“Pakistan ko sabak sikhana hoga,” thundered an anchor to millions. Studio lights flashed, graphics spun, while the blinding chyron screamed: “Destroy Pakistan. No Holding Back.” On social media platforms, hashtags like #StrikeBackIndia and #NoMoreTalks surged, mirroring the aggressive pronouncements dominating broadcast news. The aftermath of the Pahalgam attack has unleashed a torrent of jingoism, mostly led by young men, driven by a toxic mix of hyper-nationalism and a perceived need to assert dominance. This tragedy, like so many others in the past, appears to have been co-opted by those eager to beat the drums of war, drowning out voices advocating for reason and restraint. Literally following the recent trends documented by media watchdogs, Indian national news channels increasingly resemble war rooms rather than journalistic institutions. Panels, as can easily be observed these days, overflow with retired generals and voices from nationalist think tanks, effectively sidelining nuanced debate in favour of a stark binary. The rhetorical question, “Are you with the army or with the enemy?” frequently echoes in studios, a chilling tactic to silence dissenting voices on the rare occasions they are being granted airtime. We recognize this for what it is: a blatant attempt to stifle any criticism of the government’s stance or any call for peaceful dialogue. We recognize this for what it is: a blatant attempt to stifle any criticism of the Indian government’s stance or any call for peaceful dialogue. As observed in the past, clips of anchors vociferously demanding “decisive retaliation” are rapidly garnering millions of views on X. In the meantime, prominent social media influencers, many with transparent political affiliations, are churning out memes, nationalistic reels, and selectively edited news snippets day in and day out with the sole agenda to erase the complexities of the conflict. Disturbingly, and as fact-checkers often struggle to contain, AI-generated images of imagined missile strikes, recycled war footage deceptively presented as “live updates,” and outright calls for “total war” swamp timelines, further inflaming public sentiment. What we’re witnessing is a militarized meme economy. Its warfare is reduced to viral content. Reflecting a worrying pattern, peaceful dissenters, constitutional scholars, and even cautious defence analysts who might offer alternative perspectives are conspicuously absent from these dominant narratives-or swiftly branded “anti-national,” a silencing tactic frequently employed against those questioning the efficacy or morality of open conflict. To add to the misfortune, the voices of border communities, those who stand to bear the most devastating consequences in case of escalation, are very conveniently pushed to the sideline. The dismissive mantra, “Modi will answer,” effectively silences any and all crucial strategic and humanitarian considerations amidst the prevailing studio spectacle. This increasingly pervasive media climate doesn’t merely ignite public anger-as research indicates, it actively shrinks the political space for diplomacy. In an election year, where nationalistic fervour often becomes a key political currency, no politician dares to appear “soft.” Moderation, in this environment, becomes a form of political suicide. Within this self-reinforcing echo chamber, even prudent defensive postures are aggressively spun as triumphant offensive victories, and measured calls for caution are deliberately twisted into displays of cowardice. In moments where the spectre of conflict looms large, the most profoundly patriotic act should be de-escalation-a responsible call for restraint, rather than the sensationalist dramatization of potential violence. Media institutions carry a fundamental responsibility. They are the sole institution expected to reflect and critically analyze incendiary voices, not carve them as writing on the wall. Their duty links to the propagation of facts, not propaganda. Social platforms, too, must actively shoulder their burden: to flag the rampant spread of misinformation and rigorously promote verified content. The critical question that needs to be urgently addressed here is this: Years down the road, would Indian media be able to look its people in the eye and claim that it was playing its part well or look the other way and try to find some explanation for adding fuel to the fire? The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram