Indian journalist Karan Thapar and The Wire, a platform known for questionable journalism, have faced severe backlash following the reported ban of The Wire across India on 9 May 2025. This action reportedly stemmed from Thapar’s 28 April interview with Pakistani commentator Najam Sethi.
Conducted in the wake of the devastating Pahalgam attack, this interview allowed Sethi to peddle baseless claims that harm India’s sovereignty and embolden its adversary.
The Najam Sethi Interview: A Platform for Pakistan’s Falsehoods
On 28 April 2025, as India mourned the loss of 26 lives in the Pahalgam terror attack, Thapar hosted Najam Sethi, editor of The Friday Times, on The Wire. Sethi accused India of orchestrating the attack as a “false flag” operation to fuel anti-Pakistan sentiment and bolster the BJP’s electoral prospects.
He further alleged that India supports terrorist groups like the Baloch Liberation Army and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan to destabilize Pakistan, while issuing a warning of nuclear retaliation if India tampered with Pakistan’s water supply (Samaa TV, 29 April 2025; Express Tribune, 30 April 2025). These claims, lacking evidence, align with Pakistan’s strategy of deflecting blame and portraying itself as a victim.
Thapar’s decision to platform Sethi was not neutral journalism—it was a reckless amplification of Pakistan’s propaganda. By giving Sethi an unchallenged stage to spew anti-India rhetoric, Thapar and The Wire undermined India’s efforts to counter Pakistan’s narrative during a time of national grief. The interview fueled perceptions that Thapar and The Wire prioritize provocative content over national interests, effectively siding with India’s adversary.
Thapar’s work reveals a troubling pattern, consistently undermining India’s national interests by providing a platform for Pakistan’s divisive propaganda.
Fueling Pakistan’s Propaganda on Pulwama
The Sethi interview is not an aberration but part of Thapar’s troubling pattern of prioritizing Pakistan’s perspective over India’s interests. In April 2023, his interview with former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik on The Wire saw Malik attribute the 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 CRPF jawans, to Indian government lapses.
Pakistan’s state media, PTV World, seized on this to deny its role in the terror attack, using Thapar’s platform to absolve itself of responsibility .
Pakistani NSA Interview:
Similarly, in July 2021, Thapar interviewed Pakistan’s National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf, who accused India of sponsoring terrorism while positioning Pakistan as open to dialogue.
Thapar’s soft questioning allowed Yusuf’s narrative to permeate Indian discourse, casting doubt on India’s security policies.
Questioning India’s Kashmir Policy
His columns are equally damaging. In December 2023, Thapar questioned the use of UAPA charges against Kashmiri students for alleged pro-Pakistan slogans, arguing they didn’t constitute terrorism.
In a December 2023 Indian Express column titled “If They Weren’t Kashmiri Muslims, Would the Students Have Been Charged with UAPA?”, Thapar questioned the arrest of seven Kashmiri students for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans and celebrating Australia’s cricket win.
He argued that such actions, even if true, didn’t warrant terrorism charges, implying bias against Kashmiri Muslims.
This stance not only undermines India’s efforts to curb separatist sentiments in Kashmir but also aligns with Pakistan’s narrative of India as an oppressor in the region.
By framing India’s security measures as excessive, Thapar emboldens Pakistan’s propaganda, which paints Kashmir as a victim of Indian occupation.
The Islamabad Security Dialogue Debacle
Thapar’s participation in Pakistan’s Islamabad Security Dialogue in April 2022 further underscores his questionable priorities. Speaking on disinformation, he criticized the Modi government and made a gaffe, referring to Lord Hanuman as “Humayun”.
This blunder, coupled with his anti-India rhetoric on a Pakistani platform, was seen as a slap in the face to Indian sentiments. By choosing to air India’s dirty laundry in Pakistan, Thapar provided ammunition to a hostile neighbor, reinforcing Pakistan’s narrative of India as a flawed state. His presence at such an event, hosted by a country that sponsors cross-border terrorism, raises serious questions about his judgment and loyalty.
The Shadow of “Handlers”
In a 2012 Newslaundry interview, journalist Madhu Trehan confronted him with claims from a politician who labeled him a “Pakistani spy” with “handlers in Pakistan.” While Thapar dismissed this as absurd, the accusation persists, fueled by his actions.
Even Pakistan’s government has inadvertently bolstered this narrative. In 2024, it accused Thapar of an “Indian nexus” in a controversy involving PTI spokesperson Raoof Hasan, citing their WhatsApp exchanges as evidence of anti-Pakistan plotting .
This accusation highlighted Thapar’s close relationships with Pakistani figures, raising questions about his allegiances.
Whether seen as pro-Pakistan in India or anti-Pakistan in Pakistan, the common thread is his entanglement with Pakistan’s political and media ecosystem, often to India’s detriment.
Counterarguments: A Weak Defense
Thapar’s defenders argue he’s merely a journalist doing his job, probing both sides to foster dialogue. Others claim Pakistan’s misuse of his work, like in the Pulwama case, is beyond his control. But a seasoned journalist like Thapar should foresee how his platform can be weaponized, especially by a state adept at propaganda.
Some argue Thapar’s critiques of India’s policies, particularly on Kashmir, are about human rights, not Pakistan’s agenda. However, in the context of India-Pakistan tensions, these critiques inevitably bolster Pakistan’s position, which thrives on portraying India as an oppressor. Thapar’s failure to balance his criticism with acknowledgment of Pakistan’s role in fueling unrest undermines his credibility as an objective observer.
The Cost to India
Thapar’s actions have tangible consequences. By questioning India’s military strikes, security measures in Kashmir, and handling of terror attacks like Pulwama, he erodes public confidence in India’s institutions.
His interviews and columns provide Pakistan with material to deflect blame and project itself as a victim or peacemaker, weakening India’s global narrative.
In a polarized world, where information is a battlefield, Thapar’s work tilts the scales in Pakistan’s favor, whether by design or negligence.
