India Needs Its Own BBC: Why A Global Public Broadcaster Is Essential After Pahalgam

On 7th May, 2025, India initiated “Operation Sindoor,” a strategic military offensive aimed at dismantling terrorist strongholds in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This operation was a direct response to the tragic Pahalgam terrorist attack backed by Pakistan in April 2025, which claimed 26 innocent lives.

The military campaign proved triumphant, marking a historic victory against terrorism and the ones who sponsor them. Yet, amidst this success, a different struggle emerged—the one over narrative control—that revealed a significant flaw in India’s global outreach.

As the timeless saying goes, "in war, truth is the first casualty," and this conflict vividly illustrated that principle. While Indian forces prevailed on the battlefield, Pakistan’s relentless propaganda efforts and the often-biased lens of Western media muddled the truth, distorting the global perception of events.

This parallel battle exposed a critical need: India must develop its own authoritative, state-supported international broadcaster to combat hostile narratives and assert its voice on the world stage.

The War of Narratives: How India Lost Ground

International media coverage of recent India-Pakistan hostilities has been marked by speculative narratives and unverified claims, often undermining India’s documented military successes while amplifying Pakistan’s unsubstantiated assertions.

Despite India’s armed forces presenting concrete evidence, including imagery and video proof of targeted strikes on Pakistan’s military infrastructure and terror camps, several outlets hastily framed the conflict as a “stalemate,” relying on a superficial “both sides” narrative.

For instance, Al Jazeera falsely reported the capture of an Indian female pilot, a claim debunked by officials from both nations. Additionally, the Middle East Eye circulated unverified videos alleging India sought third-party mediation—a narrative starkly contradicted by Pakistan’s own silence on India’s assertion that Pakistan requested the ceasefire after sustaining heavy losses.

Western media further muddied the waters by uncritically parroting Pakistan’s claims, such as the unverified downing of “five Indian jets,” despite limited corroboration. CNN cited an anonymous French official to validate one jet’s loss, while The National Interest controversially declared an “unambiguous Pakistani victory” based on the same dubious claims and exaggerated praise for Chinese missile technology.

This rush to judgment ignored India’s tactical triumphs, such as the Navy’s strategic pressure on Karachi—a move pivotal in forcing Pakistan’s ceasefire appeal.

The bias extended to false equivalence in framing the conflict. Outlets equated India, a long-standing victim of Pakistan-backed terrorism, with Pakistan itself, a state globally scrutinised for harbouring terror groups.

Rarely did reports mention admissions of Pakistani involvement in terrorism by its own Defence Minister or contextualise Pakistan’s precarious economy, which leaves it far more vulnerable in a prolonged conflict with a much more powerful nation.

Meanwhile, Chinese state media aggressively pushed misinformation, falsely touting the J-10C jet’s superiority over India’s Rafales—a narrative amplified by outlets like The New York Times and Reuters. This disinformation campaign not only skewed perceptions but also impacted markets: shares of China’s J-10 manufacturer surged 36%, while France’s Dassault Aviation (Rafale) dropped 5%.

Responsible journalism would have scrutinised Pakistan’s implausible narratives, like its unproven “victory” against India’s documented strikes, exposing it as desperate posturing. Instead, the Western media’s tilt toward parity narratives and underestimation of India’s military edge revealed a troubling need to propagate narratives—even if they do not align with ground realities.

A Blueprint for India’s State Public Broadcaster

India’s State Public International Broadcaster should aim to serve as a credible, authoritative, and culturally resonant voice for the nation on the global stage. Its core mandate should be threefold: countering misinformation during crises like the Pahalgam attack, advancing strategic interests, and projecting India’s civilizational ethos.

Unlike existing platforms, it should combine the reach and trustworthiness of a traditional broadcaster with the agility of digital media, while prioritising editorial independence to avoid overt perceptions of state propaganda.

It should operate under an expanded Prasar Bharati framework but function as a legally autonomous entity with limited direct political interference.

To avoid reliance on volatile advertising revenue, it should be primarily funded by a government-allocated non-lapsable corpus fund, ensuring stable financing for core operations like salaries, technology, and infrastructure. This would prevent the budgetary uncertainties that have plagued DD India.

Additional conditional grants could be tied to specific initiatives, such as counter-terrorism reporting or cultural diplomacy projects, ensuring accountability without compromising quality.

Beyond state funding, it should leverage public-private partnerships to reduce reliance on taxpayer money. Collaborations with Indian corporations under CSR mandates could sponsor thematic programming, such as documentaries on sustainable development or rich cultural heritage in various parts of the country.

Syndication deals with global news networks and streaming platforms would generate revenue while amplifying India’s narratives. A freemium digital model would monetise premium content like ad-free streams, exclusive documentaries, or archival access while keeping basic news free.

Crowdfunding campaigns could engage the diaspora to fund hyperlocal projects, such as Tamil-language programming for Sri Lankan audiences or Punjabi shows on migration stories.

It can revolutionise India’s global media presence by prioritising dynamic, audience-centric content, addressing the failure of public broadcasters to be monotonous and irrelevant.

News and current affairs would form the backbone, with hyperlocal bureaus producing regional bulletins. Flagship debate programs with globally recognised moderators can provide audience and credibility to the channel.

The channel should showcase India’s soft power through high-production documentaries on lesser-known traditions (e.g., Theyyam rituals of Kerala, Nagaland’s tribal festivals). It should also focus on digital forms like reels and podcasts to capture young audiences. This would enable the channel to form an engaging audience.

In Conclusion

The conflict with Pakistan underscores a critical truth: in today’s interconnected world, controlling one’s narrative is as vital as defending borders.

India’s current void in global media influence risks its stories being told by others. As India ascends as a geopolitical and economic power, it must wield the megaphone of soft power with the same vigour as its diplomatic and economic tools.

The cost of inaction is steep: ceding the narrative to biased or reductive portrayals by the Western media.

The moment to act is now. By investing in a Global Public Broadcaster, India can transform its "soft power deficit" into a cornerstone of global influence, ensuring that its voice resonates across continents.

In the battle for hearts and minds, silence is not an option. India must speak, and the world must listen.