By Frida Dsouza: The recent terrorists attack that took place on Tuesday, 22nd April, in the Baisaran Valley in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir killed 26 tourists and injured more than 20 others. The Resistance Front, linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, has claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. Lashkar Chief Hafiz Saeed is believed to have acted as the handler of the foreign terrorists involved.
This article highlights the Indian government’s stern message to the BBC over its coverage of the Jammu and Kashmir terror attack and seeks to explain the difference between ‘militant’, ‘terrorist’, and ‘radical’ — and why the BBC referred to the Kashmiri attackers as ‘militants’.
In an article titled “Pakistan suspends visas for Indians after deadly Kashmir attack,” the BBC referred to the incident as a ‘militant attack’, prompting the Narendra Modi government to write to the BBC’s India head, Jackie Martin.
The BBC article stated, “Pakistan has responded with tit-for-tat measures against India as tensions soared following a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists.”
In a formal letter addressed to the BBC, the government further stated that the Ministry of External Affairs would be monitoring the BBC’s reporting going forward.
This development comes after the US House Foreign Affairs Committee corrected The New York Times for using the word ‘militant’ in its article on the Pahalgam attack instead of ‘terrorist’. Quoting a screenshot of the article — “At least 24 tourists gunned down by militants in Kashmir” — the Foreign Affairs Committee said, “Hey, @nytimes, we fixed it for you. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK, plain and simple. Whether it’s India or Israel, when it comes to TERRORISM, the NYT is removed from reality.”
The US government has strongly condemned the terrorist attack on tourists in Jammu and Kashmir.
Let’s Understand: ‘Militants’, ‘Terrorists’, and ‘Radicals’
— Militants:
“The term is used to describe any person who resorts to violent methods in support of a political or social cause, irrespective of whether those violent methods seek to create a climate of terror or fear among the general population or adversaries to achieve desired political objectives,” according to Adil Rasheed, acclaimed author and researcher.
— Terrorists:
According to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, a terrorist is one who commits an act with the intent to threaten or is likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or with the intent to strike terror or is likely to strike terror among the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, by using bombs, dynamite, explosive substances, inflammable substances, firearms, lethal weapons, poisonous or noxious gases, chemicals, any hazardous substances, or by any other means causing or likely to cause death, injuries, or destruction of property.
— Terrorism:
According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), terrorism refers to “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from influences such as political, religious, social, racial, or environmental causes.”
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism under international law.
— Radical:
A radical is a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles — an extremist. A radical advocates for fundamental political, economic, and social reforms.
These terms should not be used interchangeably, as they carry different meanings. Their usage carries weight, and using them incorrectly can spread misleading information and worsen already volatile situations. The label holds significant importance; one must carefully consider the intensity and impact of these words.
Click here for Whatsapp English Group
Writing Style: India vs BBC
— India:
Almost every English publication in India used the word ‘militant’ for terror attacks in Kashmir until recently. However, this style shifted, especially after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the US, after which the use of the word ‘terrorist’ became more common. Some publications still use ‘militant’, while others have moved towards using ‘terrorist’.
— BBC:
In 2023, John Simpson, the World Affairs Editor at the BBC, addressed why the British news organisation doesn’t call Hamas militants ‘terrorists’.
The answer ties back to the BBC’s founding principles, Simpson explained:
“Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys,” he wrote.
“We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like ‘evil’ or ‘cowardly’. We don’t talk about ‘terrorists’.”
Additional Actions Taken: Ban on Pakistani YouTube Channels
Following the Pahalgam terror attack, India — based on recommendations from the Ministry of Home Affairs — banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels, collectively accounting for 63 million subscribers.
Former Pakistani pacer Shoaib Akhtar’s YouTube channel, with 3.5 million subscribers, was among the most notable ones banned.
Additionally, the government instructed media platforms not to provide live coverage or “source-based” reports on ongoing anti-terror operations “in the interest of national security,” stating that premature disclosure “may inadvertently assist hostile elements”.
Conclusion
It is crucial to understand that how an incident is communicated can either ease tensions or inflame them further.
The magnitude of a word can change perspectives, spread misinformation, and cause additional damage to an already fragile situation.
https://lalluramnews.com/india/scindia-india-to-remain-competitive-amidst-global-tariff-challenges/