IT Desk
Imphal, May 11:
The recent escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, sparked by a deadly militant attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22, 2025, has once again brought to light stark differences in how Indian and international media portray the ongoing conflict. As military flashpoints and diplomatic crises unfold, the contrasting narratives underscore the challenges of discerning fact from bias in a deeply polarized region.
The Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, prompted India to launch “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, targeting alleged terrorist sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated, claiming to have shot down Indian drones and jets, leading to a spiral of cross-border strikes, civilian casualties, and diplomatic expulsions. Amid this chaos, media on both sides of the border—and beyond—have presented vastly different accounts of the events.
Indian media outlets, have largely framed the conflict as a justified response to Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism. Reports have emphasized India’s military successes, such as the targeting of “terrorist infrastructure,” while downplaying or omitting losses like the alleged downing of Indian jets. For instance, Indian coverage highlighted the precision of strikes, echoing government claims of “non-escalatory” actions, despite international concerns over the deepening conflict. Some Indian media also circulated unverified images of destroyed “terror camps,” later debunked as edited stock photos, reflecting a pattern of sensationalism noted during past crises like the 2019 Pulwama attack.
In contrast, international media, including outlets like BBC News and Al Jazeera, have often portrayed India as the aggressor, focusing on civilian casualties in Pakistan—31 reported deaths—and the humanitarian toll in both regions. These reports frequently provide broader context, such as the decades-long insurgency in Kashmir and India’s heavy-handed security approach since revoking the region’s special status in 2019. However, some international coverage has been criticized for omitting the origins of terrorism in the region, with posts on X suggesting a perceived Western bias against India. For example, while Indian media emphasized Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the Pahalgam attack as evidence of guilt, international outlets like The New York Times noted the lack of public evidence linking Pakistan to the attack, calling for independent investigations—a suggestion largely absent in Indian reports.
The information war has been a significant aspect of this conflict, with both nations competing to shape narratives. Pakistan’s media, as reported by Al Jazeera, claimed victories such as downing 25 Indian drones and even alleged that Indian soldiers raised a white flag along the Line of Control—a claim Indian media did not address but which international outlets questioned for its plausibility given the lack of formal war. Meanwhile, Indian authorities dismissed international reports of downed jets as “disinformation,” particularly after Chinese state media echoed Pakistan’s claims.
Analysts point to historical patterns of media bias in both countries, exacerbated during military flashpoints. A study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism highlights how Indian and Pakistani media have long engaged in “narrow nationalism,” with jingoistic reporting blurring factual coverage. During the 1999 Kargil War and 2008 Mumbai attacks, Indian media often amplified government narratives, while Pakistani media countered with its own version of events, a trend that persists today. International media, while striving for neutrality, sometimes lack the on-ground access needed for independent verification, relying on official statements that fuel discrepancies.
The diplomatic fallout, including India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and mutual expulsions of diplomats, has also been framed differently. Indian media portrayed these moves as necessary punitive measures, while international outlets like The Guardian highlighted Pakistan’s warning that treaty interference would be seen as an “act of war,” raising global alarm over escalation risks. The international community’s call for restraint, led by figures like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and UN Secretary-General António Guterres, received more prominence in global reports than in Indian ones, which focused on domestic support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s aggressive stance.
As the ceasefire announced on May 11, 2025, holds fragilely, the media divide underscores a deeper challenge: the lack of a shared narrative in a conflict that has spanned nearly eight decades. While Indian media caters to a domestic audience seeking validation of national strength, international coverage often aims for a broader perspective, sometimes at the cost of perceived bias. For observers, the discrepancies highlight the need for critical engagement with all sources to understand the complex dynamics of India-Pakistan tensions.