Censorship and the Moral Arithmetic of War

From Bletchley Park to Pahalgam, governments have long walked the tightrope between truth and silence. But history teaches that in wartime, censorship is a necessary strategy to ensure victory.

Following the deadly night skirmish between India and Pakistan after the latter launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along our western border, a deluge of disinformation has flooded social media in form of fake videos and posts that threatens to outpace even the jets scrambling on both sides of the Line of Control.

There has been a deluge of dubious videos, chest-thumping and bizarre claims and counter-claims from both sides. That said, there is a real war in all but name raging out there, the result of a barbarous strike carried out by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists who massacred 27 civilians in cold blood on April 22 in Kashmir’s scenic Pahalgam.

For India, this has been a ‘moral crusade’ to bring the perpetrators to book and prevent once and for all the murder of innocents as well as Army men by a hostile neighbour. When the Indian Army fired precision missiles across the LoC and in terror camps within Pakistan as part of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ it did so under a shroud of deliberate silence.

No media access. Only government briefings. No theatrics. The only sound was the muted thud of retribution. The deception was complete as it caught Pakistan completely napping. However, critics within India, namely a section of the so-called ‘secular’ press, have decried the Modi government’s unwarranted censorship. Well, they ought to re-visit their military history.

The hoary maxim “In war, truth is the first casualty,” is generally attributed to the Greek playwright Aeschylus, who perhaps drew this observation from his experience in the Persian wars two millennia ago.

However, India has learned hard lessons from being too transparent. In the 1962 war with China, media leaks about India’s ill-equipped, outnumbered troops hurt morale and helped Chinese propaganda. Chinese sympathies with Indian leftist parties further aided our wily opponent.

Today’s information wars are even more dangerous, given that an AI-generated video can spark riots. Now, information control is no longer about merely concealing facts but managing perception. Pakistan, of course, has institutionalised deception. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Pakistan’s military media wing, has long functioned as a full-bodied propaganda directorate - equal parts Orwell and Bollywood. Its operations would be comical were they not so calculated: slick montages of missiles, recitations of dubious ‘truths’ and a pipeline of lies pumped into domestic and international circuits.

For India, the task is harder. It must balance democratic transparency with operational discretion. The Indian media must understand that wartime censorship is not about muzzling dissent or massaging egos but about outsmarting the enemy and shielding civilian populations from panic.

Ancient Egyptian ideology emphasized the importance of observing and understanding the enemy to score strategic advantages in warfare. The famous ‘Amarna Letters’ dating back to the 14th century BCE, offer some of the earliest glimpses into diplomatic espionage and the collection of information from foreign rulers.

Secrets, after all, are not mere concealments but shields and traps. They can mean the difference between triumph and catastrophe. As Winston Churchill eloquently put it, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Modern commentators, soaked in the warm bath of peacetime liberties, scoff at such measures. But they must have the maturity to realize wars are not fought with hashtags. History is unambiguous on this count. Censorship, though distasteful to civil libertarians, has saved lives, misled enemies and turned the tide of battles.

Consider Operation Fortitude, the elaborate British deception that convinced Hitler the D-Day invasion would land in Calais rather than Normandy. Fake radio chatter, dummy tanks, and a masterful news blackout led German forces to concentrate in the wrong place. Without such secrecy, the beaches of Normandy might have become a bloodbath, not a launching pad for European liberation. The most controversial aspect about this operation was that Britain’s MI6 fed falsehoods to the Nazis while letting agents of their own sister service, the SOE, die brutally at the hands of the Germans. Proof that, in war, lives of compatriots are sometimes bartered for a greater lie that helps win it.

In World War II, both sides weaponised censorship. But none perfected the art of denial like the Soviets during the Cold War, whose ‘dezinformatsiya’ tactics still inspire modern troll farms in Islamabad and beyond.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, President Kennedy had imposed a near-total media blackout for the first six days, thus buying time to explore diplomatic options and military contingencies without triggering panic or Soviet escalation. The world finally edged away from nuclear war in silence.

India has had its disinformation challenges. But they are more often the product of overzealous patriots and partisan actors than orchestrated state doctrine. While some Indian media outlets do succumb to the temptations of clickbait and jingoism, they operate in a competitive environment where fact-checking exists. In contrast, Pakistan operates with near-total state-media symbiosis. During the 1965 and 1971 wars, Radio Pakistan issued daily bulletins of fictitious victories. Today, the medium is different, but the message remains the same: Pakistan, perpetually the victim, never the instigator. That all terrorist attacks on Indian soil since the 1990s trace back to Pakistan-sponsored groups is rarely hammered home in the manner

In war, truth may be the first casualty, but silence is a strategic weapon. States cannot afford to treat information like oxygen, freely available and unfiltered.