Daily Times

The world has changed significantly particularly in the last five decades, and it is continuously changing with each passing day. While it has changed many concepts and ideas, it has also transformed the dynamics of conflict between conflicting states. In addition to intensifying interstate rivalry in multiple dimensions, globalization has now restricted space of acceptance for the manifestation of a conventional war. Non-Kinetic overtures particularly the Information War have taken precedence where manipulated facts and distorted data supplied to a targeted nation acts as fuel for destruction. This manipulation of information helps create an atmosphere that pushes decision-makers or residents of even the strongest of countries to take catastrophic decisions in real-time. Such decisions taken under a purposefully created environment devastate domestic stability, generate turmoil, foment trouble, or even bring about a violent revolution as a new form of dispensation for the masses. Such information warfare is far above the precept of social media strategies, although it remains one of the strategies used in this non-traditional war. The programmed distribution of news, analysis, arguments, and appeals are crafted to affect a nation’s views, emotions, and behavior. The entire focus remains on the behavior management of the masses. The decision-makers are carefully lured into making wrong and hasty decisions. Failure to perform constantly in economically difficult times by governments, especially in a country like ours, becomes an invitation by itself to internal or external conflict. Weak internal indicators such as low prosperity rate etc. become exploitable and vulnerable fault lines.

Although we traditionally remain focused on India; our neighbor, traditional foe, and the staunchest rival in the world, yet there are many others with an active focus on Pakistan. This focus became more visible after Pakistan’s nuclearization in 1999. However, the other interested hostile parties also used the Indian conduit to target Pakistan. Indian mass media, intelligence, and IT experts have already made inroads into the multinational media powerhouses as part of the well-thought-out approach. Capitalizing on success in the IT sector, domestic media, the massive film industry, and extensive foreign outreach, India aggressively propagated anti-Pakistan themes. The Indian efforts as revealed by a recent report published by Eu Disinfo Lab in the UK are just the tip of the iceberg in this regard.

It is true that in this domain of warfare, those operating in the shadows are always the winners, while those visible and struggling for relevance lose

While India and other invisible hostile entities continue with their harsh external and internal maneuvers against Pakistan, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in Pakistan could not become more than a media wing for the sitting governments with the least appeal and appetite for its content amongst the masses. It remains fixated with dressing down speeches against opposition parties, issuing political statements to score political mileage, and seems content with its insignificant role. It lacks authority and trustworthiness even at home. The Ministry could not earn trust and credibility as a reliable source of information, probably, for the reason that it could not explain or address the systemic and institutional failures and poor governance that exacerbate our vulnerabilities. Despite understanding the concepts around media onslaught, cultural invasion, it is unfortunate that overly personalized political discourse remains the only focus for the ministry while our susceptibilities such as degradation of our ideology, loss of identity, attempts to weaken the inner front through ‘Creative Chaos’ etc. are least attended by the government.

While the civil governments did not do much in this regard, the military in Pakistan understood and tried to remedy this vulnerability in time. It has done appreciably a great deal in this regard, yet the information operation is not a purely military activity though it involves a set of tactics or capabilities. It involves psychological operations, electronic warfare, and operations security, but it actually pivots around strategic communication with civil society, public diplomacy, and civil affair clusters. It incorporates civil society, corporate leaders, academics, and other influential entities from the society at large. The information operations conducted by the military mainly focus on cyberspace operations, print, and electronic media, or broadcasting of the desired communications through the same mediums. However, the communication done has a visible signature and recognizable identity of its own, thus it appeals to a particular section in society that follows/supports the military. On the other hand, the convergence of effort to defend against information war lacks between the Ministry of Information and the Military. While Social media and botnets amplify hostile messages or narratives using all elements of information to foment discord and confusion, it is only the military that seems to be fighting against the onslaught through its public relation organization. Effective public diplomacy on part of the federal government that requires strong engagement with domestic populations about its intent and conduct, by the civil government is always missed.

People have the power to adopt more quickly but their ability to be effective as they anticipate, organize and disrupt different tactics will depend on equipping them with richer information and more useful tools. The government must realize the potential of its resources and must contribute to the defense against this danger in the non-kinetic domain. Creating synergy to converge the efforts, organizing government-run media, enforcing media pluralism, and incorporating support of public service media with high professional standards could be the first stepping stone for us in this regard. Putting efforts into educational programs on media and internet literacy would be the next step. It is true that in this domain of warfare, those operating in the shadows are always the winners, while those visible and struggling for relevance lose. Thus, such strategic operations are required to be conducted in the shadows but with a great synergy of all the state institutions with all of their available capabilities and resources.

The writer is a versatile analyst and speaker on contemporary issues