PAHALGAM--India.Pakistan--Digital Warfare Brief

HEADQUARTERS

RLT Two.Seven, (Rein), FMF
FPO, SFO, CA 900xx

01 May 2025

From:     CO, Sub Unit Alpha, CommSect1
To:          CG, 1MarDiv (-) (Rein)
Subj.       Digital Counterstrikes, India.Pakistan.

 
Ref: (a) DivO 5750.2B

CLASSIFIED

DISTRIBUTION: "Special": S&C (2); Div (8)

PAHALGAM--India.Pakistan--Digital Warfare Brief

PART I.     ORGANIZATIONAL DATA

PART II.    NARRATIVE SUMMARY

PART III.   SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

PART IV.   SEQUENTIAL ASPECTS 

PART V.     CIVIL AFFAIRS

PART VI.   SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 

PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA

     India has implemented a series of digital restrictions targeting Pakistani social media accounts following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 tourists. These measures include blocking Instagram accounts of prominent Pakistani actors and artists, banning Pakistani YouTube channels, and restricting access to content deemed a threat to national security.

1. Key actions taken by India:

          a.  Instagram account blocks: 

                    (1)  Accounts of Pakistani actors including Mahira Khan, Hania Aamir, Ali Zafar, Sajal Aly, and others were restricted in India, displaying messages citing compliance with legal requests tied to national security.

2. YouTube channel bans: 

                    (1)  India blocked 16 Pakistani YouTube channels, including major news outlets like Dawn News, Geo News, and personal channels of figures such as former cricketer Shoaib Akhtar, for spreading "provocative and communally sensitive content."

3. Military-linked restrictions: 

                    (1)  The YouTube channel of Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military's media wing, was also blocked in India.

PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY

     Following the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir, which killed 26 people (mostly tourists), India imposed significant digital restrictions targeting Pakistani media and communication channels as part of its retaliatory measures.

1. YouTube Channel Bans

          a.  India blocked access to 16+ Pakistani YouTube channels, including major outlets like Dawn News, Geo TV, ARY News, and Samaa TV, accusing them of spreading anti-India propaganda and fake narratives related to the attack.

     b. Social Media Platform Pressure

                    (1) The Indian government urged platforms like Instagram and X (Twitter) to ban Pakistani accounts, leading to reported restrictions on handles linked to Pakistani celebrities (e.g., Hania Aamir, Mahira Khan) and media entities.

                    (2)  This formed part of a broader strategy to counter what India called Pakistan’s “institutionalized information warfare.”

3. Justification and Context

          a.  The measures were framed as a digital counterstrike to disrupt Pakistan’s alleged disinformation campaigns, which India claims aim to destabilize its social fabric during crises.

          b.  The bans targeted channels accused of promoting Kashmir militancy narratives and downplaying Pakistan’s alleged role in the Pahalgam attack.

4. Brother Escalatory Measures

          a. These digital restrictions accompanied other punitive actions, including border closures, visa suspensions, and the expulsion of Pakistani diplomats.

          b.  India’s move to block ISPR’s channel marked a direct strike on Pakistan’s military-media apparatus.

          c.  The digital crackdown reflects India’s shift toward hybrid warfare tactics, combining military, diplomatic, and information-domain responses to cross-border terrorism.

PART III. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

     India's digital counterstrikes against Pakistan have become a critical component of national security strategy, particularly following the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 27 civilians.

1.  Content Blocking and Platform Bans

          a.  India banned 17 Pakistani YouTube channels (including Dawn, Geo News, and former cricketer Shoaib Akhtar's account) with over 63 million combined subscribers.

                    (1) Role in spreading "provocative, communally sensitive content and false narratives" about India's military.

                   (2) The government also restricted X (Twitter) accounts of Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and ISI-linked journalists for promoting terrorism-related disinformation.

2.  Cyber Attack Mitigation

          a.  Security agencies thwarted coordinated cyber assaults on critical infrastructure, including:

                    (1)  Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks on Army Public Schools in Srinagar and Ranikhet.

                    (2)  Breach attempts against the Army Welfare Housing Organization database.

                    (3) Compromise efforts targeting airport management. systems

3.  Encrypted Platform Crackdown

          a.  India is investigating ProtonMail and Alpha Mail for enabling terror communications through end-to-end encryption, particularly after links to fake bomb threats emerged.

4.  Strategic Cyber Posture

          a.  The countermeasures align with India's evolving cyber warfare doctrine, which prioritizes:

                    (1)  Preemptive takedowns of hostile digital assets.

                    (2)  Active defense of military/civilian networks.

                    (3)  International exposure of Pakistan's state-sponsored cyber-terror nexus, as demonstrated at the UN.

                    (4) Dedicated cyber units like NTRO coordinate these efforts, mirroring Pakistan's ISI-linked cyber warfare infrastructure.

5.  These actions reflect India's shift toward asymmetric digital deterrence in response to Pakistan's nuclear-constrained conventional warfare tactics.

          a.  Cyber operations now constituting a frontline national security mechanism against cross-border threats.

PART IV. TECHNICAL ASPECTS

     Following the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, India's digital countermeasures against Pakistan focused on cyber defense, content moderation, and attribution tracking, with no confirmed reports of offensive cyber operations. Key technical aspects include:

1. Defensive Cybersecurity Operations

          a.  Thwarted Cyberattacks: Indian authorities neutralized multiple coordinated attempts by Pakistan-based hackers targeting military-linked websites, including:

                    (1) Army Public Schools in Srinagar and Ranikhet (DDoS attacks and front-page defacements).

                    (2)  Indian Air Force Placement Cell and Army Welfare Housing Organization (attempted data breaches).

           b.  Incident Response:

                    (1) Isolation and Restoration: Affected websites were promptly disconnected, cleaned, and restored.

                    (2) Zero Operational Impact: No classified military networks or sensitive databases were compromised.

2. Attribution and Tracking

          a.  Hacker Identification: The IO Kilafa group (linked to Pakistani intelligence) was identified as the primary actor behind the attacks.

          b.  Tactical Patterns:  Targeted public-facing military portals to harvest personnel data or disrupt services.

          c.  Used distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and web defacement tools to spread propaganda (e.g., displaying Pakistani flags and anti-India messages).

3. Legal Framework:

          a.  Invoked Section 69A of the IT Act to issue takedown orders.

          b.  Compliance enforced through intermediary guidelines for platforms like YouTube.

4. Enhanced Cyber Posture

          a.  Network Hardening: Military cyber units prioritized securing publicly accessible endpoints and welfare portals to prevent data leaks.

          b.  Real-Time Monitoring: Deployed advanced intrusion detection systems (IDS) to flag suspicious activity linked to Pakistani IP clusters.

5.  Key Differences from Past Responses

          a.  While India conducted kinetic strikes after the 2016 Uri and 2019 Pulwama attacks, the 2025 response emphasized cyber resilience and information warfare mitigation, reflecting a shift toward hybrid conflict management. 

          b.  No evidence of offensive cyber operations (e.g., grid disruptions or data-wiping malware) has been reported.

PART V. CIVIL AFFAIRS

1. International Media Coverage

          a.  While the provided sources focus on Indian media reports and government actions, international outlets like Al Jazeera highlighted local Kashmiri politicians criticizing security crackdowns post-attack.

                    (1)  Specific international reactions to the digital restrictions remain unclear from available data.

2.  Social Media Reactions

          a.  Indian Social Media: Users expressed frustration over losing access to popular Pakistani dramas and celebrities' accounts, with fans of shows like Humsafar and Zindagi Gulzar Hai voicing disappointment on platforms like X (Twitter).

          b.  Pakistani Response: Islamabad retaliated by shutting airspace to Indian flights and halting trade.

          c.  Direct social media reactions from Pakistani users or officials (beyond blocked accounts) are not detailed in the sources.

3.  Platform Compliance: 

          a.  Instagram and YouTube displayed messages citing legal compliance for restricting content in India, including notices like "Account not available in India" for celebrities such as Mahira Khan and Hania Aamir.

4.  Notable Gaps

          a.  The search results lack explicit mentions of statements from global human rights organizations or tech companies (beyond compliance notes), indicating a potential area for further investigation into broader international discourse.

PART VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Data recovery provided by media news sources and AI queries: Perplexity.

Image: https://stock.adobe.com/it/search?k=female+hacker

Report prepared by: J-Charlie.Lima, (204xxxx-2533), SU-ALPHA.

CLASSIFIED

End of Brief.