New Delhi: 

In their coverage of Operation Sindoor, global media outlets appeared to have sided with Pakistan, claiming that Chinese missiles and air-defence systems proved effective—allegedly downing three to five Indian Rafale jets. Without waiting for conclusive outcome, they subtly suggested that Pakistan had won. This narrative began on day one, despite the Indian military releasing satellite imagery and other hard evidence of precision strikes. Once the global media took a position, domestic pacifists and naysayers quickly amplified it, demanding to know how many jets India had lost and whether a ceasefire was brokered by Donald Trump.

This weekend, as delegations of Indian lawmakers land on different continents, they may be surprised by the ground realities in Europe and America. Their mission—to rally support for Operation Sindoor, part of India’s new doctrine that treats terrorism as an act of war—could face scepticism from global media and segments of the political establishment. Much of this pushback stems from how outlets like CNN, BBC, The Economist, and Global Times have framed the Operation Sindoor.

 Shift in India’s approach

India’s messaging during Operation Sindoor marked a clear departure from its past responses to terrorism. Unlike the aftermath of the Parliament or Mumbai attacks—when India positioned itself as a victim and carefully avoided linking terrorism to religion—this time, India showed no ambiguity. In previous cases, India’s external messaging often carried an undertone of guilt, as if domestic issues like the treatment of Indian Muslims might have contributed to external aggression.

This time it was different. The response was direct, unapologetic, and assertive. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address to the nation, stated plainly that the terrorists had targeted victims based on their faith. There was no hesitation in calling out the nature of the attack or in justifying the military response either. India made no effort to portray itself as a passive victim, nor did it temper its actions out of concern for how Middle Eastern countries might react. Thankfully, the Middle-East appears to be with India during Operation Sindoor. The decoupling of India’s response from victimhood and the absence of guilt, marked a fundamental shift in both tone and strategy.

What did Western Media say?

Across the board, two common threads emerged in the coverage by news organizations from the United States to China. First, they all challenged India’s claims of having destroyed Chinese missiles, air defense systems, and both Chinese and American fighter jets. Second, without holding back, they openly endorsed what they portrayed as Pakistan’s military strength. Many went further, praising the effectiveness of Chinese missile systems and the performance of Chinese and American aircraft. Interestingly, they were not keen on whether Trump brokered a ceasefire.

Final word

Remember former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s interview with BBC’s Stephen Sackur? It was a textbook example of the condescending tone often adopted by Western journalists. Indian lawmakers should expect more of the same when they visit these countries.

But this time, India has drawn a clear line: no tolerance for nuclear blackmail and acts of terror will be treated as acts of war. In this context, Indian delegations have no reason to be apologetic. They shouldn’t freeze or backpedal in the face of moral posturing by Euro-American media. Instead, they should adopt a firm, “take-it-or-leave-it” stance—while still engaging constructively with civil society, governments, and media on matters related to Operation Sindoor.

Validation from Western or Chinese media is neither final nor infallible. India can, and must, shape its own narrative—with clarity, confidence, and conviction.

What is India’s view?

India, from day one, provided what the world demanded: empirical evidence to support its claim of striking buildings that housed terrorists. By the third and fourth days, the Indian defence forces released satellite images and video footage clearly showing the attacks and the damage inflicted on targets inside Pakistan.

What drives the global media to speak differently?

This pattern isn’t new. Recall the Gulf War. Before the US-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein, American and European media flooded the airwaves with claims about Iraq’s so-called “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Nothing was found, yet President George W Bush and the media faced no real accountability. When it comes to covering conflicts involving Western powers, global media often wear a mask of objectivity and neutrality—while quietly pushing a preferred narrative.

Western media appeared to have discovered that the appearance of neutrality sells better than overt bias. In the case of the Indo-Pak conflict, they may have calculated that stories tilted toward Pakistan would attract a broader global audience than ones portraying India as a clear victor. Pakistan’s perceived underdog status and its religious association may have added to that appeal.

Media outlets that usually demand evidence and detail seemed unusually satisfied with a single, unclear photograph of a wrecked plane—one that didn’t even confirm whether it was a Rafale. Why didn’t they publish images of the alleged three to five downed Rafales or damage to Indian air bases? The silence suggests alignment with certain interests.

These outlets weren’t necessarily dishonest or incompetent in their coverage of Operation Sindoor. But when a media organisation becomes the voice of a particular lobby, its loyalty shifts—not to objective truth, but to the narrative that lobby wants to promote. In that sense, they were ‘honest’—but only to the agenda they chose to serve.

Second, there’s a tone of condescension. Global media, along with pacifist voices in India, often construct narratives that gain legitimacy only when validated by Euro-American media institutions. This is not just a journalistic trend—it echoes a deeper epistemological bias. Scholars like Ashis Nandy from India and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o from Africa have long criticized Western academia for its selective memory and its dismissal of knowledge produced outside the West. Journalism appears no different. The global media’s framing of Operation Sindoor reflected a clear cognitive bias. This became even more evident when Indian pacifists amplified these narratives by eagerly sharing and reposting foreign coverage, treating it as more credible than domestic accounts.

It’s no surprise, then, that trust in American media has eroded. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, less than half of U.S. news consumers expressed confidence in the media’s credibility.

Read More:

UP: Eunuchs stage half naked protest, assaults doctor for not treating their patient