Disinformation warfare: Conflicting narrative between Assam Rifles and Manipur Police

The reported incident involving the Assam Rifles’ saving Meira Paibi provides a vivid example of potential disinformation in a conflict setting. Disinformation is the intentional dissemination of false or misleading information with the purpose of deceiving an audience. Unlike misinformation, which can be spread inadvertently, disinformation is deliberately crafted and shared to manipulate opinions, obscure the truth, or serve specific agendas. In the context of warfare, disinformation plays a crucial role as a strategic tool. Military and political entities use disinformation to demoralize the enemy by spreading false information about victories, losses, or strategic plans, thereby weakening the enemy’s morale and resolve. It also serves to confuse opponents by misleading them about military capabilities, movements, or intentions, causing them to make faulty decisions. Additionally, disinformation influences public opinion, garnering support or undermining the enemy’s support base, which affects recruitment, funding, and overall public sentiment. Furthermore, disinformation can mask real operations, allowing forces to carry out missions without interference.
The news of Assam Rifles claiming to save 75 Meira Paibi from an attack by Kuki militants at Waroiching. This kind of claim can serve several strategic purposes. Firstly, it functions as a public relations move. By portraying themselves as protectors of the Meira Paibi, despite existing tensions, Assam Rifles can enhance their image as impartial and benevolent. This portrayal is particularly important in conflict zones where trust and perception significantly impact the effectiveness and legitimacy of security forces. The narrative of protecting a group often at odds with them suggests a commitment to safeguarding all civilians, regardless of political or ethnic affiliations, thus potentially winning broader public support.
Secondly, the disinformation can serve to counteract negative perceptions or allegations of bias or misconduct. If Assam Rifles face accusations of being partial or of engaging in improper conduct, a story highlighting their protective actions can help mitigate these negative views. It presents them in a positive light, as forces dedicated to public safety and peacekeeping. This can be crucial for maintaining operational credibility and support from both the local population and higher governmental authorities.
Thirdly, by showing support for the Meira Paibi, Assam Rifles might aim to influence local power dynamics and build alliances with groups that are usually critical of them. In conflict zones, relationships with local groups can be a significant factor in maintaining control and achieving peace. Demonstrating that they can act in the interest of these groups, even if they are typically at odds, can help Assam Rifles gain a strategic advantage, fostering cooperation or at least reducing hostility from these groups.
Manipur Police, however, contradicted this claim, stating that the incident did not occur. This contradiction between two official security forces creates a significant conflict. Such a situation has several implications. It can lead to a credibility crisis, undermining public trust in both institutions. When two authoritative bodies present conflicting accounts, it sows doubt and confusion among the public, making it difficult for people to discern the truth. This erosion of trust can have long-lasting effects on the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of the security forces involved.
Politically, the government may face pressure to address the discrepancies and ensure accurate and reliable information dissemination. Such pressure can come from various stakeholders, including the local population, political opponents, and international observers. The government might need to conduct thorough investigations and enforce stricter protocols on information sharing to restore trust and credibility.
The case of the Assam Rifles’ claim and the subsequent denial by Manipur Police highlights the non-coordination of information warfare between state and central forces. In conflict zones, controlling the narrative can be as powerful as military might. This underscores the need for critical evaluation of information and the importance of transparency and accountability among all involved parties. Ensuring that information is accurate and credible is essential for maintaining public trust, supporting peace efforts, and upholding the legitimacy of security operations.