Toss out facts without explicit emotional judgement ⭐
Indians need to learn the skill of just stating a fact, neutrally and without judgement.
Say our guys want to drop a factoid that would “bait” the enemy—e.g. “Ambedkar was pro-British”. They will do so with such an adversarial posture, or with a smug epic-pwning attitude, that it is very obvious to the enemy that it is bait and they should just stay away.
Our guys are generally just very bad at stating facts without moral judgement. As a result they in fact end up falling for their own baits by being very explicit about their beliefs on it—exactly how they wanted to bait their enemies to behave!
(The master at this on the other side—and in general the absolute expert manipulator whom we should monitor and learn a lot from—is Zaid Jilani. He has in large part been responsible for courting the smarter US conservatives toward Islamophilia in recent years—while Tate types did it for the dumb ones and Qatari money did it for the corruptible ones.
Even in India they’re quite good at this btw, compared to us. That’s why people have this stereotype of the honest muslim chacha who wants nothing but peace.)
This shortcoming also limits our credibility on other matters.
Take Indian RW historians (many of whom I have a lot of respect for), or people and media covering matters like the recent Boeing crash—they are simply unable to make their points without a lot of emotional coating.
Thus they come across as “biased” and “motivated” by politics/nationalism. Leftist historians or liberal media may be much more biased and ideologically motivated, but they present themselves as having come to their conclusions via purely factual pursuit of truth. They pass off their propaganda as facts, while our guys pass off their facts as propaganda.