Subscribe

0

Politics

Did lack of Indian lobby make Pakistan win propaganda war?

Will it be proper to assume that out of the different lobby firms that India and Pakistan hired, one on the payroll of the adversary worked better with American media houses?

author-image
Surajit Dasgupta
New Update
Did lack of Indian lobby make Pakistan win propaganda war?

Photograph: (staff)

Listen to this article
0.75x 1x 1.5x
00:00 / 00:00

During the first term of the UPA government, it was reported that India had not renewed its contract with the American firm that lobbied for it in the United States. This was why Pakistan was winning the narrative war. Now that many are saying that Pakistan had an upper hand in the discourse of its short-lived war with India, finding out whether India has once again failed to hire a firm to lobby for it or pay an existing one in time will be in order.

To the uninitiated, lobbying is a legal and routine practice in the US, but its influence on foreign policy can be contentious. The effectiveness of these firms varies, with some (Locke Lord for Pakistan, for instance) noted for limited impact despite high fees. Further, the use of lobbying to push anti-India or anti-Pakistan narratives, as seen with firms like BLJ Worldwide, raises ethical questions about amplifying divisive propaganda.

Over the last 25 years, India and Pakistan have hired the following firms to lobby for them. The list excludes corporate houses of these countries that hired lobby firms to further their business interests.

Firms hired by India

BGR Government Affairs: The Indian Embassy in the US has engaged this firm for lobbying activities, notably during the India-US nuclear deal negotiations in 2008. The firm continued to represent Indian interests in subsequent years, focusing on building positive relations with US policymakers.

Cornerstone Government Affairs: Hired by the Indian Embassy in December 2019 for a three-month contract to provide strategic counsel, tactical planning and government relations assistance, it had an Indian contract to counter negative perceptions following India’s decision to revoke Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir and to mobilise positive opinion on Capitol Hill. The firm represented India before the US government, Congress, state governments, academic institutions and think tanks.

The Podesta Group represented the Government of India since at least 2010, with reported payments of $700,000 in 2016 for lobbying efforts. The firm worked on issues related to US-India relations, including countering Pakistan’s lobbying on matters like the F-16 aircraft sales.

Firms hired by Pakistan

Holland & Knight: Contracted by the Pakistani Embassy in July 2019 for public policy strategy services under a one-year contract valued at $1.1 million, led by former Congressman Tom Reynolds. The firm was tasked with advancing Pakistan’s interests in the US, particularly during Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit to Washington. Pakistan paid $88,500 per month, plus a one-time fee of $1.062 million. The contract expired in December 2019.

Locke Lord Strategies (Locke Lord): Engaged by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government from 2008 to 2013 at a monthly rate of $75,000, earning approximately $4.5 million over the period, the firm, led by Mark Siegel, a personal friend of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, advocated Pakistan’s cause on Capitol Hill and engaged with US media, though with limited reported effectiveness.

BLJ Worldwide (Brown Lloyd James): Contracted by the Pakistani Embassy in June 2019, with the contract renewed on August 31, 2020, the firm was paid a monthly retainer fee of $50,000 by Pakistan to push an anti-India narrative, particularly on Kashmir, by engaging journalists and bloggers. The firm has a history of representing controversial clients like Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad.

Linden Government Solutions (Linden Strategies): Hired by the Pakistani government in 2020, with the agreement valid until January 2021, the firm provided strategic consulting, meeting arrangements, and public relations services to support Pakistan’s diplomatic goals, including anti-India narratives on Kashmir. Linden marketed its role in helping Pakistan secure non-NATO ally status and over $3 billion in US aid post-9/11. Stephen Payne and Brian Ettinger hired the firm to lobby for Pakistan too!

Team Eagle Consulting (Team Eagle/Team Barakat): Engaged by the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, a Pakistani state-funded think tank, in October 2024, led by Stephen Payne, the firm was hired to counter the growing influence of Imran Khan’s lobbying in the US Payne, considered a preeminent lobbyist for Pakistan, previously helped secure a multibillion-dollar US aid package, remove economic and military sanctions, and achieve Major non-NATO ally status for Pakistan in 2004, along with military equipment like F-16s and C-130s.

Fenton Communications (Fenton/Arlook): Hired by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) USA in August 2022 for six months at $25,000 per month to manage public and media relations, the company aimed to support PTI’s goal of developing ties with the US and the Pakistani diaspora, though PTI clarified it was a media relations firm, not a traditional lobbying firm.

Janus-Merritt Strategies: Registered by the Pakistani government for lobbying in the early 2000s, led by Iranian-American lawyer David Safavian, the firm was implicated in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, with Safavian convicted of a federal felony and serving a one-year sentence.

Both India and Pakistan have used lobbying firms to advance their foreign policy objectives, often in direct competition, particularly on issues like Kashmir, nuclear policy and military aid. India’s lobbying has been bolstered by the influential Indian-American community and organisations like the US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) and the India Caucus, which have played significant roles since the 1990s. Pakistan has relied more on professional lobbying firms and Pakistani-American advocacy groups, with a focus on countering India’s narrative and securing US aid.

Some firms, like the Podesta Group, have represented both India and Pakistan at different times or on different issues (for example, India in 2016 and Pakistan earlier), raising questions about conflicts of interest. Such dual representation is legal but controversial, as seen in the F-16 sales case where the Podesta Group lobbied for both sides.

Some contracts may not be publicly disclosed, and naming them on the basis of my sources is best avoided as the mention will be anecdotal in nature. Lobbying disclosure filings with the US Senate and House, as well as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), provide primary data but may not capture all activities.

So, did the Pakistani lobby urge CNN to plant pro-Pakistani stories?

Interestingly, while Pakistan seems to have ‘bought over’ CNN, multiple other American news outlets and journalists have been pro-India. Are we, therefore, to conclude that India and Pakistan hired different lobby firms, who worked with different media houses?

The CNN story was so outrageous that the Government of India ordered
all Indian media outlets to pull it down or face action

Not necessarily, because the American lobbies don’t work with the media. They work with the Congress, which votes in favour of or against a certain policy, which is then taken up by the US administration, unless the US president, exercising his special powers, overrules it.

US: The greatest propagandist

So far, the most compelling argument for CNN siding with Pakistan is “money”. If India beat the American F-16 and AWACS, it’s terrible news for the US’s global arms market. Remember, the US never admitted it lost an F-16 to a 1970 vintage MiG-21 Bison, which Abhinandan Varthaman reportedly hit before getting hit himself, ejecting and getting captured in PoK. The US has no option but to insist that F-16s downed Rafales rather than the other way round.

And when such a diktat comes from the top, it does not matter whether a media house like CNN or a social media platform like Facebook is anti-Republican or anti-Trump. They all fall in line to further a unified American story. Remember, the whole of America and all its NATO allies had together boycotted Russia in 2022 when it attacked Ukraine. The otherwise reliable Google conformed. It did not let web searchers access any news coming from Russia.

At the end of the day, it may not be India’s failure that stories such as five Rafales falling were filed, quoting an unnamed and questionable source, which was amplified by other media houses. It is how America is. It is how America functions and has made the world function since the Cold War years.

No points to Pakistan. It made a mess of the opportunity the Western media provided. While one of the ministers admitted on camera Pakistan harboured terrorists, even their DGMO and his colleagues reduced themselves to a butt of jokes when they claimed they won because some Indian social media users were saying it and when they doctored Indian media videos, turning those reports on their head, to claim Pakistan had devastated India.

 

Pakistan United States war social media