The recent Indian military strikes on Pakistan, dubbed Operation Sindoor, have sparked a storm of international media coverage. Several prominent outlets have portrayed India as the aggressor in the escalating conflict, raising concerns over biased reporting. This commentary critiques coverage by foreign media outlets such as The New York Times, Reuters, BBC, and CNN, which have often been accused of framing India’s actions as escalatory while downplaying or omitting critical context regarding Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorism. By examining historical patterns and current geopolitical dynamics, this analysis highlights the recurring selective framing, omission of evidence, and a tendency to favor narratives aligned with Western geopolitical interests over factual nuance.
Several foreign media reports described India’s strikes as unilateral escalations, often emphasizing alleged civilian casualties in Pakistan while downplaying the trigger: the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, which killed 26 tourists, primarily Hindu men. For instance, The New York Times reported that India “struck Pakistan” in response to the attack, framing the operation as aggression without adequately noting India’s claim that the strikes targeted “terrorist infrastructure” linked to groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Similarly, CNN highlighted Pakistan’s claims of civilian deaths, including children, but gave less prominence to India’s assertion that the strikes were “focused and precise,” targeting only terror camps.
This selective framing is not new. During the 2019 Balakot airstrike, following the Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, outlets like BBC and Al Jazeera questioned the efficacy of India’s strikes, emphasizing Pakistan’s narrative that no significant damage had occurred, while minimizing India’s evidence of having struck JeM facilities. BBC’s coverage leaned heavily on Pakistan’s guided tour of an undamaged madrasa, without scrutinizing why media access was delayed for 43 days—ample time for sanitization. Such tendencies to amplify Pakistan’s denials while doubting India’s claims reflect a consistent bias that favors skepticism toward Indian actions over Pakistan’s well-documented support for militants.
Another recurring problem in foreign media coverage is the reluctance to highlight Pakistan’s longstanding support for terrorist groups operating in Kashmir. India has consistently accused Pakistan of providing safe havens to groups like JeM and LeT—charges supported by international bodies. For instance, the United Nations designated JeM’s founder Masood Azhar a global terrorist in 2019. Yet, media outlets rarely explore Pakistan’s failure to act against such individuals. In the current crisis, Reuters and NBC News reported Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the Pahalgam attack but failed to meaningfully examine India’s evidence pointing to the “clear involvement of Pakistan-based terrorists.”
This omission mirrors historical coverage of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which LeT operatives killed 166 people. While India provided evidence linking Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to the attackers, outlets like The Guardian and The Washington Post initially treated the attack as a bilateral dispute, only shifting tone after mounting international pressure. This tendency to equivocate may stem from broader Western strategic considerations—particularly during the Cold War and post-9/11 eras, when Pakistan was a key Western ally in Afghanistan.
While some posts on X accuse outlets like BBC, CNN, and RT of favoring India’s narrative, the opposite is often true. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has noted that Western media often adopt a “narrow nationalism” in India-Pakistan conflicts, framing India as the aggressor in line with liberal critiques of its Hindu-nationalist government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This was evident in 2019, when The New York Times editorialized India’s revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy as “dangerous and wrong,” predicting “certain bloodshed” without acknowledging Pakistan’s role in fomenting insurgency. Such narratives overlook the complex history of Kashmir, including Pakistan’s invasion of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, which triggered the first Indo-Pak war.
Western media bias is further exacerbated by a lack of on-ground reporting. Outlets often rely on stringers or secondary sources based in Pakistan, where access to conflict zones is tightly controlled. During the Balakot crisis, Reuters journalists were denied independent access to the strike site, yet their reports leaned on Pakistan’s narrative of minimal damage. In contrast, Indian media—though sometimes accused of jingoism—often present detailed reports based on local intelligence, which are frequently dismissed as state propaganda by Western outlets.
The roots of this bias can be traced to historical Western attitudes. During the Cold War, the U.S. and U.K. viewed Pakistan as a bulwark against Soviet influence, arming and supporting it while overlooking its growing ties to extremist groups. Meanwhile, India’s non-aligned and socialist stance under leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru led to portrayals of India as uncooperative or pro-Soviet. This legacy continues in today’s media narratives, which subtly tilt in favor of Pakistan. For example, during the 1965 war, Western media framed India’s defensive actions as aggressive, glossing over Pakistan’s attempt to seize Kashmir.
Similarly, during the 1999 Kargil conflict, The Times (UK) and others focused on India’s military response while underreporting Pakistan’s infiltration across the Line of Control, which sparked the crisis. That same tendency is visible today, with outlets like BBC emphasizing Pakistan’s call for a “neutral investigation” into the Pahalgam attack without questioning its failure to dismantle known terror networks.
This bias has real-world implications. By emphasizing unverified claims—like Pakistan’s assertion of shooting down five Indian jets—and focusing heavily on civilian casualties without confirmation, media outlets risk amplifying disinformation. This recalls the 2019 Balakot crisis, where satellite analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found no significant structural damage, yet Indian claims were dismissed without equal scrutiny of Pakistan’s denials.
Furthermore, foreign media often ignore India’s strategic restraint in its military operations. India’s 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 airstrikes were deliberately limited to avoid breaching Pakistan’s nuclear threshold. Yet, this calibrated response is rarely acknowledged, and India is frequently portrayed as reckless.
In sum, the foreign media’s coverage of India’s recent strikes reveals a pattern of bias rooted in selective framing, omission of Pakistan’s role in terrorism, and a historical Western preference for Pakistan as a strategic ally. Outlets like The New York Times, Reuters, BBC, and CNN have often failed to provide balanced, well-contextualized reporting—echoing past biases seen in Balakot, Mumbai, and Kargil. This skewed narrative not only distorts global understanding but also undermines efforts to address the core issue: Pakistan’s continued support for militancy. To ensure fairer journalism, foreign media must invest in on-ground reporting, engage seriously with India’s evidence, and reflect critically on their own geopolitical assumptions. Until then, their coverage risks perpetuating misinformation that inflames tensions instead of clarifying them.
#OperationSindoor #MediaMatters #IndiaRighter #Pahalgam
---
A version of this article was first published in The Draft
Comments