and false claims that the Indian media disseminated fervently – their unobjectivity, antagonism, and falsities stemmedfrom the hostility exemplified by their government and military. This aggression was contrasted by the Pakistan media’s focus on objectivity (for the most part), and relatively calmer approach – this stemmed from Imran Khan and the military’s reliance on impartiality, facts, and restraint. As the dust settled, reputable international media outlets who were the de facto adjudicators of this war judged in favour of Pakistan’s official and media narrative to the dismay of New Delhi.
Indian Media & Narrative
The Indian media has a storied propensity for being acrimonious and dispelling exaggerated, distorted, and even false news stories. This is emphatically true in relation to its neighbour, Pakistan. Indian news outlets in their greed to be the first ones to break stores, on many occasions, neglect to fact-check them. For example, in 2017, India Today’s Hindi channel, Aaj Tak, ineffably reported that a fatwa had been issued in Saudi Arabia that men could eat their wives if they were hungry.
The obnoxiously loud anchors and analysts during prime time become even more conspicuous if the news isin relation to Pakistan. Shouting to the audience as if they are hard of hearing, dramatic deliveries of what is supposed to be news, fear mongering, and jingoism are their modus operandi. It is an obsession, which draws massive ratings and revenue for them as it gravitates the Indian masses towards their TV sets. Although, one could label these Bollywood-esque theatrics as innocuous, the hyperbole and outright lying against Pakistan and Muslims is particularly worrisome. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim sentiment has erupted since Modi and his RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) affiliated BJP came into power.
Commenting on the Pulwama attack, documentary filmmaker, Sanjay Kak, observes, “Every time an incident like this happens, before the government can respond, before the army can respond, before the military responds, the media immediately jumps the gun, asking for war.” Although, his assertions are valid, but when the government and military did have a chance to respond, they in perennial fashion blamed Pakistan without any investigation. After the Pulwama incident, Al Jazzera conducted a report on the Indian media and noted that especially during prime time, the media “descends into unjournalistic ranting”. For example, after the attack, a popular Indian anchor, Arnab Goswami of Republic TV, proudly said to his viewers, “India wants Pakistan punished. Like you I also want Pakistan punished”. Other anchors were miming similar statements causing a surge in anti-Pakistan sentiments across India. Associate professor, Rohit Chopra, states, “With the exception of a few sane voices, what you have is a completely absurd and very dangerous competitive jingoism that’s perennially on display from all these anchors”. Citing how India’s “media is war-crazy”, Mumbai-based journalist, Vaishnavi Chandrashekhar, writes that after the Pulwama attack, the media was “trading journalistic responsibility for tabloid hysterics”. The Indian media tried its best to link Pakistan to Pulwama – they wanted something to gain traction. However, their rushed approach embarrassed them on a myriad of occasions. For example, they claimed Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, a Pakistani cleric who died in 2007, was the mastermind of the attack. Furthermore, media outlets such as India Today, ranted that Rasheed was killed by the Indian army after Pulwama attack, which would be quite a feat. The Indian media and anchors beating on their war drums, became louder and more assertive, clamouring for revenge against a crime that Pakistan had not been implicated of.
This call was answered by the ultra-nationalistic BJP when they launched a “surgical strike” by invading Pakistan’s airspace. They claimed that a terror base was destroyed near Balakot – and with it, 300 or so terrorists were killed. Pakistan agreed that its airspace was violated by Indian jets, however, it apprised that no “terror base” was destroyed and barring from four trees and one injured man, there was no casualty (details ahead). Adopting the Indian official narrative, the Indian media outlets went hysterical with pride and made sure to inculcate this sentiment among its viewership. One news anchor, Gaurav Sawant, tweeted that India should “Strike again & again”. The sanctimonious Indian media in an attempt to validate the “surgical strike” narrative propagated a video of a jet flying as evidence of India’s attack –channels like CNN News 18 ran this footage. Their exuberance was misguided again as the footage, ironically, was of a Pakistani jet flying over Islamabad around 3 years back. Rather than publicly apologising for such sub-standard and yellow journalism, the Indian propaganda machine continued to disseminate animosity and unfounded allegations. The Indian media also began passing off a video game’s footage as the alleged strike on the terror camp. Fortunately, there are some reputable Indian media outlets and fact checkers that did their job and reported that this was from a video game.
Shortly after the Indian incursion into Pakistan’s airspace, the international media shot down the Indian rhetoric. According to the New York Times, the Pakistani narrative was substantiated by two Western security officials and military analysts, who noticed that any terror base in Balakot had long dispersed. Washington Post noted that according to reports from local residents and police officers there was a strike but no signs of mass casualties. The Guardian stated, “The attack was celebrated in India, but it was unclear on Tuesday whether anything significant had been struck by the fighter jets, or whether the operation had been carefully calibrated to ease popular anger over the 14 February suicide bombing…”. Reuters interviewed some local residents about casualties; one of them, Abdur Rasheed, said, “No one died. Only some pine trees died, they were cut down. A crow also died.” Reuters even interviewed a hospital official, Mr Sadique, in the Basic Health Unit, Jaba – he stated, “It is just a lie. It is rubbish. We didn’t receive even a single injured person. Only one person got slightly hurt and he was treated there. Even he wasn’t brought here.” Questions such as “where did the bodies go if there were 300 casualties?” and “where are the destroyed buildings?” proved to negate the Indian state and media’s narrative. The New York Times reported that the Indian side provided no visual evidence of the strikes, while the Pakistani military provided pictures from Balakot showing not much damage. High-resolution satellite images provided by San Francisco-based company, Planet Labs, further revealed to the world that the buildings that were “targeted” were still standing – no scorching or holes or other indicators of an aerial assault were identified. In fact, the satellite images and other evidence provided by Pakistan and the international media has even shown the light to some segments of the Indian media. For example, vis-à-vis the satellite images, The Economic Times (India) reports “The images cast further doubt on statements made over the last eight days by the Indian government of prime minister Narendra Modi…”. Even opposition parties who were supportive of the Indian government initially are now feverishly stating that Modi has provided no proof of any strike.
After the faux surgical strike, Pakistan launched an aerial retaliation, which was previously announced by the Armed Forces, in which fighters locked on to several Indian targets but chose to fire in an empty field to avoid any loss of life. Immediately after this, Pakistani and Indian jets faced each other in a dogfight – the Pakistanis show down two Indian jetsin Pakistani airspace, one of which’s pilot was captured by the country. India conversely acknowledged that they lost a singularMiG-21 Bison and the pilot was in Pakistani hands – but stated that India also downed a Pakistani F-16. Pakistan claimed this as false and asserted that it lost no jets. The international media again heavily leaned towards the Pakistani assertions as India could not provide any proof of their claims while Pakistan did. Pakistan captured the MiG-21’s pilot, wing commander Abhinandan and showed footage of his downed jet – this was more than enough proof to the world that Pakistan was stating facts and won the dogfight. Vis-a-vis the Indian claims that it downed a Pakistani F-16, they were proven to be bogus. Pakistani and Indian Air Force officers (retired and serving) were sceptical that India shot down an F-16 citing that easily accessible evidence such as Abhinandan’s radio transmissions to flight controller, loss of radar blip, and video recording(s) of air-engagement had not been provided. Furthermore, while analysing the Indian media’s picture and video evidence of the alleged downed F-16, it was revealed that the exhaust shown was consistent with an R-25 engine found on a MiG. During a live TV show, an Indian anchor clamoured to the audience and an Indian analyst that the pictures he was displaying were of the downed Pakistani F-16. This immediately backfired when the Indian analyst stated, “I do not think that it is entirely accurate. That part is actually a MiG-21 part.” Moreover, the service hatch on the wreckage showed a “CU” format serial number written, which is used on Indian upgraded MiG-21’s.Quite recently, American scholar, Christine Fair, who is known to be very vocal against Pakistan, stated at the Indian hosted Military Literature Festival in Chandigarh “I say this clearly with 100% certitude that there was no F-16 struck down.I do not believe you did. I believe that my bonafides as a critic of Pakistan stand for itself”. The reason the Indians “needed” there to be a downed F-16 was to save face or otherwise its military capabilities would be exposed. The latter is exactly what transpired – a Foreign Policy article remarked that the dilapidated state of the Indian Air Force was reinforced when Pakistan came out victorious in the dogfight. The New York Times also spelled tragedy for the Indian government and media as it commented that due to Pakistan’s victory over India, questions arise regarding its “vintage” military.
Vis-à-vis the captured pilot, wing commander Abhinandan, even he took a major jab at the Indian media. Before leaving Pakistan, he regretted that the “Indian media always stretches the truth. The smallest of things are presented in a very incendiary manner and people get misled.” Overall, the Indian media, without conducting any research of its own, only mimicked whatever the government told them and ignored any objective voice.
Pakistani Media &Narrative
The Pakistani media is certainly not renowned in the world as the most objective or professional. It feels that their immaturity is on display perennially. Like their Indian counterparts, they too have elements of cheap Bollywood theatrics, overly loud newscasters, and journalists biased towards a specific political party. Their theatrics and unprofessional behaviour include confronting families of victims who died in fresh terror attacks, as well as playing funny background music as a politician slips or forgets what to say. Regrettably and astonishingly, Pakistan has more news channels than entertainment ones. In fact, the news and political discussions have become a form of entertainment for the public and since competition is fierce, this leads to copious amounts of sensationalism and yellow journalism. However, compared to the Indian media, they are not as malevolent, are much calmer, and the jingoism is much more reserved. In Pakistan, none of the media houses promote anti-Indian sentiments as policy, however, conversely, all Indian ones target Pakistan maliciously.
When Indian channels called for violence against Pakistan due to the Pulwama attackand later celebrated the fake “surgical strike 2.0”, the Pakistani media became unhinged. Not to be outdone by its neighbour, the Pakistani media began shouting back and regrettably started to resemble what the Indian media is mostly criticized of. This by no way means that the Pakistani media was as bellicose as India’s but concurrently it was nowhere near an internationally accepted standard of journalism. As one commentator put it, “Don’t get me wrong, the Pakistani talking heads on TV haven’t been showing some sort of graceful etiquette; they just look better in comparison [to India].” Pakistani and Indian media, unlike reputable international media houses, are inherently sentimental and let their feelings of patriotism seep into their reporting – especially in high-tension scenarios. However, unlike the Indians, the Pakistani media generally does not rant on why it should “punish” or “invade” India, even when the BJP-run government has followed a policy of isolating Pakistan and has turned Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into a battlefield. BJP and Modi have become globally condemned due to their human rights abuses of thousands of Kashmiris, as well as more recently their abrogation of J&K’s special autonomous status which has led to an ongoing curfew and media blackout in the region that has lasted over 100 days. Due to these crimes and the abhorrent conditions faced by other Muslims and minorities in India, the Pakistani media can be considered anti-BJP, but not anti-India (as most call for dialogue).
When faced against the onslaught by the Indian media vis-à-vis the Pulwama incident, the Indian incursion, and the dogfight, the Pakistani media became more hostile than its default setting and attacked India’s narrative. As tensions rose, Pakistani news was laden with “patriotism” and talk show hosts donned military uniforms to ensure there was no doubt who they were supporting. Backgrounds of jets flying and tanks firing were displayed virtually in some TV studios with anchors in the foreground talking brashly about the Pakistani Armed Forces. Indian journalist Salil Tripathi condemned both nations’ media stating “Not one of the fulminating television-news anchors exhibited the criticality demanded of their profession”. During this time, the Pakistani media became rather belligerent even if it was not turned up to full volume like India. Arguing the same, BBC correspondent, Secunder Kermani, stated that where the Indian anchors were demanding military action, Pakistani journalists “were more restrained, with many mocking what they called the ‘war mongering and hysteria’ across the border.” The preceding is true as many Pakistani anchors did try to tone down tensions and called for calm (albeit while supporting their country). A media analyst stated that in comparison, the Pakistani media played “peace monger as opposed to a war monger” role. A media outlet reported, “As opposed to the rabble-rousing, baying-for-blood Indian media, their Pakistani counterparts have been, barring certain exceptions, relatively more muted.”
When the Pulwama event unfolded, the Indian state and media (as mentioned) attacked Pakistan without any evidence. Pakistani media began by fact checking Indian claims and disproving Indian falsities around the Pulwama attack. The media scoffed and invalidated the Indian media’s claims that the already deceased Ghazi Abdul Rasheed was involved in the Pulwama attack. The Pakistani state and media narrative emphasized that the Pulwama attack was an Indian security lapse. During this time, the Pakistani media remained relatively composed. They did, however, become gaudier when India entered Pakistani airspace and claimed that 200-300 terrorists were killed, but still things remained in control. During this incident, the Pakistani media refuted that 200-300 people died by providing pictures of the bombed site that were made public by the Armed Forces’ media wing, ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations). The ISPR was in fact the raison d’être why Pakistan’s narrative was victorious with even retired Indian generals, Syed Ata and Rajesh Pant, stating that the ISPR played a masterstroke. In their ambitious endeavours to disprove Indian propaganda, some Pakistani journalists went to investigate the actual site that was bombed (Jaba, near Balakot) – a sagacious move on their part. Well-known Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif of ARY News, trekked at night with his media team and showed, live on a program, the craters where Indian bombs fell. Out of breath, he went inside one of the craters and stated, “This crater’s depth is around 4 feet and the width is around 6 feet when the Indians claim they dropped a 1,000 kilogram bomb.” As mentioned before, the Pakistani narrative was later substantiated by the international press (especially when the ISPR and the military escorted them to the bombed site). The Independent stated “The ‘300-400 terrorists’ supposedly eliminated by the Israeli-manufactured and Israeli-supplied GPS-guided bombs may turn out to be little more than rocks and trees” while villagers pointed to Reuters that besides four bomb craters and some broken pine trees, there was “little other impact from the series of explosions”.
When Pakistan retaliated the next day against the Indian incursion (which led to the dogfight), the Pakistani media began plummeting down akin to the Indian MiG. After the Pakistani military confirmed in a press conference that they downed two Indian jets, journalists present started yelling “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan). Due to the hysteria of winning the dogfight and capturing an Indian pilot, the media trapped itself several times by airing incorrect pictures and videos. India’s fact-checking website Alt News, was a breath of fresh air as they exposed fake news coming from both countries.For example, Alt News debunked a picture of a shot down plane aired by ARY News who claimed it to be the one downed by Pakistan, when it was in reality a MiG-27 that crashed into a building in India in 2016.
After capturing the pilot, the Pakistani media became conceited – craving further Indian embarrassments, they displayed fake news about the Indian Armed Forces. For example, Pakistani channel, AbbTakk, ran the news: “21 Sikh Regiment Refused To Fight For India” – claiming that Indian Sikh soldiers had refused to fight against Pakistan. The picture was photoshopped and made its way from social media to Abb Takk. There should have been an apology for running such bewildering statements but none could be found. Furthermore, a few days after the dogfight, there was huge news in Pakistan that India sacked its air marshal, Hari Kumar, when in reality he retired after a 39-year long career. The lack of investigation by some Pakistani channels in airing stories often mirrored the lack of checks-and-balances present while sharing information on social media. Besides these three examples, however, there was not much fake news circulating around unlike on the Indian side. Vis-à-vis the Indian pilot, Pakistan’s media aired the video of him sipping tea and extolling the professionalism of the Pakistani Armed Forces. This footage was obviously a feel-good moment for the country and the media and was soreplayed continuously. The pilot expressed that he was treated well and that he would not change his statement when released – which he has not still.
Conclusion
Overall, as commentators stated, the Pakistani media was not as egregious as the Indian media. The main reason for this, despite issues with unprofessionalism and some instances of fake news, was the media’s general reliance on reporting the truth regarding events unfolded. The Pakistani media shared real images of the bombed site in Jaba, went there to investigate, debunked various Indian lies, and continually perpetuated Imran Khan’s message of dialogue and peace. They came off relatively more mature due to Pakistan’s government and its armed forces (via ISPR)calling for restraint. Imran Khan even released the captured pilot as a symbol of goodwill while calling for dialogue. Furthermore, since the media relied on the Pakistani government and the ISPR’s version of the events – which were based on impartiality and facts – they came out looking more trustworthy. The reverse was true for the Indian media as their narrative was based on speculation and lies stemming from the bellicose Indian government and in reporting this version, their media was exposed ad nauseam for lying. Media analyst Adnan Rehman stated that the Pakistani officials who continuously warned against escalation inspired the “peace monger role” of the Pakistani media. While both countries’ media need drastic reforms and a professional makeover, in this war Pakistan not only downed two Indian jets, but also downed India’s biased narrative.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/02/...how-india-lost-the-narrative-war-to-pakistan/
At last, we are now making some headway to assert our narrative and taking Indians lies head on. We need to do that more often at different levels internationally.
There is lack of Pakistani narratives in the international media. For far too long Pakistan had been dwarfed by Indian's propaganda. We have to counter it. We have too many tools to do it. The facts are all in our favour, we just have to be more articulate and the world would listen to us.
Indian Media & Narrative
The Indian media has a storied propensity for being acrimonious and dispelling exaggerated, distorted, and even false news stories. This is emphatically true in relation to its neighbour, Pakistan. Indian news outlets in their greed to be the first ones to break stores, on many occasions, neglect to fact-check them. For example, in 2017, India Today’s Hindi channel, Aaj Tak, ineffably reported that a fatwa had been issued in Saudi Arabia that men could eat their wives if they were hungry.
The obnoxiously loud anchors and analysts during prime time become even more conspicuous if the news isin relation to Pakistan. Shouting to the audience as if they are hard of hearing, dramatic deliveries of what is supposed to be news, fear mongering, and jingoism are their modus operandi. It is an obsession, which draws massive ratings and revenue for them as it gravitates the Indian masses towards their TV sets. Although, one could label these Bollywood-esque theatrics as innocuous, the hyperbole and outright lying against Pakistan and Muslims is particularly worrisome. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim sentiment has erupted since Modi and his RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) affiliated BJP came into power.
Commenting on the Pulwama attack, documentary filmmaker, Sanjay Kak, observes, “Every time an incident like this happens, before the government can respond, before the army can respond, before the military responds, the media immediately jumps the gun, asking for war.” Although, his assertions are valid, but when the government and military did have a chance to respond, they in perennial fashion blamed Pakistan without any investigation. After the Pulwama incident, Al Jazzera conducted a report on the Indian media and noted that especially during prime time, the media “descends into unjournalistic ranting”. For example, after the attack, a popular Indian anchor, Arnab Goswami of Republic TV, proudly said to his viewers, “India wants Pakistan punished. Like you I also want Pakistan punished”. Other anchors were miming similar statements causing a surge in anti-Pakistan sentiments across India. Associate professor, Rohit Chopra, states, “With the exception of a few sane voices, what you have is a completely absurd and very dangerous competitive jingoism that’s perennially on display from all these anchors”. Citing how India’s “media is war-crazy”, Mumbai-based journalist, Vaishnavi Chandrashekhar, writes that after the Pulwama attack, the media was “trading journalistic responsibility for tabloid hysterics”. The Indian media tried its best to link Pakistan to Pulwama – they wanted something to gain traction. However, their rushed approach embarrassed them on a myriad of occasions. For example, they claimed Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, a Pakistani cleric who died in 2007, was the mastermind of the attack. Furthermore, media outlets such as India Today, ranted that Rasheed was killed by the Indian army after Pulwama attack, which would be quite a feat. The Indian media and anchors beating on their war drums, became louder and more assertive, clamouring for revenge against a crime that Pakistan had not been implicated of.
This call was answered by the ultra-nationalistic BJP when they launched a “surgical strike” by invading Pakistan’s airspace. They claimed that a terror base was destroyed near Balakot – and with it, 300 or so terrorists were killed. Pakistan agreed that its airspace was violated by Indian jets, however, it apprised that no “terror base” was destroyed and barring from four trees and one injured man, there was no casualty (details ahead). Adopting the Indian official narrative, the Indian media outlets went hysterical with pride and made sure to inculcate this sentiment among its viewership. One news anchor, Gaurav Sawant, tweeted that India should “Strike again & again”. The sanctimonious Indian media in an attempt to validate the “surgical strike” narrative propagated a video of a jet flying as evidence of India’s attack –channels like CNN News 18 ran this footage. Their exuberance was misguided again as the footage, ironically, was of a Pakistani jet flying over Islamabad around 3 years back. Rather than publicly apologising for such sub-standard and yellow journalism, the Indian propaganda machine continued to disseminate animosity and unfounded allegations. The Indian media also began passing off a video game’s footage as the alleged strike on the terror camp. Fortunately, there are some reputable Indian media outlets and fact checkers that did their job and reported that this was from a video game.
Shortly after the Indian incursion into Pakistan’s airspace, the international media shot down the Indian rhetoric. According to the New York Times, the Pakistani narrative was substantiated by two Western security officials and military analysts, who noticed that any terror base in Balakot had long dispersed. Washington Post noted that according to reports from local residents and police officers there was a strike but no signs of mass casualties. The Guardian stated, “The attack was celebrated in India, but it was unclear on Tuesday whether anything significant had been struck by the fighter jets, or whether the operation had been carefully calibrated to ease popular anger over the 14 February suicide bombing…”. Reuters interviewed some local residents about casualties; one of them, Abdur Rasheed, said, “No one died. Only some pine trees died, they were cut down. A crow also died.” Reuters even interviewed a hospital official, Mr Sadique, in the Basic Health Unit, Jaba – he stated, “It is just a lie. It is rubbish. We didn’t receive even a single injured person. Only one person got slightly hurt and he was treated there. Even he wasn’t brought here.” Questions such as “where did the bodies go if there were 300 casualties?” and “where are the destroyed buildings?” proved to negate the Indian state and media’s narrative. The New York Times reported that the Indian side provided no visual evidence of the strikes, while the Pakistani military provided pictures from Balakot showing not much damage. High-resolution satellite images provided by San Francisco-based company, Planet Labs, further revealed to the world that the buildings that were “targeted” were still standing – no scorching or holes or other indicators of an aerial assault were identified. In fact, the satellite images and other evidence provided by Pakistan and the international media has even shown the light to some segments of the Indian media. For example, vis-à-vis the satellite images, The Economic Times (India) reports “The images cast further doubt on statements made over the last eight days by the Indian government of prime minister Narendra Modi…”. Even opposition parties who were supportive of the Indian government initially are now feverishly stating that Modi has provided no proof of any strike.
After the faux surgical strike, Pakistan launched an aerial retaliation, which was previously announced by the Armed Forces, in which fighters locked on to several Indian targets but chose to fire in an empty field to avoid any loss of life. Immediately after this, Pakistani and Indian jets faced each other in a dogfight – the Pakistanis show down two Indian jetsin Pakistani airspace, one of which’s pilot was captured by the country. India conversely acknowledged that they lost a singularMiG-21 Bison and the pilot was in Pakistani hands – but stated that India also downed a Pakistani F-16. Pakistan claimed this as false and asserted that it lost no jets. The international media again heavily leaned towards the Pakistani assertions as India could not provide any proof of their claims while Pakistan did. Pakistan captured the MiG-21’s pilot, wing commander Abhinandan and showed footage of his downed jet – this was more than enough proof to the world that Pakistan was stating facts and won the dogfight. Vis-a-vis the Indian claims that it downed a Pakistani F-16, they were proven to be bogus. Pakistani and Indian Air Force officers (retired and serving) were sceptical that India shot down an F-16 citing that easily accessible evidence such as Abhinandan’s radio transmissions to flight controller, loss of radar blip, and video recording(s) of air-engagement had not been provided. Furthermore, while analysing the Indian media’s picture and video evidence of the alleged downed F-16, it was revealed that the exhaust shown was consistent with an R-25 engine found on a MiG. During a live TV show, an Indian anchor clamoured to the audience and an Indian analyst that the pictures he was displaying were of the downed Pakistani F-16. This immediately backfired when the Indian analyst stated, “I do not think that it is entirely accurate. That part is actually a MiG-21 part.” Moreover, the service hatch on the wreckage showed a “CU” format serial number written, which is used on Indian upgraded MiG-21’s.Quite recently, American scholar, Christine Fair, who is known to be very vocal against Pakistan, stated at the Indian hosted Military Literature Festival in Chandigarh “I say this clearly with 100% certitude that there was no F-16 struck down.I do not believe you did. I believe that my bonafides as a critic of Pakistan stand for itself”. The reason the Indians “needed” there to be a downed F-16 was to save face or otherwise its military capabilities would be exposed. The latter is exactly what transpired – a Foreign Policy article remarked that the dilapidated state of the Indian Air Force was reinforced when Pakistan came out victorious in the dogfight. The New York Times also spelled tragedy for the Indian government and media as it commented that due to Pakistan’s victory over India, questions arise regarding its “vintage” military.
Vis-à-vis the captured pilot, wing commander Abhinandan, even he took a major jab at the Indian media. Before leaving Pakistan, he regretted that the “Indian media always stretches the truth. The smallest of things are presented in a very incendiary manner and people get misled.” Overall, the Indian media, without conducting any research of its own, only mimicked whatever the government told them and ignored any objective voice.
Pakistani Media &Narrative
The Pakistani media is certainly not renowned in the world as the most objective or professional. It feels that their immaturity is on display perennially. Like their Indian counterparts, they too have elements of cheap Bollywood theatrics, overly loud newscasters, and journalists biased towards a specific political party. Their theatrics and unprofessional behaviour include confronting families of victims who died in fresh terror attacks, as well as playing funny background music as a politician slips or forgets what to say. Regrettably and astonishingly, Pakistan has more news channels than entertainment ones. In fact, the news and political discussions have become a form of entertainment for the public and since competition is fierce, this leads to copious amounts of sensationalism and yellow journalism. However, compared to the Indian media, they are not as malevolent, are much calmer, and the jingoism is much more reserved. In Pakistan, none of the media houses promote anti-Indian sentiments as policy, however, conversely, all Indian ones target Pakistan maliciously.
When Indian channels called for violence against Pakistan due to the Pulwama attackand later celebrated the fake “surgical strike 2.0”, the Pakistani media became unhinged. Not to be outdone by its neighbour, the Pakistani media began shouting back and regrettably started to resemble what the Indian media is mostly criticized of. This by no way means that the Pakistani media was as bellicose as India’s but concurrently it was nowhere near an internationally accepted standard of journalism. As one commentator put it, “Don’t get me wrong, the Pakistani talking heads on TV haven’t been showing some sort of graceful etiquette; they just look better in comparison [to India].” Pakistani and Indian media, unlike reputable international media houses, are inherently sentimental and let their feelings of patriotism seep into their reporting – especially in high-tension scenarios. However, unlike the Indians, the Pakistani media generally does not rant on why it should “punish” or “invade” India, even when the BJP-run government has followed a policy of isolating Pakistan and has turned Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into a battlefield. BJP and Modi have become globally condemned due to their human rights abuses of thousands of Kashmiris, as well as more recently their abrogation of J&K’s special autonomous status which has led to an ongoing curfew and media blackout in the region that has lasted over 100 days. Due to these crimes and the abhorrent conditions faced by other Muslims and minorities in India, the Pakistani media can be considered anti-BJP, but not anti-India (as most call for dialogue).
When faced against the onslaught by the Indian media vis-à-vis the Pulwama incident, the Indian incursion, and the dogfight, the Pakistani media became more hostile than its default setting and attacked India’s narrative. As tensions rose, Pakistani news was laden with “patriotism” and talk show hosts donned military uniforms to ensure there was no doubt who they were supporting. Backgrounds of jets flying and tanks firing were displayed virtually in some TV studios with anchors in the foreground talking brashly about the Pakistani Armed Forces. Indian journalist Salil Tripathi condemned both nations’ media stating “Not one of the fulminating television-news anchors exhibited the criticality demanded of their profession”. During this time, the Pakistani media became rather belligerent even if it was not turned up to full volume like India. Arguing the same, BBC correspondent, Secunder Kermani, stated that where the Indian anchors were demanding military action, Pakistani journalists “were more restrained, with many mocking what they called the ‘war mongering and hysteria’ across the border.” The preceding is true as many Pakistani anchors did try to tone down tensions and called for calm (albeit while supporting their country). A media analyst stated that in comparison, the Pakistani media played “peace monger as opposed to a war monger” role. A media outlet reported, “As opposed to the rabble-rousing, baying-for-blood Indian media, their Pakistani counterparts have been, barring certain exceptions, relatively more muted.”
When the Pulwama event unfolded, the Indian state and media (as mentioned) attacked Pakistan without any evidence. Pakistani media began by fact checking Indian claims and disproving Indian falsities around the Pulwama attack. The media scoffed and invalidated the Indian media’s claims that the already deceased Ghazi Abdul Rasheed was involved in the Pulwama attack. The Pakistani state and media narrative emphasized that the Pulwama attack was an Indian security lapse. During this time, the Pakistani media remained relatively composed. They did, however, become gaudier when India entered Pakistani airspace and claimed that 200-300 terrorists were killed, but still things remained in control. During this incident, the Pakistani media refuted that 200-300 people died by providing pictures of the bombed site that were made public by the Armed Forces’ media wing, ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations). The ISPR was in fact the raison d’être why Pakistan’s narrative was victorious with even retired Indian generals, Syed Ata and Rajesh Pant, stating that the ISPR played a masterstroke. In their ambitious endeavours to disprove Indian propaganda, some Pakistani journalists went to investigate the actual site that was bombed (Jaba, near Balakot) – a sagacious move on their part. Well-known Pakistani journalist, Arshad Sharif of ARY News, trekked at night with his media team and showed, live on a program, the craters where Indian bombs fell. Out of breath, he went inside one of the craters and stated, “This crater’s depth is around 4 feet and the width is around 6 feet when the Indians claim they dropped a 1,000 kilogram bomb.” As mentioned before, the Pakistani narrative was later substantiated by the international press (especially when the ISPR and the military escorted them to the bombed site). The Independent stated “The ‘300-400 terrorists’ supposedly eliminated by the Israeli-manufactured and Israeli-supplied GPS-guided bombs may turn out to be little more than rocks and trees” while villagers pointed to Reuters that besides four bomb craters and some broken pine trees, there was “little other impact from the series of explosions”.
When Pakistan retaliated the next day against the Indian incursion (which led to the dogfight), the Pakistani media began plummeting down akin to the Indian MiG. After the Pakistani military confirmed in a press conference that they downed two Indian jets, journalists present started yelling “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan). Due to the hysteria of winning the dogfight and capturing an Indian pilot, the media trapped itself several times by airing incorrect pictures and videos. India’s fact-checking website Alt News, was a breath of fresh air as they exposed fake news coming from both countries.For example, Alt News debunked a picture of a shot down plane aired by ARY News who claimed it to be the one downed by Pakistan, when it was in reality a MiG-27 that crashed into a building in India in 2016.
After capturing the pilot, the Pakistani media became conceited – craving further Indian embarrassments, they displayed fake news about the Indian Armed Forces. For example, Pakistani channel, AbbTakk, ran the news: “21 Sikh Regiment Refused To Fight For India” – claiming that Indian Sikh soldiers had refused to fight against Pakistan. The picture was photoshopped and made its way from social media to Abb Takk. There should have been an apology for running such bewildering statements but none could be found. Furthermore, a few days after the dogfight, there was huge news in Pakistan that India sacked its air marshal, Hari Kumar, when in reality he retired after a 39-year long career. The lack of investigation by some Pakistani channels in airing stories often mirrored the lack of checks-and-balances present while sharing information on social media. Besides these three examples, however, there was not much fake news circulating around unlike on the Indian side. Vis-à-vis the Indian pilot, Pakistan’s media aired the video of him sipping tea and extolling the professionalism of the Pakistani Armed Forces. This footage was obviously a feel-good moment for the country and the media and was soreplayed continuously. The pilot expressed that he was treated well and that he would not change his statement when released – which he has not still.
Conclusion
Overall, as commentators stated, the Pakistani media was not as egregious as the Indian media. The main reason for this, despite issues with unprofessionalism and some instances of fake news, was the media’s general reliance on reporting the truth regarding events unfolded. The Pakistani media shared real images of the bombed site in Jaba, went there to investigate, debunked various Indian lies, and continually perpetuated Imran Khan’s message of dialogue and peace. They came off relatively more mature due to Pakistan’s government and its armed forces (via ISPR)calling for restraint. Imran Khan even released the captured pilot as a symbol of goodwill while calling for dialogue. Furthermore, since the media relied on the Pakistani government and the ISPR’s version of the events – which were based on impartiality and facts – they came out looking more trustworthy. The reverse was true for the Indian media as their narrative was based on speculation and lies stemming from the bellicose Indian government and in reporting this version, their media was exposed ad nauseam for lying. Media analyst Adnan Rehman stated that the Pakistani officials who continuously warned against escalation inspired the “peace monger role” of the Pakistani media. While both countries’ media need drastic reforms and a professional makeover, in this war Pakistan not only downed two Indian jets, but also downed India’s biased narrative.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/02/...how-india-lost-the-narrative-war-to-pakistan/
At last, we are now making some headway to assert our narrative and taking Indians lies head on. We need to do that more often at different levels internationally.
There is lack of Pakistani narratives in the international media. For far too long Pakistan had been dwarfed by Indian's propaganda. We have to counter it. We have too many tools to do it. The facts are all in our favour, we just have to be more articulate and the world would listen to us.
Chhatrapati
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 11,579
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Congrats on winning narrative if it's worth anything.
Similar threads
- Article
