Press conferences by Indian & Pakistani DGMOs: Difference lay in professionalism

The press conferences held by the Indian and Pakistani Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) on May 11, following heightened tensions, Operation Sindoor and Bunyan ul Marsoos, showcased distinct qualitative differences in tone, content and delivery.

Below is a comparative analysis based on the information available and The Squirrels' own observations:

1. Tone and professionalism

Indian DGMO (Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai):

• The Indian briefing was described as professional, measured and focused. It emphasised factual reporting and operational details without resorting to emotional or inflammatory rhetoric.
• The tone was resolute yet restrained, underscoring India's commitment to non-escalation while warning of decisive action if provoked further. Lt Gen Ghai highlighted that India’s actions were “measured, non-escalatory, proportionate and responsible,” focusing on dismantling terror infrastructure.
• The briefing avoided personal attacks or political commentary, maintaining a military-centric narrative aligned with national security objectives.

Pakistani DGMO (Maj Gen Kashif Chaudhry) / DG ISPR (Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry):

• The Pakistani briefing was characterised by pomp, flair and a more theatrical delivery, often perceived as resembling “militant-style rhetoric” or propaganda.
• It leaned heavily on nationalist themes, invoking concepts like “Jihad” and “Shahadat” (martyrdom), which framed the narrative in ideological and emotional terms rather than purely military ones.
• The tone was defensive yet aggressive, with claims of downing Indian jets and accusations of Indian aggression, often lacking detailed evidence to support these assertions.

2. Content and focus

Indian DGMO:

• The Indian briefing provided specific operational details about Operation Sindoor, including the targeting of nine terror hubs, the elimination of over 100 terrorists (including high-value targets like Yusuf Azhar) and the loss of 35-40 Pakistani military personnel.
• It included a clear timeline of events, such as Pakistan’s ceasefire violations and India’s retaliatory strikes, supported by strike footage and maps.
• The focus was on counter-terrorism, with an emphasis on India’s restraint in avoiding Pakistani military installations and its commitment to the ceasefire agreement reached on May 10.
• The briefing was structured, with contributions from multiple armed forces representatives (e.g., Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, Vice-Admiral A.N. Pramod), showcasing a unified, tri-service approach.

Pakistani DGMO / DG ISPR:

• The Pakistani briefing focused on denouncing Indian actions as “cowardly and unjustified,” alleging civilian casualties, which India denied.
• It emphasised defensive successes, such as claims of shooting down Indian jets, but lacked verifiable evidence or detailed operational accounts to substantiate these claims.
• The content often diverted to political narratives, accusing India of state-sponsored terrorism and attempting to shift blame for internal security issues.
• There was less focus on operational specifics and more on shaping a narrative for domestic and international audiences, aiming to rally nationalist sentiment and deflect criticism of Pakistan’s military.

3. Delivery and presentation

Indian DGMO:

• The delivery was described as no-nonsense and impressive, with a clear, concise presentation style.
• Visual aids, such as maps and strike footage, were used to provide transparency and credibility to India’s claims.
• The briefing involved senior officers from the Army, Air Force and Navy, reflecting a coordinated and professional approach.
• The Indian side avoided engaging with Pakistani propaganda directly, focusing instead on its own actions and objectives.

Pakistani DGMO / DG ISPR:

• The delivery was critiqued for relying on half-cut clips and political commentary, resembling YouTube-style content rather than a formal military briefing.
• It was perceived as less structured, with an emphasis on rhetorical flourishes and ideological appeals over substantive military details.
• The use of state TV and media to broadcast claims suggested an intent to manage public perception rather than provide a detailed military account.

4. Ethos and mindset

Indian DGMO:

• The briefing reflected a professional military ethos, rooted in constitutional accountability and civilian oversight. The Indian Army was presented as a national institution with operational excellence and public trust.
• The mindset was strategic, focusing on deterring terrorism while maintaining readiness for escalation if necessary. The emphasis on “If you hit, we hit; if you stop, we stop” conveyed a pragmatic approach to de-escalation.
• The Indian side projected confidence in its military capabilities and moral high ground, framing its actions as a response to Pakistan-backed terrorism.

Pakistani DGMO / DG ISPR:

• The briefing highlighted a militarised and ideological mindset, with references to religious and nationalist themes that contrasted with the Indian focus on secular military objectives.
• The ethos was shaped by the Pakistan Army’s historical role in domestic politics and its need to maintain legitimacy amid internal dissent and governance failures.
• The narrative sought to project strength and resilience but was undermined by a lack of transparency and reliance on unverified claims, reflecting a defensive posture.

5. Public and social media perception

Indian DGMO:

• Posts on X praised the Indian briefing for its professionalism and clarity, contrasting it with the Pakistani approach. Users noted the Indian DGMO’s focus on facts and operational success as a sign of credibility.
• The Indian briefing was seen as reinforcing India’s strategic and moral stance, enhancing its image as a responsible military power.

Pakistani DGMO / DG ISPR:

• X posts criticised the Pakistani briefing for its theatricality and lack of substance, with some users mocking its reliance on “pomp and flair” and ideological rhetoric.
• The briefing was perceived as an attempt to mask operational setbacks and rally domestic support, but it failed to resonate as convincingly on international or neutral platforms.

The Indian DGMO’s press conference on May 11 stood out for its professional, measured and operationally focused approach, emphasising counter-terrorism and restraint while showcasing military precision and transparency.

In contrast, the Pakistani DGMO/DG ISPR briefing was marked by a theatrical, ideologically charged delivery that prioritised nationalist rhetoric and propaganda over substantive military details, reflecting a defensive and politically driven narrative.

These differences underscore contrasting military cultures and strategic priorities, with India projecting a disciplined, constitutionally aligned force and Pakistan grappling with internal and external pressures through emotive posturing.