in Indian-administered , in which 26 tourists were shot and killed by Islamist militants, have sparked a new crisis between and .
In addition to cross-border firings and mutual accusations, the incident has led to a spike in press censorship, as authorities in both countries look to control the narrative after the deadliest incident involving civilians in the disputed region in decades.
Both countries were deemed to have “very serious” concerns about press freedoms, according to the Reporters Without Borders (RSF)’s annual Global Press Freedom Index released ahead of the UN-designated World Press Freedom Day on May 3.
India controlling the narrative at home and abroad
In India, the government of Narendra Modi has used a combination of media advisories, content bans and diplomatic messaging to shape domestic and international perception of the crisis.
A senior government official told DW on condition of anonymity that Indian authorities were deploying these measures to counter narratives that undermine the government’s position.
“At this time, there is a need to maintain public unity and safeguard national security. There is no overreach as we see it,” the official said.
India has asked foreign media organizations to adopt terminology that aligns with the Modi government’s narrative. The Ministry of External Affairs last week wrote to outlets including the BBC, the Associated Press, and Reuters to protest their use of the term “militant” instead of “terrorist” in their reporting.
The government has blocked 16 Pakistani YouTube channels and restricted access to social media pages of prominent Pakistani news organizations, such as Dawn News, ARY News, Geo News, across India and other regions.
India has also restricted reporting on defense operations, instructing media to rely solely on official briefings, effectively curbing independent and critical coverage.
Media critic Sevanti Ninan told DW that it is not surprising that the Modi government is trying to control the international media narrative, as it has a track record of penalizing Indians who are critical of its actions.
“Trying to shape perception does not work in an era of media saturation. It is not the foreign media’s job to use terminology that suits the Indian government,” said Ninan.
Government using Pahalgam attacks to silence critics
While India says these measures and unity, critics argue they are just the government’s latest attempts at .
“Long before that dastardly attack on tourists in Pahalgam, the government was working on ways to stymie freedom of expression in the country. When it happened, the government used it as an opportunity to tighten censorship and clamp down on what it frames as “anti-India” dissent,” Pamela Philipose, a media analyst and public editor of Indian outlet The Wire, told DW.
This week, police in Uttar Pradesh filed cases against folk singer Neha Singh Rathore and a university professor, Madri Kakoti, alias Dr. Medusa — both social media influencers — under charges of “endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” for posts that were critical of the government’s response to the attacks.
Ananth Nath, president of the Editors Guild of India, told DW that in recent years, the government has increasingly blocked online content by invoking constitutional exceptions to free speech.
“Events such as the Pahalgam attack offer the government an opportunity to invoke national security with greater force, often as a pretext to silence uncomfortable or dissenting voices,” said Nath.
“In an environment where mainstream media has grown increasingly deferential in questioning the government, many independent digital platforms have emerged as critical sources of reportage and dissent,” he added.
Pakistan’s ‘reactive’ approach
The coverage in neighboring Pakistan following the attacks has also been heavily influenced by the country’s authorities, particularly the powerful military establishment, Imtiaz Gul, Executive Director of Center for Research and Security Studies, told DW.
“Nobody in India dares take a different line, and Pakistani media obviously crafts its narrative the way India does, so it’s nothing unusual, very typical attitudes on both sides”, Gul said.
Amid heightened tensions on both sides of the border, Pakistan has moved air defense systems and deployed troops closer to the Line of Control which divides the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir and to Sialkot in eastern Pakistan.
Headlines in Pakistani media have focused on these military developments, political statements from the government as well as the humanitarian impact on civilians of this latest flare up in the decades-old dispute over Kashmir.
These are familiar angles in Pakistan. The main tonal shift towards more hostile and nationalistic reporting has come on the Indian side, Madiha Afzal, a fellow at Brookings Institute told DW.
Indian coverage has portrayed Pakistan as the primary aggressor and enemy, while TV debates regularly feature loud rhetoric, emotionally charged language, and patriotic music.
“I think the major shift in media rhetoric in the last few years has been on the Indian side, with it turning more hawkish against Pakistan under Modi and as India’s global star has risen, Pakistan’s rhetoric has largely been reactive to India’s,” Afzal said.
Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst, based in Washington DC, agrees that Indian media has become more aggressive whenever tensions with Pakistan are high.
“It’s fairly common to see jingoistic rhetoric in the media of both countries, but particularly in the Indian case. My sense is that the rhetoric tends to be more strident and indeed more muscular and even aggressive,” Kugelman told DW.
Pakistani media has largely portrayed India as the aggressor and Pakistan as the victim, as well as emphasizing the military’s perceived preparedness and restraint.
“This isn’t to say that you don’t see similar levels of jingoism in the Pakistani media in some contexts, but the scale of it is not as much as what you’d see in the Indian media,” Kugelman said.
Using the crisis to rally popular support
The national response in Pakistan has been one of solidarity, with the political class and civilians united in their support of the military against India.
It is a situation that could help the military and political leadership in Pakistan — which Afzal says has seen a “decline in popularity among certain segments of the population” — drum up popular support.
While public backing for the military may only be short-lived during the immediate aftermath of violent incidents, Kugelman pointed out that “these benefits are nonetheless real.”
“You have an unpopular civilian and military leadership that has an opportunity to rally the country around it,” he said.
In Pakistan, authorities had already to silence dissent, particularly by supporters of jailed Former Premier Imran Khan, prior to the Kashmir attacks. Rights groups and journalistic organizations repeatedly criticize PM Shehbaz Sharif’s government and the military establishment for muzzling free speech in the country.
Edited by: Karl Sexton
The post Kashmir attacks: India, Pakistan vie to control narrative appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
