Strategic communication in all its forms is a force multiplier in any vibrant democracy. It has the potential to shape the will and opinion of the populace with militaries all over the world. It is inherently critical due to the dynamics of reach and technology.
The socio-economic changes and the growth of digital media platforms have ensured that no component of the DIME paradigm (Diplomacy, Information, Military and Economic) spectrum is left out with militaries open to scrutiny, public debate and accountability. Conversely, media provides avenues of ideation and a silent, implied framework for a mid-course correction in policy and execution of important aspects for the military.
The British kept the military away from the media while radio, printing press and telegraphy came into being during the colonial era. The control over these was done by the draconian Rowlett Act and various other measures like the Indian Official Secrets Act etc., which were drafted and unscrupulously enforced. In addition, the vernacular as well as national media was so focused in covering the freedom movement that no significance was accorded to military affairs or civil military fusion.
Psychologically, military training from its very inception trains the military mind in a monochrome dynamic. The reasoning is attuned to a “Black or White” pattern, while media, due to its very exploratory nature, oscillates in a grey area. This basic mismatch presumably does cause discomfort, and thereby a specialised training in this niche domain is imperative.
The 1947-48 conflict saw a very limited media interaction with the military and thereby very low metrics of strategic communication. Post promulgation of the Constitution in 1950, which guaranteed freedom of press, the situation changed considerably. The Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 brought about several structural and organisational changes in the military and government alike. Indo-Pak conflict of 1965 was covered well by the media and the period of 1966-71 was characterised by a good coverage of military matters prior to 1971 Indo-Pak conflict on both fronts. Satellite television brought the 1999 Kargil conflict, live into the living rooms. This was synonymous with launching of messaging facilities in the same year to be followed up by a plethora of social media platforms between 2001-2010, altering the very landscape of media with technology and real time reportage as the two drivers of change.
Advancement of technology and an insatiable scrolling appetite possesses the capability of altering strategic communication in incredibly faster time cycles. In certain scenarios, media tends to deploy before the military and has the potential to shape the public opinion regardless of the military input. This requires a change in mindset for the military to inculcate a broader acceptance of the media and conversely for the media to understand the military and its basic operational aspects to accrue a qualitative output. The OTT era is even more complex which will necessitate inclusivity for information, yet a very clear exclusivity for specialisation and designated roles.
It needs to be clearly understood that media is a business which obviously must function on very short timelines. If the military does not meet these timelines, the media will still have to meet these stringent timelines, which may not project a cogent picture of the crisis or conflict. Timely response is, therefore, the key and that is the difficult part. Time is a critical element between any incident and response and once this precious time is lost, gains achieved through combat may not be utilised to their optimum. Conversely, by restricting media access, the military runs the risk of creating a credibility gap. Once this gap is created, it is undeniably hard to recover, especially in the conflict zones.
The war in West Asia has realigned the vectors of political resolve, diplomatic heft and military precision. The need for diverse weapon systems, primacy of jointness, increased relevance on robust digital infrastructure and above all, seamless information warfare will be the prima donna for all operations in future. Selection and maintenance of aim is also acutely aligned to strategic communication. This is a common cause of chaos as clearly seen in the case of United States in the present conflict. There are multiple stakeholders and appointees, across protocols who are disbursing media briefs, each with his/her errors and biases. Such messaging causes confusion and tends to disrupt correctness, aim, purpose and notion of victory. Contradictions in messaging causes turmoil to the troops in combat. While on the other end, the messaging or communication from Iran is seemingly clearer with a single spokesperson, Brig Gen Ebrahim Zolfaghari.
Published texts and briefs also cannot be disparate. As per the US National Security Strategy document released last year, US remained committed to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and preventing “outright enemies” from dominating the Persian Gulf and its energy supplies. This stance has suddenly changed, via verbal mode, a month into the war. These mismatches have a potential to cause unprecedented chaos in operational level execution, besides fissures in international relations. This entails strategic communication to be cogent textually and verbally.
As seen in the raging conflict in West Asia, if the information by the military of the diplomatic corps does not meet quick timelines, digital media usurps this space. This may not project a cogent picture of the conflict. Time is a critical element between any incident and response and once this precious time is lost, statements or a rhetoric based on falsehood by an adversary become difficult to manage. In effect, narrative building is as important as prosecution of operations in this age of “doomscrolling” and quick fix opinion building.
While a few western commentators criticised India on information warfare prowess and narrative management in Operation Sindoor, it could be useful for them to look inwards now, get their house in order and utilise their wisdom for themselves. Regardless of the initial hours, the joint efforts of MEA and MoD were very streamlined and impactful. This is however a very evolving dynamic and will need to be continuously honed, especially for short notice, short duration conflicts in this era of asymmetric warfare.
The future metrics will deeply hinge on “Digital Statecraft”. As future conflicts transcend myriad dimensions, there will be both practitioners and journalists communicating in this complex domain. Both are critical as the former infuse reality and the latter juxtaposes it with knowledge. In tune with Clausewitz’s discourse on war, public opinion can be forged by a well-oiled strategic communication apparatus, besides the competence of the military and the political will to effectively complete the trinity.
Strategic communication will dominate the information age. The end state is to facilitate an understanding that the military is doing everything within its powers to execute missions in a manner, accepted by the society in a plethora of roles it is mandated or called upon to perform.
- Anurag Awasthi is a veteran, and CEO of Escape Velocity Mediaworks. He is a known policy expert and a columnist who writes extensively on critical technologies, security and geopolitics. Views are personal.
