Anti-India Narrative in Global Media

In late April 2025, terrorists attacked a group of tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir. International coverage of this attack in Kashmir which killed 26 Hindu pilgrims was often framed in ways that many analysts in India see as “anti-India.” Many major Western outlets framed the incident as a mere act of retaliation, citing Pakistani denials and emphasizing civilian casualties, while giving less attention to India’s stated rationale.  For example, Reuters neutrally noted that India struck nine “terrorist infrastructure” sites linked to the attack, but also highlighted Pakistan’s claim that 31 of its civilians were killed and that India had “ignited an inferno”.  Much of the Western media coverage treated the strikes as an “escalation” or questioned India’s restraint, often quoting Pakistani officials at length.  In contrast, many Indian media outlets noted that such attacks when happened in Europe or the US, western media used the word “terrorism”, whereas in Pahalgham’ case some outlets preferred neutral terms like “militants” instead of “terrorists,” even as Indian officials repeatedly called the Pahalgam assault a terrorist massacre. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee publicly rebuked a leading newspaper for this language choice, pointing out that its headline “24 Tourists Gunned Down by Militants in Kashmir” ignored the terrorist motive and needed correction.

Historical Context of Media Bias

Such patterns have often been observed in past India–Pakistan clashes.  After the 2019 Balakot strikes, many Western outlets favoured Pakistan denials highlighting the absence of immediate damage, rather than focusing on India’s follow-up evidence.  Similarly, the 2008 Mumbai attacks widely blamed on Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba were initially portrayed by some Western papers as a bilateral “terrorist dispute” rather than a one-sided attack.  Kashmir is often presented abroad as a “dispute” between two nations, whereas India insists it is Indian territory under Pakistani occupation. After attacks in the West, outlets hardly hesitate to use the “terrorism” label.  But when 26 Hindu pilgrims were killed in Kashmir, many journalists cast them as generic “militants.”  

The April 2025 coverage shows word choice, emphasis, and context as continuity with earlier conflicts.  India’s foreign minister and other officials have repeatedly termed it as double standards in Western journalism on Kashmir.  

 Examples of Perceived Bias and Framing

The New York Times initially headlined its Pahalgam story “Tourists Gunned Down by Militants in Kashmir,” avoiding the word “terrorist.”  A U.S. congressional committee publicly called out the NYT, tweeting “This was a TERRORIST ATTACK, plain and simple… when it comes to terrorism the NYT is removed from reality”.  Western TV and newspapers also tended to juxtapose India’s strikes with Pakistani retaliation or international calls for calm.  For instance, The Washington Post described Pakistani claims of shooting down five Indian jets including Rafales via CNN and Geo News, noting that “the claims could not be independently verified”.  Whereas India denied losing any aircraft. By repeatedly reporting Pakistan’s claims of downed Indian warplanes while merely noting India’s silence, global media gave equal weight to Islamabad’s denials and counterclaims. Western anchors emphasized “escalation” and civilian harm on both sides rather than India’s justification in fighting terrorism.  This can be seen as a framing choice. London and New York anchors were already describing Operation Sindoor in terms of “escalation” and “India being the aggressor,” which “ran directly counter to both fact and law” of the self-defense justification.

As just one concrete case, CNN repeatedly referred to Kashmir as “Indian-administered,” prompting India’s envoy to the U.S. to correct the anchor: “The entire Jammu and Kashmir is integral to the Indian part of India,” he said, emphasizing that New Delhi rejects any suggestion of divided sovereignty.   Other global outlets showed similar acts.  China’s state media Global Times pushed Pakistan’s narrative of success, claiming that Pakistan “shot down another Indian fighter jet”, its third in the conflict.  India’s embassy in Beijing had to publicly address this by accusing the Global Times of “disinformation” and exposing fake viral images. Counterview notes that outlets like BBC and Al Jazeera “reported Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the Pahalgam attack but failed to meaningfully examine India’s evidence pointing to Pakistan-based terrorists”.  By contrast, Pakistani and Chinese media tended to amplify Islamabad’s claims of downed Indian jets or harmless “precision strikes” on Pakistani territory.  Thus, critics argue, a double standard is seen where western outlets often amplified Pakistan’s perspective and downplayed India’s, treating the crisis in neutral “both sides”.

Missing Details of Military Technology

It was also noticed that international media largely ignored the dramatic weapons outcomes of the conflict.  Indian officials claimed that its Russian-supplied air defenses, the S-400 and Akash systems successfully intercepted nearly every Pakistani missile and drone attack, while many of Pakistan’s more advanced weapons failed.  For example, India’s Akashteer system, a radar‑guided air-defense gun, reportedly shot down every Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drone launched by Pakistan.  One Indian report crowed that “not a single Turkish-origin drone”  was able to achieve its objective.  Similarly, when Pakistani JF-17 jets fired Chinese PL-15 long-range missiles at Indian aircraft, the Indian Air Force later displayed unexploded PL-15 missiles on its territory, suggesting they missed.  Indian sources even described Pakistan’s PL-15s as having been “shredded” by countermeasures.  In short, Indian officials assert that their Russian and domestic system performed, while Pakistan’s U.S. and Chinese-origin equipment largely failed.

However, most western reports did not highlight this important information. Reuters, BBC, CNN, and others mentioned anti-drone or anti-missile actions such as sirens, explosions and casualty claims, but rarely cited specifics of which system shot what down.  For instance, Reuters simply noted that Pakistani missiles and drones were neutralized by Indian air defenses with no losses.  It did not explain that these defences were mainly Russian or Indian-made.  Instead, Western media tended to focus on Pakistan’s claims of downing Indian planes.  An important omission was any discussion of S-400 performance. Interestingly, a viral video claiming an S-400 intercept went viral online, but Reuters Fact Check later debunked it as old Israeli footage, a sign of how sensationalist media narratives can go unchecked. This left many key dynamics under-reported: e.g., articles made no mention of the TB2 drones being decimated, or of the unreliability of Pakistan’s Chinese missiles and US-financed drones. Even Pakistani claims like “we shot down Rafales” were reported but not verified. It was said this selective reporting downplays Indian success and overstates Pakistani claims, reinforcing the impression of an anti-India narrative.

 Reasons for the anti-India narrative 

Several factors may explain why global coverage appeared biased

Geopolitical Alliances:  Western media often align with U.S. foreign policy narratives.  Pakistan has traditionally been a U.S. ally especially in Afghanistan and now maintains close ties with China.  India’s alignment with Russia puts it at odds with the Western stance on Russia.  With Russia under heavy sanctions, praising Russian weaponry like the S-400 is politically awkward for Western outlets.  By contrast, Pakistan’s equipment often came from U.S. or Chinese origin, which may conveniently fit prevailing narratives.

Economic and Trade Interests: Global news organizations are in terms with broader trade networks.  Many Western countries have significant trade or strategic investments in Pakistan (or in countries friendly to Pakistan) and are now supplying arms to India as well. These economic interests can subtly influence coverage.  For example, Russia supplies 50–60% of India’s military hardware, and Indian oil imports from Russia surged to 40% by mid-2024.  Western businesses and governments wary of Russia’s actions in Ukraine might thus be predisposed to downplay India’s success. 

Media Ownership and Bias:  Major global outlets (NYT, BBC, CNN, etc.) have editorial ownership that often emphasize liberal or human-rights angles.  It is argued that it tends to view India’s nationalist government with skepticism.  Counterview notes, western media sometimes exhibit a “narrow nationalism” that frames India as the aggressor in line with liberal critiques of Prime Minister Modi’s policies.  Economic ties with Pakistan’s patron states such as the U.S., China, Middle Eastern countries may also influence editorial lines. 

Narrative Competition:  In any conflict, both sides try to win the “information war.”  Pakistan has a well-developed narrative machine via state media and allied outlets that quickly amplifies its side.  Many Western journalists rely on local stringers. Some foreign outlets even “used journalists from Pakistan to report on the attack in Kashmir.