O.P. Singh - Crisis Communication In India: Why Silence Makes Emergencies Worse

From terror attacks to natural disasters, India’s biggest governance deficit during crises is not lack of action — but lack of timely, credible communication.

When a crisis strikes, governments instinctively focus on controlling events on the ground. Communication is treated as secondary — something to be managed once immediate danger passes. Yet in today’s digital world, communication is not an accessory to crisis response. It is one of the most powerful tools of governance.

The way authorities speak — or remain silent — during emergencies often determines whether fear spreads or calm prevails, whether citizens cooperate or panic, and whether institutions retain credibility or lose it.

A striking example comes from the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. As confusion spread across the city, the Boston Police Department turned its official Twitter account into a real-time information hub. Short, verified updates informed citizens about developments, security advisories and official actions. These timely messages displaced rumours and reassured the public.

The lesson is simple: in moments of fear, people seek trustworthy information. When governments provide it quickly and consistently, anxiety reduces and cooperation increases.

Unfortunately, the instinct of many administrations in crises is to retreat into silence. Officials hesitate to speak, worried about later scrutiny. Statements are delayed as files move through layers of approval — while the digital world fills the information vacuum with speculation.

Silence in the information age is never neutral.

Television debates speculate to fill airtime. Social media amplifies half-truths. Algorithms reward sensational content. Within hours, multiple narratives emerge — some exaggerated, some false, some deliberately misleading. Confusion spreads, trust erodes and recovery slows.

Global research consistently shows that delayed or unclear official communication allows misinformation to thrive. The Boston case succeeded not because rumours vanished, but because an authoritative voice existed to counter them.

For India — frequently facing floods, pandemics, terror incidents and public emergencies — crisis communication must become institutional infrastructure.

Governments should develop permanent communication frameworks that include verified digital channels, rapid-response content teams and clear protocols for releasing information in text, audio and video formats. These systems must function automatically during emergencies, not rely on individual initiative.

Over time, such platforms become trusted reference points for citizens, journalists and administrators alike.

There is also a strategic advantage. By consistently publishing accurate information, governments establish credibility benchmarks that help counter rumours and hold media accountable in the digital ecosystem.

Yet institutions alone do not build trust. People do.

During emergencies, citizens are more likely to believe senior officials who appear informed, calm and accountable. Key officers should therefore receive formal training in crisis communication — learning to explain evolving situations clearly, acknowledge uncertainty honestly and respond to tough questions without defensiveness.

Communication should not be treated as a soft skill. It must be integrated into performance accountability. Officers should be assessed not only on operational outcomes but also on how effectively they engage the public during crises.

Quality matters too. Poor visuals, contradictory statements and unclear messaging quietly weaken authority. Public communication teams must understand both content creation and the digital dynamics of information spread.

Governments must also invest in real-time monitoring of misinformation. Dedicated teams should track online narratives and coordinate with technology platforms to remove harmful and false content swiftly. In crises, speed can prevent lasting damage.

However, communication alone cannot substitute for ground action.

Citizens judge governments by visible effort — visits to affected areas, responsiveness to grievances and accountability for failures. Face-to-face engagement remains irreplaceable.

Good crisis communication should also guide behaviour — where to go, what to avoid, how to cooperate with authorities. Helping people make sense of unfolding events reduces fear and builds collective resilience.

These principles were central during my tenure as Director General of Police in Haryana during periods of heightened tension.

Restoring normalcy required firm enforcement, but also continuous and transparent communication. Officers across the state were regularly addressed to reinforce discipline and unity. Public ceremonies honoured fallen personnel to transform despair into collective resolve. Media engagement was decentralised to districts such as Rohtak and Gurugram, ensuring ground realities were visible.

Daily digital updates informed citizens about peace levels and police actions — arrests, preventive measures and interventions — while political leadership remained fully briefed.

Public irritants such as rude behaviour, indiscriminate checks and intimidating spaces were removed. Targeted operations against violent criminals and crime hotspots gradually restored confidence and morale.

Communication did not replace policing. It amplified its effectiveness.

The uncomfortable truth is that governments that fail to communicate effectively during crises do not merely lose control of the narrative — they lose control of outcomes.

In an era where misinformation spreads faster than facts and outrage travels further than reason, silence is no longer caution. It is abdication.

The art of crisis communication lies in preparation, credibility, speed and consistency. It requires leaders willing to speak early, even without all the answers. It demands transparency without drama and empathy without weakness.

Citizens do not expect perfection in moments of chaos. They expect honesty, visible effort and steady guidance.

When institutions deliver these — through words and action — panic subsides, cooperation improves and recovery accelerates.

For India, mastering crisis communication is no longer optional. It is essential to sustaining public trust when it matters most.

(The above content has been written by O.P. Singh, Former DGP Haryana.)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.