United by War, Divided by Social Media: Mapping India’s Homegrown Polarisation

The deadly April 2025 Pahalgam attack needs no elaborate description—its horror speaks for itself. In a cold-blooded act of terror, 26 innocent civilians, most of them tourists, were brutally killed. The world stood in grief, offering condolences to the bereaved families. There was no confusion in the minds of Indians about who was responsible: loud and clear, the blame was placed on Pakistan—a country long accused of sheltering terrorists and extremist groups. As expected, India struck back with force, targeting terror camps across the border.
India’s armed forces, ever vigilant, left no stone unturned in avenging the loss. Across the subcontinent, people stayed glued to their television and mobile screens, their eyes wide open through sleepless nights, tracking developments on both sides. In that moment, the entire nation stood united—as one people, one voice—against terrorism. Witnesses of the 1971 Indo-Pak war and the 1999 Kargil conflict recalled those days of unwavering national unity. Back then, no one questioned the leadership of Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee as they led the nation through war against Pakistan.

When Bangladesh was carved out of Pakistan in 1971, and when the Indian flag fluttered atop Tiger Hill in 1999, India celebrated across religious and political lines. Eid, Diwali, and Baisakhi became symbols of collective triumph. It felt as if every political party had won an election after months of intense campaigning. India was celebrating the victory together! One reason for this cohesive spirit was perhaps the absence of social media. Without the toxic echo chambers of today’s digital world, the country had spoken in unison: defeat Pakistan, defend the nation.

But the digital age has redrawn the battle lines. The 2025 counterstrike against Pakistan was not just a test of military strength but a litmus test for patriotism performed online within India. If you didn’t vocally denounce Pakistan, you were labeled anti-national. If you questioned the security lapses that allowed such an attack, you were dragged to the balustrade of social media, forced to prove your loyalty.

Instead of unity, Indians began turning against each other—armed with memes, mockery, and blame. Many used the crisis to score political points, playing blame games, and stoking religious divisions. Sitting comfortably behind their screens, they seemed to enjoy the incited divisions among fellow Indians. It reminds me of the century old story of how Nero was playing lyre when Rome was burning.


Those who questioned the government’s intelligence failures should ask themselves if the timing was right. Those who turned the tragedy into a BJP vs Congress debate, comparing Narendra Modi with Indira Gandhi or Manmohan Singh, not only overlooked the seriousness of the moment but also betrayed the spirit of unity India so desperately needed. Social media was flooded with petty fights between their supporters, creating an opening for Pakistani users to mock India.
Yet it remains unclear who started the mockery. In this blame game, both sides echo the famous Billy Joel lyric: “WE DIDN’T START THE FIRE.”


Most troubling was how a national crisis turned into a communal and political slugfest. The war narrative, instead of uniting the country, became a fault linesbetween Hindus and Muslims, between government supporters and its critics. A telling example was the treatment of journalist and Alt-news fact-checker Mohammad Zubair. While he exposed fake videos spread by political operatives and even mainstream media, he was viciously attacked and labeled a “jihadi”. Sadly, his significant efforts in exposing numerous Pakistani Propagandists were swiftly ignored and conveniently overlooked by the very same group.


Zubair was simply doing his job, yet his truth-telling was seen as betrayal. Similarly, the Foreign Secretary of India, Vikram Misri, and his family were targeted online after he made a statement that rattled many: “It may be a surprise to Pakistan to see citizens criticising their own government. That is the hallmark of any open and functioning democracy.” The backlash was so intense that he was forced to restrict his social media accounts.
This reveals a deeper problem: our inability to separate truth from political convenience, facts from partisanship. The conversation was no longer about national security—it had become a ideological civil war among the children of mother India.


Let’s be clear: in times of war, national interest must come before personal beliefs. Unity cannot be selective. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi—hailed by some as the Hindu Hriday Samrat—led India’s response, the country needed nationwide solidarity, not divided loyalties based on religion or party lines. Exploiting India’s secular and syncretic credentials in times of war is nothing sort of paranoid self-sabotage.
But we must ask: how did a war with Pakistan turn into a theocratic clash within India?
Ironically, while India was divided by internal politics, Pakistan stood united across political, ethnic, and ideological lines. Even BJP leader Sudhanshu Trivedi acknowledged this, stating: “In one matter, Pakistan is in a stronger position than us. In Pakistan, no one, whether from the government or the opposition, is questioning their military. In contrast, many leaders in India are questioning our armed forces.”


Our Constitution—India’s highest moral and legal guide—demands unity, especially in the face of external threats. It prescribes consequences for failing to uphold national interest. But the real question is: are those principles being followed—or only flaunted when politically convenient?
Where does reconciliation between extremists and moderate fail? Who benefits from this chaos? Is it the vote-hungry political parties? TRP chasing media? Or perhaps the enemies who watch gleefully as we tear ourselves apart?


The ball is in our court to answer these questions. As citizens of a sovereign nation, it is our constitutional duty to protect national unity. The law doesn’t demand performative nationalism—it demands accountability and collective responsibility. At least in such situation, not following the principle of “United we stand and divided we fall” is grave injustice to the nation.


Let us remember: in times of war, division is a luxury we simply cannot afford. While our enemies stand united, we must not fall into the trap of tearing ourselves apart. Because if we do, the battle may be won on the border—but the war will be lost at home.