The India-Pakistan rivalry provides a particularly important case study. Both countries have long accused each other of spreading propaganda and misinformation, while independent fact-checkers have documented misleading and fabricated material originating from different sides. But one investigation has attracted particular international attention: the “Indian Chronicles” investigation published by the Brussels-based EU DisinfoLab in 2019 and expanded in 2020.
The investigation alleged that a large network of websites, organizations and online platforms had been used to promote narratives favorable to Indian interests and, particularly, to criticize Pakistan internationally.
The Indian Chronicles Investigation
In November 2019, EU DisinfoLab reported that it had identified more than 265 coordinated fake local media outlets operating across more than 65 countries. According to the investigation, many of these websites appeared to imitate or revive the names of legitimate or defunct newspapers.
The researchers argued that the objective was not simply to create individual fake stories. Instead, the network allegedly created multiple layers of repetition: one website would publish material, another would republish it, and another platform could then cite that publication as if it were an independent international source.
That process matters because repetition can create the appearance of consensus.
The investigation claimed that the network's content frequently focused on India-related issues and criticism of Pakistan. It also identified connections involving NGOs, think tanks, media platforms and organizations operating around Brussels and Geneva. (Disinfo.eu)
In December 2020, EU DisinfoLab published a much larger investigation describing what it called a 15-year operation dating back to 2005.
Its researchers reported finding more than 750 fake media outlets covering 119 countries and more than 550 domain names, alongside a network involving NGOs and other organizations. The report alleged that the infrastructure was designed to influence international perceptions and institutions, particularly in relation to Pakistan. (Disinfo.eu)
These numbers are significant, but they should be understood correctly. They are findings reported by EU DisinfoLab from its investigation, not proof that every Indian media organization, journalist or citizen participated in a single coordinated operation.
How the Alleged Network Worked
One of the most interesting aspects of the investigation was its description of the mechanics behind influence operations.
A conventional propaganda campaign might publish a statement through an obviously political channel. A sophisticated influence network can attempt to make the information appear to originate from independent journalists, international organizations or foreign media.
According to EU DisinfoLab, the network allegedly used several methods.
These included creating websites that resembled legitimate newspapers, reviving organizations that had previously become inactive, using apparently independent NGOs, registering large numbers of domains and encouraging international political figures to participate in events or publish material.
The researchers also alleged that some content was subsequently amplified through established Indian media channels.
The result, according to the investigation, was a chain:
Website → NGO or think tank → international event → political statement → media coverage → online repetition.
The more times the same narrative appears, the harder it can become for an ordinary reader to determine where the story originally came from.
The Role of ANI
Another controversial element involved Asian News International (ANI), one of India's major news agencies.
EU DisinfoLab's later 2023 investigation, called “BadSources,” alleged that ANI had repeatedly cited organizations, experts and journalists that the researchers said did not exist or had ceased operating.
The investigation claimed that some of these sources were subsequently republished by other Indian media outlets, potentially giving questionable material additional visibility. (Disinfo.eu)
This allegation is important because established news organizations can act as credibility multipliers.
However, allegations concerning a specific organization should not automatically be extended to every report produced by that organization. A claim about a particular source, article or network needs to be examined individually.
Why Pakistan Became a Major Target
India and Pakistan have disputed issues including Kashmir, terrorism, national security, borders and regional influence for decades.
Because these issues are politically sensitive, international perception can have real consequences.
Governments want favorable coverage. Political movements want international support. Advocacy groups want their issues recognized. States want their diplomatic positions accepted by foreign governments.
Pakistan has frequently accused India of attempting to damage its international reputation, while India has made its own allegations concerning Pakistan's support for militant groups and cross-border terrorism.
This is precisely why information surrounding the two countries needs to be examined carefully.
A report criticizing Pakistan is not automatically propaganda.
Likewise, a report criticizing India is not automatically propaganda.
The critical question is who produced the information, what evidence supports it, where did the original material come from, and how was it amplified?
The Information War Reached Social Media
The problem became even more complicated with the rise of Facebook, X, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and other platforms.
A newspaper article can reach thousands of readers. A viral social-media post can reach millions within hours.
During periods of military tension, misinformation can become especially dangerous.
This was clearly demonstrated during the India-Pakistan military crisis of May 2025. Full Fact documented numerous examples of old photographs, unrelated videos and fabricated graphics being circulated as if they showed events from the India-Pakistan conflict. (Full Fact)
One video circulated as footage of Indian attacks on Pakistan had actually been online since October 2024 and was unrelated to the conflict. Another widely shared video showing destruction was actually connected to an earlier plane crash in Philadelphia. (Full Fact)
There were also fabricated media graphics and AI-generated material.
Full Fact reported in May 2025 that a video apparently showing former U.S. President Donald Trump commenting on the India-Pakistan conflict had been manipulated using artificial intelligence. (Full Fact)
These examples demonstrate an important reality: modern information warfare does not always require a sophisticated fake-news website. Sometimes a smartphone, an old photograph and a misleading caption are enough.
Propaganda or Misinformation?
The words “propaganda,” “misinformation” and “disinformation” are often used interchangeably, but they describe different concepts.
Misinformation generally refers to inaccurate information shared without necessarily intending to deceive.
Disinformation generally refers to deliberately deceptive or manipulated information.
Propaganda is broader. It can involve selective presentation of facts, emotional messaging, repetition and persuasive communication designed to influence attitudes.
That distinction matters when examining India-Pakistan information battles.
A government statement can contain factual information while simultaneously presenting events from its own strategic perspective.
A news organization can publish a genuine report while choosing a headline that emphasizes one interpretation.
A social-media user can unintentionally share an old photograph believing it is current.
And an organized influence network can deliberately manufacture false sources.
These are different phenomena and should not automatically be placed in the same category.
The Other Side of the Information War
It is also important not to treat misinformation as something produced by only one country.
During the May 2025 conflict, fact-checkers documented misleading content circulating in connection with claims favorable to both sides. Full Fact found false or misleading videos, photographs and graphics being shared online, including material portraying events in Pakistan and India inaccurately. (Full Fact)
That means the broader problem is not simply “Indian propaganda versus Pakistani truth.”
The deeper issue is how audiences on both sides can become trapped inside information ecosystems where emotionally powerful claims spread faster than verified evidence.
Why This Matters Globally
The significance of the Indian Chronicles investigation extends beyond India and Pakistan.
If fake media outlets can create the appearance of international consensus, similar techniques could theoretically be used in other geopolitical conflicts.
The digital information environment has created an enormous credibility problem.
A website can look professional.
A fake journalist can have a convincing profile photograph.
A fabricated quote can appear inside a realistic newspaper graphic.
An AI-generated video can imitate a famous politician.
And an old photograph can suddenly become “breaking news” simply because somebody changes its caption.
The public therefore faces a new challenge: not merely finding information, but verifying its origin.
The Grey Area
The evidence surrounding the Indian Chronicles investigation deserves serious examination, but it should also be presented with precision.
EU DisinfoLab made detailed allegations about a network involving fake media, NGOs, domains and international influence. The organization published extensive supporting material and later defended its findings against responses and criticisms from individuals and organizations connected to the investigation. (Disinfo.eu)
At the same time, documenting an influence network does not mean that every negative report about Pakistan is fake, nor does it establish that every Indian journalist or media organization is part of such a network.
The reality is more complicated.
India has legitimate national-security concerns and political interests. Pakistan has legitimate national-security concerns and political interests. Journalists and researchers have the right to investigate both countries. At the same time, coordinated manipulation of information—wherever it occurs—can undermine public understanding.
The challenge for audiences is therefore to move beyond slogans.
In an era where wars increasingly unfold on television screens and smartphones, these questions may be just as important as understanding what happens on the battlefield.
The story of India's alleged global propaganda network is therefore not simply a story about India and Pakistan.
It is a story about power, perception, technology and the struggle to determine what the world believes to be true.
And perhaps the most important lesson is simple:
Don't believe something simply because it supports your side. Verify it. Trace it. Question it.
Because in the modern information war, the first casualty may not be the truth itself—but our ability to recognize it.
0 Comments