Bollywood, Hollywood, and the battlefield: Media myths vs. ground truths

Lata Moni Das

(daslata2000@yahoo.co.in)

The recent remarks by ex-Army Chief General Naravane, where he emphasised the emphasis on diplomacy over theatre, provide a much-needed counterpoint to the current debate over suspending military hostilities between India and Pakistan. His observation that “it is not your Bollywood movie” runs very true, pointing out that international diplomacy and national security cannot be undermined or marginalised in the spirit of media hype.

Some media places and self-proclaimed know-it-alls aren’t chilling with that idea. They’re still stirring the pot with stories that don’t add up, especially after India’s decision to give a pause and go for a ceasefire in military action. They persistently advocate the notion that the U.S. played the peacemaker in this situation, like it’s some kind of Hollywood blockbuster where the hero swoops in to save the day. And get this: some have even gone as far as to say the U.S. used trade stuff as a bargaining chip. It’s like they’re trying to link together two completely different puzzle pieces.

Are some media houses more into drama than the actual important stuff? It’s like they can’t just let the countries handle their own business and have to throw in some extra spice for their news reports.

The Indian DGMO and the Pakistan DGMO have agreed to suspend all firings and military actions on land, air, and sea for the duration of the ceasefire, and it has been made clear that no third party is involved in these actions. Additionally, Indian officials reported that there was no discussion of trade during any discussions related to India’s response to terrorist groups in Pakistan.

And then, when our Prime Minister Narendra Modi talked to the nation about the whole deal, they were all up in arms about why he didn’t mention the U.S. president’s involvement. Trump is taking all the credit, and of course, what Pakistan says, nobody buys, and Pakistan is feeding wrong information to Western media. Both truth and justice were undermined by Western media’s distorted coverage of facts and narrative-shaping. It is common for Western media to show bias against India from time to time.

The only truth is, ‘War is very costly; both sides suffer in a war.’ “Our target was terrorist training camps.” It appears that the government has met its objectives thus far. Through our strikes on terrorist infrastructure, as well as on their airfields within their territory, we demonstrated to Pakistan that the cost of continuing on their current course was too high. The result was that their DGMO, which in turn, called our DGMO to discuss the possibility of a ceasefire. Additionally, the Government of India has consistently clarified that the war is not against Pakistan but against terror. India’s attacks on Pakistani soil in 2016, 2019, and now in 2025 are very important. In all these actions, India targeted only terrorist camps linked to the Pakistani military. Now, if it does not stop, then it has also been clarified that our response will not differentiate between the government sponsors and the masterminds of terror attacks.

Is Peace Just a Prop? Trump’s Comment on India-Pakistan Tensions Raises Serious Questions

A few days ago, U.S. Senator J.D. Vance spoke strongly on Fox News about the India-Pakistan tensions. When asked about the situation, he clearly said, “That’s really not our concern.” He added that they won’t take part in a war that doesn’t involve them. It is clear from his comment that he is taking a sensible, non-interventionist approach. India has always maintained a consistent policy of resolving issues bilaterally with Pakistan. As New Delhi has consistently stressed, such matters are not the subject of international discussion or negotiation and should not be left to third parties to handle.

So why did U.S. President Donald Trump choose to be a peace deal maker?

As President Trump publicly stated that he was willing to mediate between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, even stating that he would “work with both sides” to resolve a conflict he referred to as “thousands of years old” — whereas the conflict actually dates back only 78 years, to the 1947 partition of British India.

These kinds of statements have not gone unnoticed in political circles, where many see them less as genuine efforts toward peace and more as part of Trump’s personal ambition — to be seen as a global dealmaker and, perhaps, to secure a Nobel Peace Prize, a long-rumoured desire of his.

Let’s not forget that Trump also made lofty promises about other global conflicts. He vowed to end Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours and claimed he could quickly restore peace between Israel and Hamas — both of which remain unresolved and violent to this day. So, since there has been no progress in other places, is Trump now trying to show himself as a peacemaker in the India-Pakistan conflict?

These are important questions, because peace — especially between two nuclear-armed neighbours — is not a campaign slogan. It is a matter of lives, of national pride, and of delicate diplomacy between the two.

For India, the message remains unchanged: peace cannot be imposed from the outside. It must come through dialogue between the two nations involved — without unnecessary interference or self-serving grandstanding from those who have little understanding of the ground realities.

In the end, the world must respect India’s sovereign right to manage its security and diplomacy without turning it into a spectacle for foreign leaders hoping to polish their legacies.

In pursuit of narrative control and distortion of facts, this relentless pursuit only serves to undermine the seriousness of the issue at hand and distract from the real work being conducted behind the scenes. The media must, at the end of the day, provide clear, accurate, and unbiased reports, rather than contributing unsubstantiated speculation to the atmosphere. A critical national security matter should not be turned into a circus for personal gain by those who wish to abuse it.