In the wake of the devastating April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians, India and Pakistan have engaged in a series of retaliatory military operations, escalating tensions in the region. This article examines global responses to similar terrorist incidents, India's and Pakistan's actions and motivations, the role of misinformation, restrictions on independent journalism, and potential pathways to de-escalation.
Global Responses to Terrorist Attacks
Internationally, countries often respond to terrorist attacks through a combination of legal, diplomatic, and military measures:
-
Legal Cooperation: Nations may engage in Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) to facilitate cross-border investigations. For instance, European countries have utilized JITs to address transnational terrorism effectively. ICCT
-
Military Alliances: In response to the September 11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5, leading to collective military action in Afghanistan.
-
Judicial Measures: Countries like France have pursued judicial investigations and prosecutions following terrorist incidents, emphasizing the rule of law.
India's Response: Operation Sindoor
Following the Pahalgam attack, India launched "Operation Sindoor," targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The operation aimed to neutralize threats and serve as a deterrent against future attacks. The Sun
India's government framed the strikes as a measured and necessary response to protect national security. However, critics argue that the timing and publicity of the operation suggest political motivations, particularly with upcoming elections.
India’s leadership leveraged Operation Sindoor to reinforce a strongman image, rally nationalistic sentiment, and pre-empt criticism of its Kashmir policy—moves widely interpreted as intended to shore up electoral support ahead of upcoming polls. Domestic political actors across the spectrum quickly fell in line, and even opposition parties paused critique, reflecting the high stakes of appearing “soft” on terror.
Pakistan's Counteraction: Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos
In retaliation, Pakistan initiated "Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos," launching missile and drone strikes on Indian military targets. Pakistan's leadership condemned India's actions as violations of sovereignty and accused India of targeting civilian areas, claims that India denies. The Sun
Pakistan's response also appears influenced by domestic political considerations, aiming to unify public opinion and assert its stance on Kashmir.
Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor has likewise been leveraged for domestic political gain, mirroring India’s use of military strikes to stoke nationalist sentiment. Islamabad’s government vowed “avenge each drop of blood,” launched cross-border shelling under “Operation Bunyan Ul-Marsoos,” and orchestrated a widespread propaganda campaign—complete with debunked claims of captured Indian soldiers. While both capitals publicly emphasize sovereignty and security, their responses also serve to consolidate internal support and deflect criticism, underscoring how tit-for-tat violence on the Indo-Pak border often doubles as electoral theater.
Misinformation and Propaganda
Both nations have engaged in information warfare, spreading conflicting narratives:
Misinformation on the Indian Side
Fake “captured Indian pilot” claims
Rumors circulated on social media that Pakistan had captured an Indian Air Force woman pilot named Shivani Singh. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) officially debunked this, confirming no such incident occurred The Times of India.Old or unrelated images passed off as strike footage
An image of a crashed aircraft from years ago was shared as proof that Pakistan had shot down an Indian Rafale jet. PIB’s fact-check labeled it “old” and “unrelated to Operation Sindoor” The Times of India.Communal “reprisal” lists after Pahalgam
A viral list purported to show 15 Muslim victims of retaliatory attacks across India. Alt News traced it to unverifiable social-media forwards and flagged it as fake Alt News.ATM shutdown hoax
Social-media forwards warned that ATMs would close for days due to a “Pakistan ransomware” reprisal. The Week’s fact-check confirmed no such shutdown was planned The Week.
Misinformation on the Pakistani Side
Claims of “drones shot down” and zero civilian casualties
Pakistani outlets asserted their Air Force downed Indian drones and that no civilians died in Pakistani territory. NDTV’s fact-check of Pakistani media broadcasts found both claims false and unsupported by independent evidence www.ndtv.com.Fabricated prisoner captures
State-aligned channels claimed Pakistan had captured two Indian soldiers and even a female pilot. These were later retracted or disproven by Reuters and Pakistani military spokespeople YouTube.“21 lies” about Operation Sindoor
Firstpost compiled and debunked a list of twenty-one major falsehoods spread by Pakistani media—ranging from phantom missile strikes to invented civilian deaths Firstpost.Denial of cross-border firing
Despite video evidence of Pakistani shelling in Kashmir, some Pakistani state channels claimed no violations occurred. Independent observers and ceasefire monitors contradicted this narrative
Restrictions on Independent Journalism
1. Access Regimes in Indian-Administered Kashmir
1.1. Permit Requirements and Live-Coverage Ban
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s advisory explicitly prohibits live coverage of counter-terror operations in Kashmir, citing security risks. Journalists must secure embedded-unit clearance from the Army’s Media Facilitation Centre or local police permits, a process that can take days and is often subject to arbitrary delay Committee to Protect Journalists.
1.2. Digital Censorship and Account Blocks
Since the Pahalgam attack on April 22, the Indian government has ordered the blocking of at least 16 Pakistani YouTube channels and over 8,000 social-media accounts (including independent voices like Free Press Kashmir and The Kashmiriyat) under the IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines Committee to Protect Journalists, The News Minute.
1.3. Harassment and Physical Threats
Independent reporters covering protests have been physically assaulted—for example, Dainik Jagran’s Rakesh Sharma was attacked by political supporters in Kathua—and charged under sedition or anti-terror laws for social-media posts criticising the response Committee to Protect Journalists, The Washington Post.
1.4. Press-Freedom Ranking
India now ranks 151st out of 180 countries in the RSF World Press Freedom Index, reflecting a climate of intimidation and self-censorship that severely limits independent on-ground reporting The Guardian, The News Minute.
2. Access Regimes in Pakistan
2.1. New Social-Media Regulatory Law
In January 2025 Pakistan amended the PECA, creating a Social Media Regulatory Authority with powers to block websites, impose fines, and jail “false” reporters—measures condemned by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) as a direct attack on press freedom Reuters.
2.2. Digital Censorship
Following India’s strikes, Pakistani authorities also slowed internet speeds in border areas and threatened legal action against journalists covering “cross-border aggression” without official clearance Instagram.
2.3. Press-Freedom Ranking and Safety
Pakistan ranks 158th out of 180 in the 2025 RSF index, with journalists facing killings, kidnappings, and legal harassment—seven were killed in the first half of 2024 alone—making independent field reporting near conflict zones extremely hazardous The Guardian.
3. Practical Impact on Reporting
-
Limited “Eyewitness” Accounts: Both governments require reporters to file copies of all stories and raw footage with security agencies before publication, effectively chilling investigative journalism.
-
Reliance on Official B-Roll: Media outlets dependent on military-provided footage cannot verify ground realities, undermining independent scrutiny.
-
Editorial Self-Censorship: Fear of FIRs under the UAPA or PECA leads many outlets to avoid critical coverage altogether.
These actions have drawn criticism from press freedom organizations, emphasizing the importance of transparent and accurate reporting during crises.
Pathways to De-escalation
To prevent further escalation and promote stability:
-
Diplomatic Engagement: Both nations should engage in direct talks, possibly facilitated by neutral international parties, to address underlying issues.
-
Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Establishing or enhancing MLATs and JITs can facilitate joint investigations into terrorist activities.
-
Combatting Misinformation: Collaborative efforts to fact-check and counter false narratives can reduce public hysteria and mistrust.
-
Protecting Press Freedom: Ensuring journalists have access to conflict zones and can report without undue restrictions is vital for transparency.
-
Confidence-Building Measures: Initiatives such as cultural exchanges, economic cooperation, and military hotlines can build trust and reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings.
The recent events underscore the volatility of the India-Pakistan relationship and the potential for rapid escalation. A commitment to dialogue, legal cooperation, and respect for press freedom is essential to navigate the complexities of regional security and prevent future tragedies.
