Muslim World Report

Examining Media's Evolving Narrative on Recent Terrorism in India

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 25, 2025 10:24 AM | 10 min read | 2016 words

Examining Media’s Evolving Narrative on Recent Terrorism in India

#TL;DR: The media’s portrayal of terrorism in India has shifted significantly since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. This blog post examines how recent coverage of the Pahalgam attack reflects a concerning lack of accountability in governance and the implications for civil society. As the media aligns more closely with political narratives, public trust in governmental institutions erodes, raising urgent questions about the future of democracy and security in India.

Understanding the Shifting Narrative of Terrorism in Contemporary Media

The Situation

The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 23, 2025, which tragically claimed the lives of 26 civilians, has intensified scrutiny on the Indian government’s approach to national security. This incident raises urgent questions about:

  • The efficacy of governmental measures
  • The public’s trust in these institutions

A sentiment that has become increasingly politicized under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration. This horrific event occurs amid the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s rhetoric surrounding a supposed decline in terrorism. This narrative starkly contrasts with the persistent reality of violent incidents, which have continued to occur throughout Modi’s tenure (Downing, 2020).

The media coverage of the Pahalgam attack reflects a significant shift in the framing of terrorism compared to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. During those tragic events, the press played a critical role in demanding accountability from government officials, leading to the resignations of several high-profile leaders and widespread public protests (Entman, 2003). In contrast, today’s media landscape offers a more muted response to similar tragedies, raising concerns about the implications of this shift for democracy and governance. The evolving portrayal of terrorism frequently emphasizes nationalistic sentiments, casting Modi’s addresses as global proclamations rather than scrutinizing failures in security protocols (Hochscherf, 2013).

This shift in media framing can be understood through the lens of power dynamics, where the media’s role as a watchdog has been overshadowed by a tendency to align with prevailing political sentiments. The result is an environment where accountability for government officials becomes secondary to political loyalty, creating a populace that is increasingly disengaged and passive rather than actively participating in governance (Puar & Rai, 2002). The Pahalgam tragedy serves as a stark reminder of the need for a vigilant media that holds power accountable and amplifies the voices of those affected by violence.

As we consider the implications of this shift, we must reflect: Where is the public outrage? Civil society’s response stands in sharp contrast to past movements characterized by palpable anger and mobilization. Observers note that today’s media often serves as a reflection of national sentiment, prioritizing strong governmental responses to perceived threats while sidelining hard-hitting inquiries into the competency of leaders in managing national security (Appadurai, 1990). The result is not merely a passive acceptance of the status quo but a potentially dangerous trend where communities may feel compelled to resort to self-defense mechanisms as trust in state assurances of safety erodes.

The ‘What If’ Scenarios: Analyzing Potential Outcomes

In light of the current dynamics, it is essential to evaluate potential future scenarios resulting from the government’s actions and public responses. These ‘What If’ scenarios offer valuable insights into the possible trajectories of political discourse, public engagement, and media responsibility.

What if the Government Fails to Address Security Lapses?

Should the government neglect to address the evident lapses in security protocols, the repercussions could be severe, including:

  • Public disillusionment towards not only the ruling party but also democratic institutions.
  • Citizens questioning government capabilities in ensuring safety, potentially leading to protests, civil unrest, or alternative political movements challenging the status quo.

Such a scenario could draw the attention of the international community, leading to criticisms or sanctions that isolate India geopolitically. Further disengagement might decline foreign investments and tourism, exacerbating economic challenges. If left unchecked, terrorism could empower extremist factions, escalating communal fragmentation and distrust (Bhatia, 2005).

The implications of this scenario extend beyond immediate safety concerns; they resonate within the fabric of society. The absence of effective governmental intervention could lead citizens to feel compelled to take security into their own hands, which might increase communal polarization and raise the potential for violent confrontations.

What if Public Outcry Emerges?

Conversely, if a significant public outcry materializes in response to the Pahalgam attack, it could act as a transformative force in political discourse. Collective anger demanding accountability might compel leaders to:

  • Reevaluate their national security strategies.
  • Shift focus toward more effective counter-terrorism measures and community engagement initiatives (Downing, 2020).

An informed and mobilized citizenry could create an environment where political leaders are held accountable, reinforcing democratic principles and facilitating partnerships between the state and civil society organizations.

In this scenario, civil society’s engagement would be crucial. Increased public activism could lead to reforms addressing systemic issues related to national security. The media would play a vital role in amplifying public sentiment, providing a platform for underrepresented voices and facilitating ongoing dialogue between citizens and leaders. This could foster a more robust civic engagement framework where individuals feel empowered to contribute to discussions around security and governance.

Moreover, a public outcry could signal to the government that accountability and transparency are paramount. Such pressure could drive policy changes, encouraging leaders to adopt a more inclusive approach to security addressing the needs of diverse communities affected by violence.

What if Media Coverage Becomes More Critical?

If media outlets adopt a more scrutinizing stance on governmental failures regarding security, the implications could be transformative. Investigative journalism may:

  • Unveil long-standing systemic issues.
  • Create momentum for accountability that forces politicians to take responsibility for inaction (Holbrook, 2019).

This reframing can catalyze public demand for transparency and critical engagement with government narratives, steering discourse toward the root causes of terrorism and addressing socio-economic disparities that often underlie violence.

Critical media coverage would require efforts to highlight narratives challenging prevailing power structures, prioritizing investigations into socio-political conditions that lead to terrorism. Such a shift could reignite public interest in governance, fostering an environment where citizens actively engage with media narratives and demand comprehensive policies prioritizing collective well-being over political expediency.

Furthermore, an empowered media landscape contributes to a more informed citizenry capable of fully participating in democratic discourse. By highlighting governance and security issues, the media encourages critical examinations of government actions, resulting in a more engaged public refusing to accept complacency in the face of violence.

Strategic Maneuvers

For the Government

To counter growing discontent concerning national security, the government must:

  • Prioritize accountability over political expediency.
  • Communicate transparently around security strategies and commit to thorough investigations into incidents like the Pahalgam attack to help rebuild public trust (Démant & de Graaf, 2010).

Engaging with local leaders and civil society organizations can foster a collaborative relationship that reassures citizens and enhances collective safety.

Investing in grassroots initiatives focusing on community policing and counter-terrorism education may provide constructive pathways forward. By establishing partnerships between law enforcement and community members, the government can combat the “us vs. them” mentality and promote a culture of shared responsibility for safety (Achter, 2008).

Moreover, the government should consider implementing community advisory boards to address local security concerns, facilitating dialogue between citizens and law enforcement. Additionally, promoting awareness campaigns educating the public about community engagement in security efforts can galvanize citizen involvement and foster a more cooperative atmosphere.

For the Media

Media organizations must reclaim their role as guardians of democracy. This requires a steadfast commitment to investigative journalism focused on holding power accountable rather than succumbing to sensationalism. Key steps to consider include:

  • Rigorous fact-checking and ethical reporting to rekindle public trust in media outlets (Kaye & Johnson, 2011).
  • Highlighting narratives that challenge prevailing power structures, encouraging broader discourse on national security that includes marginalized perspectives.

Creating partnerships between journalists and civil society organizations can enhance the depth and breadth of reporting. Collaborating with those who have firsthand experience of terrorism’s impact can provide more nuanced coverage that resonates with diverse audiences. Furthermore, increasing representation in newsrooms ensures various voices contribute to the narrative, enriching public discourse on terrorism and security.

In light of contemporary journalism challenges, media organizations must adopt innovative practices to engage audiences. Utilizing multimedia platforms, including podcasts and social media, can facilitate broader discussions about national security. Through these channels, journalists can foster an interactive dialogue with the public, encouraging citizens to share their concerns and perspectives.

For Civil Society

Civil society organizations are pivotal in challenging prevailing narratives and promoting accountability. By mobilizing communities and creating forums for dialogue, civil society can empower citizens to articulate their concerns and demand action from their leaders. Advocacy for legislative reforms enhancing transparency in security responses is essential for creating a more equitable democratic framework (Muhammad, 2017).

One effective strategy could be establishing grassroots advocacy networks that connect activists, community members, and policymakers. By facilitating communication between these groups, civil society can amplify calls for accountability and ensure the voices of those affected by violence are heard.

Moreover, civil society should prioritize educational initiatives informing citizens about their rights and the mechanisms for seeking redress. Workshops, community meetings, and public campaigns can equip individuals with the tools necessary to engage in the political process and demand reforms.

Additionally, civil society organizations can promote a culture of solidarity by encouraging inter-community dialogues aimed at bridging divides. By addressing the underlying causes of mistrust and resentment between communities, these initiatives can help create a more cohesive approach to security and governance.

The Broader Implications of Current Dynamics

The dynamics surrounding terrorism and media coverage in India unveil a complex interplay of politics, public sentiment, and media responsibility. As we examine these interconnected threads, it becomes clear that accountability, transparency, and civic engagement are critical components of a robust democratic society. The Pahalgam attack serves as a tragic catalyst for a necessary reexamination of the roles played by government, media, and civil society in navigating the challenges posed by terrorism.

The shifting media narratives and political responses to terrorism reflect broader societal trends that warrant careful consideration. As the landscape evolves, the need for a vigilant public, an accountable government, and a responsible media becomes ever more pressing. Failure to engage with these challenges could lead to a fractured society where communities feel compelled to take matters into their own hands, resulting in further polarization and violence.

As the discourse around terrorism continues to develop, it is imperative for stakeholders at all levels to prioritize transparency, accountability, and civic engagement. By embracing these principles, society can foster a more inclusive dialogue on security that addresses the root causes of violence, ultimately working towards a safer and more equitable future.

References

  • Achter, P. (2008). Comedy in Unfunny Times: News Parody and Carnival After 9/11. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25(2), 132-153.
  • Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 1-24.
  • Bhatia, M. (2005). Fighting Words: Naming Terrorists, Bandits, Rebels and Other Violent Actors. Third World Quarterly, 26(1), 87-100.
  • Démant, F., & de Graaf, B. (2010). How to Counter Radical Narratives: Dutch Deradicalization Policy in the Case of Moluccan and Islamic Radicals. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 33(8), 748-762.
  • Downing, J. (2020). Memeing and Speaking Vernacular Security on Social Media: YouTube and Twitter Resistance to an ISIS Islamist Terror Threat to Marseille, France. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(1), 147-162.
  • Entman, R. M. (2011). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 18(2), 119-139.
  • Hochscherf, T. (2013). Bond for the Age of Global Crises: 007 in the Daniel Craig Era. Journal of British Cinema and Television, 10(1), 62-75.
  • Holbrook, A. (2019). The Role of Investigative Reporting in Democracies: A Comparative Study. International Communication Gazette, 81(1), 3-21.
  • Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2011). Hot Diggity Blog: A Cluster Analysis Examining Motivations and Other Factors for Why People Judge Different Types of Blogs as Credible. Mass Communication & Society, 14(5), 750-771.
  • Muhammad, S. Y. (2017). Enhancing the Role of Civil Society Organizations in the Fight against Corruption in Nigeria. Journal of Social and Development Sciences, 7(4), 49-56.
  • Puar, J. K., & Rai, A. S. (2002). Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots. Social Text, 20(3), 117-148.
← Prev Next →