On April 22, the peaceful valley of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was turned into a graveyard by one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in recent history. At least 26 civilians, with 24 of them being Hindus, were brutally gunned down by Islamic terrorists affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy outfit of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The attackers opened fire on unarmed tourists visiting the picturesque spot, deliberately targeting them for their religious identity. Survivors and witnesses, speaking both on record and on camera, confirmed that the victims were chosen because they were not Muslims.
Yet, as India mourned the loss of deadly religious targeting, a disturbing pattern unfolded in the way several international media outlets reported the tragedy. Rather than acknowledging the brutal and targeted nature of the act and the religion associated with it, many chose to obfuscate the facts, downplay the terror angle, and adopt terminology that questioned India’s territorial integrity.
Global media’s whitewashing of terrorism
BBC: Language of denial
The BBC, in its coverage of the incident, headlined its article: “More than 20 killed after gunmen open fire on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir”. The body of the report maintained a passive tone, stating, “At least two dozen people have been killed after gunmen opened fire on a group of domestic tourists visiting a popular beauty spot in Indian-administered Kashmir.” The report avoided using the word “terrorist” except when quoting an unnamed source. Nowhere did it identify the TRF or mention the affiliation with Pakistan-based terror outfits, and the ideological motive behind the killing was left unexamined.
Al Jazeera: Blurring accountability
In its video report, Al Jazeera went even further in deflecting blame. The report referred to the attackers as “gunmen” and framed the incident as one tied to broader unrest. It claimed no group had taken responsibility, while simultaneously stating that “police blamed armed groups fighting against Indian rule.” By invoking the phrase “armed groups fighting Indian rule,” Al Jazeera subtly legitimised the attack as part of a political struggle, rather than a deliberate act of terror. Again, the term “Indian-administered Kashmir” was used throughout.
Washington Post: Minimising terrorism
The Washington Post published a report titled “Gunmen launch rare attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir”. The title itself attempted to frame the attack as a rarity and used the euphemism “gunmen” instead of “terrorists.” Throughout the body of the report, the word “terrorist” was conspicuously absent, only appearing when quoting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Further, by using “Indian-administered Kashmir”, the Washington Post implicitly questioned India’s sovereign control over the Union Territory.
France 24: Echoing the same template
France 24 repeated the same editorial decisions, calling the perpetrators “gunmen” and using the term “Indian-administered Kashmir.” The channel described the attack in neutral terms and chose to use the word “terrorist” only when quoting Indian leaders. The network made no reference to Lashkar-e-Taiba, TRF, or Pakistan’s involvement.
DW (Deutsche Welle): Sanitised reporting
DW described the TRF as a “militant group” and refrained from calling the attack an act of terrorism outside of quoting PM Modi. The network also used the now-standard phrase “Indian-administered Kashmir,” thereby perpetuating the narrative that Kashmir is not an integral part of India but a disputed territory. No mention was made of the communal targeting of Hindu tourists.
SBS News: The use of “Suspected militants”
SBS did not refer to the perpetrators as terrorists. In the body of the report, it stated, “At least 20 people are feared dead after suspected militants opened fire on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir on Tuesday.” The report made no mention of Islamic extremism or the victims’ religious identities. The phrase “Indian-administered Kashmir” was used repeatedly to describe the region.
Bangladesh Guardian: Redefining terror
The Bangladesh Guardian chose the phrase “gun attack” in its title and referred to the perpetrators as “armed assailants”. The report again defaulted to calling the location “Indian-administered Kashmir” and avoided attributing any ideological or religious motive to the attackers. No terror designation was given.
Middle East Eye: Political gaslighting
Middle East Eye not only used the now-familiar “Indian-administered Kashmir” and “gunmen” labels but also attempted to redirect the narrative by highlighting that Kashmir is “often dubbed the world’s most militarised zone”. It quoted Amnesty International, claiming the Indian government had suppressed “credible, independent sources of information” post-abrogation of Article 370. There was no acknowledgement of the religiously motivated killings or the involvement of Pakistan-backed terrorists.
Euronews: India’s sovereignty in question
Euronews used both “Indian-administered Kashmir” and the phrase “India-controlled portion of Kashmir” in its report. The attackers were referred to as “gunmen” with no mention of their ideological or organisational affiliations. The report lacked any meaningful context about the victims, their religious identity, or the targeted nature of the killings.
Asia News Network
Asia News Network used “Indian-administered Kashmir” and “gunmen” but did acknowledge the attack as a “terror attack” and identified TRF as a terrorist outfit. It remains one of the very few outlets to at least partially acknowledge the nature of the incident.
A Global Pattern
The global pattern of selective terminology and vague reporting raises serious questions about journalistic ethics and motivations. The deliberate reluctance to use the word “terrorist“, the consistent use of the politically charged term “Indian-administered Kashmir“, and the failure to mention the religious identity of victims all contribute to a broader agenda that whitewashes acts of Islamic terrorism and subtly delegitimises India’s sovereignty.
The repeated use of “Indian-administered Kashmir” and the careful avoidance of the term “terrorist” are not mere semantics they are political choices. These editorial decisions not only blur the lines between ideologically driven mass murder and generic criminal acts but also subtly erode the legitimacy of India’s sovereignty.
By echoing Pakistan’s terminology and underreporting the Islamist motivation behind the killings, these media houses risk becoming unwitting mouthpieces for terrorist sympathisers. Their failure to name the ideology, the group, or the real victims reflects a deeply problematic global media bias.
International condemnation and solidarity with India
In sharp contrast to the hedging seen in the media, global leaders unequivocally condemned the terror attack and expressed solidarity with India. Their statements recognised the incident as a terrorist attack and offered strong support.
Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted, “My dear friend @narendramodi, I am deeply saddened by the barbaric terrorist attack in #Pahalgam… Israel stands with India in its fight against terrorism.”
Italy: PM Giorgia Meloni expressed that she was “deeply saddened” by the attack and stood with the people of India.
France: President Emmanuel Macron called it a “heinous attack” and offered “heartfelt condolences.”
China: The foreign ministry extended “sincere sympathies” and condemned the attack.
Australia: PM Anthony Albanese said, “There is no justification for this violence… Our hearts go out to the injured.”
United Kingdom: PM Keir Starmer said the attack was “utterly devastating.”
United States: President Donald Trump, in a call with PM Modi, “strongly condemned” the attack. He posted on Truth Social: “The United States stands strong with India against terrorism.”
US Vice President J.D. Vance, present in India during the attack, offered condolences: “Our thoughts and prayers are with them as they mourn this horrific attack.”
Russia: President Vladimir Putin denounced the act as a “brutal crime” with “no justification.”
Germany: Chancellor Olaf Scholz called it a “cowardly terrorist attack.”
Mauritius: Former PM Pravind Jugnauth conveyed prayers and solidarity with the people of India.
Sri Lanka: The Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, calling it “heinous,” and pledged support for India’s fight against terrorism.
European Union: EU’s Kaja Kallas wrote, “The EU stands firm against terrorism.”
UAE: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the “criminal acts” and expressed “permanent rejection of all forms of terrorism.”
Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman offered full support and sympathy as PM Modi cut short his visit to return to India.
Iran: The Iranian government extended heartfelt condolences and support.
Denmark: PM Mette Frederiksen described the news as “terrible” and sent condolences.
The Pahalgam massacre stands not only as a grim reminder of the persistent threat of Islamist terrorism in Kashmir but also as a test of journalistic integrity. As governments across the world stood with India and condemned the act for what it was terrorism, many international media outlets failed to rise to the occasion.
Their editorial choices reflect not neutrality, but complicity in distorting the truth. While India continues to battle terrorism with resilience, it must also challenge this global media narrative that trivialises the loss of its innocent citizens. Truth in reporting is not optional, it is a moral duty, especially when lives are lost to hate.
As governments around the world called the attack what it truly was, an act of brutal terrorism, why did so many international media outlets hesitate? Why is the ideological motive ignored, and the identity of the victims blurred? What drives the persistent use of terms like “Indian-administered Kashmir,” which subtly challenge India’s sovereignty and whitewash cross-border terrorism?
Comments