Power and Language in a Time of Conflict: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Indian and Pakistani Political and Military Rhetoric during Bilateral Tensions

Abstract

This study investigates the role of language as both a tool of soft power and an ideological framework in the context of escalating bilateral tensions between India and Pakistan. It Explores how official statements by political and military leaders construct national narratives, legitimize state actions, and mobilize public sentiments. Employing a qualitative methodology, the study draws upon data collected from official press briefings delivered by political and military representatives of both nations. The analysis is conducted through the application of Norman Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of discourse. The analysis reveals that language is carefully crafted through metaphors, euphemisms, and symbolic allusions to justify military and political actions and enhance moral authority. Pakistani discourse frequently invokes Quranic symbolism and moral dichotomies to frame its stance as sacred defense, while India rhetoric emphasizes professionalism and rationality to project credibility. At the discursive level, official pronouncements and media outlets mutually reinforce one another, amplifying nationalist sentiments through intertextual connections, synchronized hashtags, and visual story telling. At the level of social practice, findings highlight entrenched ideological frameworks that normalize militarization, construct binary oppositions of “us” versus “them” and suppress avenues for dialogue or peacebuilding. Key findings further indicate that political dialogue is increasingly infused with military terminology, religious and mythical imagery, and exclusionary communicative tactics that frame the opponent as chaotic and threatening. Notably, during the May 2025 crisis, neither side referenced peace negotiations or collective conflict resolution. Overall, the study demonstrates how language functions as a strategic instrument for shaping national identity, rationalizing state action, and sustaining cycles of antagonism, while also offering potential openings for diplomatic rearticulation.