The internet has transformed warfare, turning the digital realm into a critical battlespace where information flows shape outcomes as much as physical combat. The multi-flow of information—data streaming across platforms, borders, and actors—has redefined conflicts, amplifying their complexity and stakes. This dynamic was vividly illustrated in the recent India-Pakistan conflict that erupted in May 2025, following a terrorist attack in Kashmir. By examining this clash alongside broader trends, this op-ed explores how the internet’s omnipresence and chaotic information flows reshape modern warfare, creating opportunities and vulnerabilities for states, non-state actors, and civilians.
The Internet as a Weapon of War
The internet is a disruption, deception, and dominance tool, enabling cyberattacks, disinformation, and psychological operations. Amy Zegart, a cybersecurity scholar, identifies cyber actions as stealing, spying, disrupting, destroying, and deceiving. The May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict exemplifies this. After an April 22 Islamist-terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, that killed 26 tourists after the radical Islamist terrorists asked for their religious identity, India launched “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, striking alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan with missiles and drones. Pakistan retaliated, claiming to have shot down Indian jets and drones, while both sides flooded social media with competing narratives. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar posted on X about “zero tolerance for terrorism,” while Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif labelled India’s strikes an “act of war.” This digital sparring, rife with unverified claims, shaped global perceptions as much as the physical strikes.
The multi-flow of information fueled the conflict’s intensity. Social media platforms amplified real-time footage, from civilian videos of drone incursions to official statements, creating a chaotic information environment. Indian sources claimed strikes on nine terrorist camps, while Pakistan reported civilian casualties, with 31 deaths. The internet’s speed enabled rapid escalation, as viral posts and disinformation, such as exaggerated claims of downed jets, stoked nationalist fervour. Unlike traditional warfare, where information was tightly controlled, this conflict saw governments, civilians, and algorithms contribute to a data deluge, blurring truth and propaganda. Pakistan, with an unacknowledged PhD in propaganda and international humiliation, has expertise in spreading rumours, tall claims and unverified news. Did Indians fight it well? Yes.
The Chaos of Multi-Flow Information
The multi-flow of information creates a chaotic battlespace where control is elusive. General Robert Neller, former Marine Corps Commandant, noted that future conflicts span multiple domains, with information as a central pillar. The India-Pakistan clash, dubbed a “drone war,” saw both nations deploy kamikaze drones and electronic warfare units, with GPS jamming reported along the Line of Control (Loc). Civilians, acting as digital sensors, shared footage of explosions in cities like Srinagar and Rawalpindi, aiding military intelligence but also spreading unverified claims. The Internet of Things (Iot), with billions of connected devices, added vulnerabilities, as drones sourced from China, Turkey, and Israel were hacked or disrupted.
This information chaos blurs combatant-civilian lines. Pakistan accused India of targeting civilian areas, while India claimed precision strikes on militant bases. The lack of clear attribution—exacerbated by disinformation—complicated international responses. A 1998 U.S. cyberattack, Solar Sunrise, showed how misattributed attacks can escalate tensions; in 2025, similar risks arose as both nations accused each other of violating sovereign airspace. For democracies like India, countering disinformation without curbing free speech is challenging. Pakistan’s low artillery reserves and reliance on Chinese drones, as reported by Indian sources, further highlight how digital vulnerabilities can constrain traditional military power.
Opportunities and Vulnerabilities
The internet offers strategic advantages but exposes critical weaknesses. Network-centric warfare, like the U.S.’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control, relies on secure data flows for precision. India’s sophisticated drone industry and electronic warfare units gave it an edge, with strikes on Pakistani airbases signalling technological superiority. Yet, vulnerabilities persist. Over 90% of U.S. Defence Department transactions occur on unclassified systems, a flaw exposed in past conflicts. In the India-Pakistan clash, both sides’ reliance on imported drones—Pakistan from China, India from Israel—risked supply chain disruptions.
Non-state actors exploit the internet’s accessibility. The Pahalgam attack, linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba by Indian sources, underscores how militant groups use digital platforms for recruitment and propaganda. The multi-flow of information empowers these actors, as a single viral video can amplify their reach. Conversely, states leverage information for advantage. India’s “Operation Sindoor” was framed as a counter-terrorism triumph, with posts on X claiming Pakistan’s military was “not in this league.” The ceasefire on May 11, mediated by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, showed how digital diplomacy—via calls with Indian and Pakistani leaders—can de-escalate, though cross-border firing persisted.
Navigating the Information Battlespace
Navigating this battlespace requires adaptation. The India-Pakistan conflict exposed the need for unified information warfare strategies. India’s civil defence drills and Pakistan’s airspace closures reflected reactive measures, but long-term success demands proactive digital resilience. Training must prioritise information as a warfighting function, as traditional combat often overshadows non-lethal strategies. Sun Tzu’s emphasis on deception remains relevant, yet liberal democracies struggle to counter adversaries’ narrative control without compromising values.
Civilians are integral to this landscape. The India-Pakistan war showed how smartphone-armed populations can shape conflicts, but digital literacy is crucial to combat disinformation. International norms for cyberspace are absent, risking escalatory cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. NATO’s multi-domain operations, integrating cyber and space, offer a model, but securing the Iot and managing civilian-military roles remain challenges. The ceasefire, fragile amid ongoing LOC violations, underscores the need for global cooperation to prevent digital conflicts from spiralling.
A New Era of Warfare
The internet has ushered in an era where warfare transcends physical domains, with the India-Pakistan conflict of May 2025 as a stark example. The multi-flow of information—chaotic, rapid, and pervasive—made every device a potential weapon and every user a potential combatant. While it empowered India’s rapid response and civilian intelligence, it also exposed vulnerabilities to disinformation and cyberattacks. Winning in this environment demands technological superiority, strategic agility, and ethical clarity. As the line between war and peace blurs, the internet’s role as enabler and disruptor requires a fundamental rethinking of how nations fight, defend, and coexist in an information-driven world.
Gunjan for Literature News
Add Comment