On April 22, 2025, the serene valley of Pahalgam in Kashmir was shattered by the sound of gunfire. Four armed terrorists opened fire on a group of tourists and selectively identified and killed Hindu tourists that were men, leaving at least 26 dead and dozens more injured. What should have been a moment of national mourning and international outrage shed light on a grave problem: the selective coverage and silence from key sections of the media, both at the national and international levels.
Despite the gravity of the attack, much of the global media showed apathy and an ideological slant, covering the story with little urgency and an anti-reality, anti-humanitarian bias. The difference in how this was reported compared to similar attacks in Western countries was glaring writing on the wall and it was impossible to ignore.
A striking example of such a response came from The New York Times (NYT). In its coverage titled “India Takes Aim at Pakistan After Slaughter of Civilians in Kashmir,” rather than clearly calling the attackers “terrorists,” the publication chose slanted terms like “militants” and “gunmen.”. This lessened the acute and grave violence of terrorism into something more palatable- a deeply regrettable choice of wording.
Similarly, the BBC’s coverage did little to centre the grief of the victims. One headline read, “Pakistan suspends visas for Indians after deadly Kashmir attack on tourists,” removing all context and giving the impression that Pakistan was acting in justified response. This also shifted the focus from the human tragedy to geopolitical fallout. This sparked criticism from various quarters, including a diplomatic protest from the Indian government accusing the BBC of whitewashing terror.
The Indian government has long pointed out these outlets for their non-neutral and misleading writing. The misplaced emphasis, mitigating the crime and using slanted words dilutes the motives behind such heinous acts and contributes to a global narrative that often downplays violence in South Asia unless it fits a particular lens.
Indian media, however, was expected to rise above such neglect, and yet they also stumble. Many right-leaning channels focused heavily on the attackers’ identity, sometimes veering into communal narratives. On the other hand, several left-leaning platforms were equally egregious, offering limited attention to the victims and instead shifting the spotlight to political context or state failures.
Take The Wire, for example. Its article in the aftermath of the attack was more concerned with critiquing the government’s security lapses and recounting historical grievances than accurately identifying the real perpetrator of the crime- Pakistan and its state sponsored proxies of terrorism.
The Frontline headline “Is anger our mourning now?” takes an intellectual approach to public reactions to the Pahalgam attack. It questions whether anger has replaced mourning, suggesting that grief is being overshadowed by commodified outrage. While this perspective is thought-provoking, it risks distancing the public from the actual pain of the victims. In this case, the focus should be on the immediate human tragedy, rather than getting lost in abstract reflections. The victims’ suffering demands clear attention, not intellectual debates about the expression of grief.
By focusing more on politics than on people, Frontline’s coverage came across as cold and distant, leaving some to wonder: Where was the outrage for the innocent lives taken?
When attacks occur in Paris, London, or New York, they rightly draw widespread condemnation and blanket media coverage. Victims are named, mourned, and remembered. Hashtag trends, vigils are held, and world leaders react with urgency. Why, then, does a mass killing terror attack in Pahalgam specifically targeted Hindus by identity, not evoke the same level of national and international moral clarity and forceful response?
The uncomfortable truth is that selective outrage shows that some tragedies are seen as more important than others. In this hierarchy, some lives are mourned, while others are overlooked.
The global media, especially, has struggled to treat Hindu victims of terrorism with the same empathy and clarity it gives to victims in other parts of the world. The media is not just a recorder of events; it shapes and reflects public opinion. When it opts for silence, vague language, or political bias instead of honest reporting, it neglects its most important responsibility.
The Pahalgam attack should have been covered for what it was: a terrorist strike targeting innocent civilians with a religious intent aimed to strike fear and paralysis into Indian society. And yet, between muted headlines, ideological filters, and deflections, the story of 26 lost lives risks being forgotten. As citizens, readers, and storytellers, we owe it to the victims to demand better from our media, our institutions, and ourselves.
Comments