By Madhu Hebbar
On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of at least 26 tourists, predominantly Hindu, in the scenic Baisaran Valley. The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility, admitting to targeting victims based on their religious identity. The attack, one of the deadliest in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, sparked global outrage and condemnation from world leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, the coverage of this tragedy by Western media outlets—newspapers, television, online podcasts, and YouTube channels—has drawn sharp criticism for its apparent bias, downplaying of the attack’s ideological motives, and sanitization of the perpetrators’ actions. This article examines the patterns of bias in Western media’s portrayal of the Pahalgam attack, highlighting how language, framing, and selective reporting have distorted the narrative.
Euphemistic Language and Mislabeling of Terrorists
One of the most glaring issues in Western media coverage was the use of euphemistic terms to describe the attackers. Outlets such as The New York Times, BBC, Washington Post, Reuters, and Al Jazeera frequently referred to the perpetrators as “militants,” “gunmen,” or “armed assailants” rather than “terrorists.” For instance, a New York Times article titled “Killing of Civilians Near Pahalgam in Kashmir Shatters Illusion of Calm” described the attackers as “militants,” despite the TRF’s explicit admission of targeting Hindu civilians to spread fear, an act that aligns with the definition of terrorism. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee publicly criticized this terminology, posting on X: “Hey, @nytimes we fixed it for you. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK plain and simple.”
This reluctance to use the term “terrorist” is significant because it dilutes the ideological and religious motivations behind the attack. Survivor accounts, as reported by India Today, revealed that the attackers forced victims to recite Islamic verses or show identification to confirm their religion before executing them. Such details underscore the targeted nature of the violence, yet Western outlets often omitted or downplayed these specifics. The BBC, for example, in its report “India will pursue Kashmir attackers to ‘the ends of the earth’, says PM Modi,” noted that “some media reports” linked the attack to Lashkar-e-Taiba but avoided directly addressing the religious targeting of Hindus, instead framing the incident as a generic act of violence in a disputed region.
Selective Framing and Contextual Omission
Western media’s framing of the Pahalgam attack often emphasized the India-Pakistan geopolitical conflict over Kashmir while sidelining the attack’s anti-Hindu ideology. Outlets like Reuters and The Guardian contextualized the attack as part of the “ongoing tensions” in Kashmir, with Reuters noting that the region is “claimed by both India and Pakistan.” This framing, while factually accurate, shifts focus from the deliberate targeting of Hindu civilians to a broader territorial dispute, implicitly suggesting that the violence is a byproduct of political conflict rather than a religiously motivated act of terror.
Moreover, many reports failed to highlight the TRF’s stated motive: resisting perceived “demographic changes” in Kashmir due to the settlement of non-locals, as cited in their claim of responsibility. Instead, outlets like The Washington Post described the victims as “non-Muslims,” a term criticized by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) for erasing the specific targeting of Hindus. HAF’s Executive Director, Suhag Shukla, argued that this language obscures the “ideological and religious war” against Hindus, fitting a pattern of Western media downplaying anti-Hindu violence in Kashmir.
Underreporting and Lack of Coverage
The Pahalgam attack received scant attention in some Western media, particularly in European outlets. Posts on X from users like @Ravi3pathi noted that French and German TV and radio channels, such as France Inter, TF1, and Tagesschau, provided minimal or no coverage of the attack, with some outlets focusing instead on unrelated regional issues or framing the incident as a “land conflict” exacerbated by “Hindu nationalist” policies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This selective silence contrasts sharply with the extensive coverage of other global terrorist incidents, raising questions about editorial priorities.
Online podcasts and YouTube channels, which often claim to offer alternative perspectives, were similarly inconsistent. A search for “Pahalgam terrorist attack” on YouTube revealed few in-depth analyses from major Western creators, with most content coming from Indian news channels like India Today or News18. Independent Western podcasters, who frequently cover global security issues, largely ignored the attack, possibly due to its lack of alignment with popular narratives or audiences’ interests. When covered, discussions often echoed mainstream media’s vague terminology, with some YouTubers describing the attackers as “rebels” or “insurgents,” further muddying the waters.
Sanitizing the Narrative
The sanitization of the Pahalgam attack’s narrative was particularly evident in how Western media handled the perpetrators’ affiliations. While Indian sources and the HAF explicitly linked the TRF to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and Lashkar-e-Taiba, Western outlets like Al Jazeera and CNN avoided delving into these connections, instead presenting the TRF as a local “rebel group.” This portrayal ignores evidence of Pakistan’s role in funding and training such groups, as highlighted by Shukla, who noted that “Pakistan’s intelligence agency bankrolls, trains, and directs them.” By omitting this context, Western media risks perpetuating a narrative that absolves state sponsors of terrorism.
Additionally, some outlets, such as The Guardian, emphasized India’s retaliatory measures—such as suspending the Indus Waters Treaty—over the attack itself, framing India’s response as aggressive or escalatory. This focus deflects attention from the brutality of the attack and the need for accountability, instead casting India as a provocateur in the regional conflict.
Implications and Criticism
The biased coverage of the Pahalgam attack has fueled accusations of double standards in Western media’s treatment of terrorism. The HAF and commentators on X, such as @TheCommuneMag, accused outlets like BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times of “whitewashing” the massacre by using neutral terms and omitting critical details. This criticism aligns with broader concerns about Western media’s tendency to soften narratives around Islamist violence, particularly when it targets non-Western or minority communities like Hindus.
The lack of rigorous reporting also undermines the victims’ stories. Survivors like Pallavi, who recounted her husband’s murder and the terrorists’ chilling message to “tell this to Modi,” received limited attention in Western outlets compared to Indian media. Such omissions diminish the human toll and the attack’s broader implications for religious freedom and security in India.
Conclusion
Western media coverage of the Pahalgam terrorist attack shows how language and selective reporting can distort reality. Outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Reuters used euphemisms, ignored religious motivations, and underreported the incident. This downplays anti-Hindu violence and Pakistan’s role in sponsoring terrorism. As ideologically driven violence rises globally, the media must focus on accuracy and accountability. The Pahalgam victims and justice deserve better.
Sources:
The Times of India
BBC News
The New York Times
Reuters
India Today
Wikipedia
Posts on X
About the Author:
Madhu Hebbar, an engineer, is an IIT graduate, living in the greater Los Angeles area. He is a practicing Hindu and an avid reader who is interested in Eastern philosophies and their general application to Western challenges. He is engaged in coaching youngsters interested in Hindu civilizational history, universal values, and their modern-day relevance. He has contributed to many intellectual engagements for a decade-plus in the Hindu community across the U.S. He is a keen student /observer of the media, trying to understand motives, narratives, and their impact on people and society.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voice of Hindus. Any content provided by our contributors or authors is their opinion.
About Author
