In the wake of the brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu, and Kashmir, where 28 innocent civilians, including several Hindu tourists, were killed, global media outlets have been accused of downplaying the nature of the violence and its perpetrators. Despite overwhelming evidence that this attack was the handiwork of terrorists, several major Western media organizations, including Al Jazeera, The New York Times (NYT), BBC, Reuters, and The Washington Post, have employed language that seems to shield the true identity of the attackers.
Al Jazeera’s ‘Cautious’ Language
Al Jazeera, a Qatari news outlet which is often seen as a Jihad enabler, described the assailants in Pahalgam as “armed persons” rather than terrorists. The media outlet referred to the attack in its report by using terms like “gunmen” and placing the phrase “terrorist attack” in quotation marks, subtly suggesting a lack of clarity.
Following backlash, they changed the title to “Attack on tourists kills 26 in Indian-administered Kashmir: Police”.
This is not the first time Al Jazeera has resorted to such linguistic manipulation—historically, the network has used “gunmen” and “armed men” to describe terrorists in conflict zones, particularly when it involves Kashmir. By not directly labeling them as terrorists, Al Jazeera appears to deflect the responsibility of calling out terrorism when it involves groups sympathetic to Pakistan’s interests.
WaPo Downplays Terror, Echoes Separatist Narrative
The Washington Post whitewashed the Kashmir terror attack by calling the region “Indian-administered Kashmir,” subtly questioning India’s sovereignty. It described the attackers as “gunmen” and “suspected militants” and avoided mentioning Islamist motives. The article emphasized India’s “harsh crackdown” and “rights abuses,” inserting unrelated grievances to deflect from the brutality of the massacre. Instead of focusing on the victims, it highlighted separatist aspirations and cast doubt on India’s stability narrative.
The piece framed the attack as part of a broader conflict rather than a targeted act of terror, using vague, passive phrasing to obscure the killers’ identity and ideological background.
This omission of crucial facts, including the religious targeting of the victims, raises serious questions about the newspaper’s objectivity.
BBC: Historical Bias and Evasive Language
The BBC, often seen as a global authority in news coverage, has faced consistent criticism for its biased reporting on Kashmir. In its latest coverage, BBC avoided calling the attackers “terrorists” and referred to them as “gunmen.” The BBC also described the region as “India-administered Kashmir” and referred to the attack as a part of a “separatist rebellion,” subtly implying the insurgents’ actions were a legitimate response to a so-called occupation.
BBC Hindi uses the word “extremists” to describe the terrorists.
This kind of framing has been a hallmark of BBC’s coverage of Kashmir, where the institution often acts in a way that diminishes India’s sovereignty over the region.
Reuters Downplays Terrorist Attack As Act By “Suspected Militants”
Despite the brutality of the massacre, where eyewitnesses confirmed that the attackers selectively targeted Hindus before opening fire, Reuters chose to describe the perpetrators merely as “suspected militants.” This phrasing has drawn sharp criticism for downplaying the nature of the attack and ignoring the ideological motivations behind it.
In another article, Reuters whitewashes the victims’ identities by not referring to them as Hindu men – the article talks about how the Hindus and Muslims were segregated by the terrorists.
By using such ambiguous terminology, Reuters is also contributing to a narrative that obscures the reality of Islamist terrorism in Kashmir and avoids confronting the communal targeting involved in the killings.
Group Of Gunmen, Suspected Militants – Guardian Whitewashes Terrorists
The Guardian downplayed the Kashmir terror attack by repeatedly labeling the perpetrators as a “group of gunmen” and “suspected militants” instead of terrorists, avoiding clear condemnation. It emphasized the scenic setting, quoted survivors in distress, and focused on the emotional aftermath rather than ideological motives or the extremist nature of the attack. The piece failed to frame the assault as terrorism, instead treating it as part of the broader “regional conflict.”
By attributing the motive to “anger over the settlement,” the Guardian subtly justified the violence, aligning with a narrative that masks religiously motivated terror under political grievances.
NYT Softens Kashmir Massacre With Scenic Framing And Passive Language
The New York Times downplayed the Kashmir terror attack by highlighting the “picturesque” setting instead of using direct terms like Islamist terrorism. It avoided naming the perpetrators, used passive language like “gunmen began firing” and framed the violence within the context of the Indo-Pak conflict rather than religious terrorism. It prioritized landscape descriptions over ideological motives. By emphasizing India’s governance in Kashmir and hinting at “security lapses,” the NYT subtly shifted focus from the killers to political management, thus diluting the nature of the attack.
The Omissions That Matter
Despite global condemnation of the Pahalgam attack, including statements from world leaders such as US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Western media outlets have continued to employ euphemistic language to avoid identifying the perpetrators as terrorists. The most glaring omission is the failure to report that the attackers targeted Hindu victims based on religious identity—an act of religious persecution that the media outlets conveniently downplayed.
The global media’s selective reporting of terrorist activities is not limited to Kashmir. Similar patterns were observed when it came to other terrorist attacks, including those by Hamas in Israel. However, the reluctance to call out terrorism when it happens in Kashmir, and the continuous use of terms like “gunmen” and “militants,” suggests a political bias that undermines the severity of terrorism in India.
This selective portrayal of terrorist acts not only distorts the reality for global audiences but also contributes to the global narrative that undermines India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. The failure to accurately label these attackers as “terrorists” demonstrates the media’s willingness to downplay the gravity of such acts to fit political narratives.
(With inputs from OpIndia)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.