Global media’s double standards are visible in Pahalgam reporting
The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists, was a brutal assault on India’s efforts to stabilize the region.
Perpetrated by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the attack targeted civilians in the scenic Baisaran Meadows, a symbol of Kashmir’s tourism revival. Survivors recounted harrowing details: seven militants in military fatigues, armed with M4 carbines and AK-47s, checked identities, demanded victims recite Islamic verses, and spared Muslims, killing 25 Indians and one Nepali. India’s response was swift—suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Attari border, expelling Pakistani diplomats, and reducing diplomatic staff—escalating tensions with Pakistan to a new low.
Yet, the international media’s coverage, from Al Jazeera to The Guardian, Reuters, and The New York Times, has sparked outrage in India for its refusal to label the attackers as “terrorists,” opting instead for “gunmen,” “militants,” or “suspected rebels.” This linguistic evasion reveals a double standard that undermines India’s security concerns, strains India-Pakistan relations, and challenges the Modi government’s domestic and diplomatic strategies.
Al Jazeera’s April 23 report described the attackers as “armed men” and “gunmen,” noting TRF’s claim of responsibility but framing the attack within the context of “Indian-administered Kashmir.” Posts on X, such as those from
@AnnuKaushik253 and @OpIndia_com, accuse Al Jazeera of whitewashing terrorism by using terms like “rebels” or “fighters” in past reports, a pattern seen as aligning with Pakistan’s narrative of a Kashmiri “freedom struggle.” This is particularly contentious given Al Jazeera’s Qatari funding, as Qatar balances ties with India and Pakistan.
The Guardian, in its April 23 coverage, called the attackers “suspected militants” and emphasized the attack’s timing during US Vice President JD Vance’s visit, contextualizing it as part of Kashmir’s “armed rebellion.” Reuters, reporting the same day, used “suspected militants” and estimated a death toll of 20 to 26, while The New York Times referred to “militants,” focusing on India’s retaliatory measures and hinting at potential military strikes. These outlets’ reluctance to use “terrorist” contrasts sharply with Indian media like India Today and The Indian Express, which explicitly labeled the attackers as terrorists and highlighted LeT’s Pakistan links.
This linguistic divide is not mere semantics—it reflects deeper biases rooted in geopolitics and historical framing. Kashmir’s disputed status since 1947, coupled with Pakistan’s portrayal of the conflict as a legitimate struggle, creates a minefield for global media. Al Jazeera’s use of “Indian-administered Kashmir” mirrors Pakistan’s terminology, subtly questioning India’s sovereignty.
The Guardian and The New York Times often frame Kashmir through a post-colonial lens, emphasizing India’s military presence and human rights issues, as seen in The Guardian’s nod to the 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy as a trigger for unrest. Reuters, while factual, avoids “terrorist” to maintain neutrality, a stance that critics argue dilutes the attack’s ideological roots in LeT’s global jihadist agenda.
This equivocation contrasts with Western media’s readiness to label attacks like 9/11 or the Paris shootings as “terrorism,” revealing a double standard that frustrates India, where LeT is a UN- and US-designated terrorist group.
The implications for India-Pakistan relations are dire. The Pahalgam attack has obliterated any pretense of détente. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a lifeline for Pakistan’s agriculture, is a historic escalation, as the treaty survived past wars. The Attari border closure and diplomatic expulsions further isolate Pakistan, which condemned the attack but denied involvement, with some officials, per Al Jazeera, suggesting India staged a “false flag” operation.
Pakistan’s National Security Committee, convened by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on April 24, braced for India’s response, with fears of military escalation looming. India accuses Pakistan of nurturing LeT and TRF, a charge Pakistan counters with claims of only “moral and diplomatic” support for Kashmiri self-determination. The media’s neutral language risks legitimizing Pakistan’s narrative, weakening India’s push to isolate Islamabad diplomatically, as seen in its campaigns to blacklist LeT globally.
For the Modi government, the attack is a multifaceted crisis. Domestically, it shatters the narrative of a secure, tourism-friendly Kashmir post-2019, when Article 370’s revocation aimed to integrate the region. Pahalgam’s tourism boom—3 million visitors in 2024—was a point of pride, now replaced by flight cancellations and an economic hit. Public anger is palpable, with vigils in Srinagar and protests by Kashmiri traders decrying the attack as an assault on their livelihood.
Opposition leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi point to “intelligence lapses,” likening it to Pulwama, while Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut demands Home Minister Amit Shah’s resignation. Social media amplifies this, with X users like @Asianexus slamming Western media for calling terrorists “gunmen,” fueling calls to ban Al Jazeera in India. Modi’s vow to dismantle the “ecosystem of terrorism” faces hurdles: infiltrating LeT’s networks, securing borders, and addressing local alienation without further militarization.
Diplomatically, the media’s framing complicates India’s strategy. World leaders—Trump, Putin, Meloni, Starmer—condemned the attack, with Trump offering “full support” and Nepal’s KP Sharma Oli mourning a citizen’s death. Yet, the media’s equivocation risks diluting this solidarity. The Guardian’s focus on India’s “intensified military crackdown” and Al Jazeera’s nod to “demographic changes” echo Pakistan’s talking points, making it harder for India to rally global pressure on Pakistan.
The New York Times’ emphasis on India-Pakistan rivalry equates the two, ignoring Pakistan’s documented role in sheltering LeT, whose leader Hafiz Saeed operates freely. India’s retaliation, including hints of military strikes per Reuters, could escalate tensions, especially if Pakistan views the treaty suspension as an existential threat.
The media’s double standard also reflects a broader issue: sensationalism fuels terrorism. A 2015 Guardian study by Michael Jetter found that media coverage of attacks increases follow-up strikes by 11-15%, as groups like LeT crave the “oxygen of publicity.” Al Jazeera’s detailed reporting, while informative, amplifies TRF’s Telegram claims, potentially inspiring copycats. Reuters’ focus on the attack’s disruption of tourism, while accurate, risks glorifying its impact. This cycle challenges India to counter not just terrorists but the narratives that embolden them.
India must navigate this crisis with precision. Domestically, it needs to bolster intelligence and reassure a grieving nation, perhaps through visible arrests or economic aid for Kashmir’s tourism sector. Diplomatically, it should leverage allies like the US and Israel, who face similar media biases, to push for consistent global terminology on terrorism.
Engaging digital platforms to amplify survivor stories, like those of Himanshi Narwal or Syed Adil Hussain Shah, who died heroically, could humanize India’s case. Long-term, India must address Kashmir’s socio-economic grievances to shrink TRF’s recruitment pool, a task requiring finesse amid heightened security.
The Pahalgam attack is a wake-up call. By calling terrorists “gunmen,” global media outlets like Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, and The New York Times obscure LeT’s jihadist agenda and Pakistan’s alleged complicity, emboldening denials and straining India-Pakistan ties. For Modi, it’s a test of resolve: securing Kashmir, countering global narratives, and preventing escalation. As India mourns, it fights a war on two fronts—against terrorism and the words that soften it.