Global Media’s Lens on India’s 2025 Strike Against Pakistan
By Gajanan Khergamker
On a crisp April morning in 2025, tragedy struck Pahalgam, a picturesque valley in Jammu and Kashmir, India. A meticulously planned terrorist attack, executed by five militants wielding M4 carbines and AK-47s, tore through Baisaran Valley, leaving 26 civilians dead—25 Indians and one Nepali national, mostly Hindu tourists.
The Resistance Front (TRF), a shadowy proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility, declaring the assault a protest against non-local settlement policies in Kashmir. India swiftly pointed the finger at Pakistan, identifying Hashim Musa, a former Pakistani para-commando turned Lashkar operative, as a key planner.
 |
| India conducted a series of precision airstrikes targeting terrorist camps |
By May 6, 2025, India responded with 'Operation Sindoor,' a series of precision airstrikes targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Launched on the 13th day of mourning, aligning with the Hindu terahvi ritual, the operation was both a military and symbolic act of retribution.
India didn’t stop there—it suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, shuttered the Attari-Wagah border, banned Pakistani imports worth $0.42 million in the prior fiscal year, and barred Pakistani ships and airlines from its territory.
Pakistan, blindsided, denied any role in Pahalgam, labeled the strikes “unprovoked aggression,” and closed its airspace for 48 hours, canceling flights to PoK cities like Gilgit and Skardu.
The world watched, and global media scrambled to make sense of a conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbors, each with its own narrative and stakes.
In the United States, newsrooms approached the story with a mix of gravitas and restraint, reflecting Washington’s strategic tilt toward India. The Wall Street Journal led the charge, painting Operation Sindoor as a calculated response to the Pahalgam massacre’s 26 deaths. It noted the strikes’ cultural timing and their focus on Lashkar-e-Taiba hideouts in Kotli, Muzaffarabad, and Bahawalpur, but offered no tally of casualties or damage—a common thread in early reporting.
The New York Times, in an earlier April 23 piece, had flagged India’s diplomatic salvo—expelling Pakistani diplomats and banning overflights—as a prelude to military action, quoting Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s vow of “zero tolerance” for terrorism.
NBC News chimed in on April 30, highlighting Pakistan’s frantic warning of an imminent Indian strike, a prediction that proved prescient.
The U.S. tone was measured but unmistakably pro-India, framing the strikes as a legitimate counterterrorism move. Yet, outlets like CNN and The Washington Post also amplified calls for calm, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging both sides to step back from the brink.
The coverage leaned heavily on official statements, sidestepping granular details about the strikes’ impact, likely due to the fog of war and limited access to PoK or Pakistan’s border regions. For American audiences, the story was as much about geopolitics—countering China’s influence via a stronger U.S.-India axis—as it was about the conflict itself.
Across the Atlantic, European media treaded carefully, haunted by the specter of nuclear escalation. The Guardian set the tone on April 29, describing the Pahalgam attack as a blow to India’s narrative of stability in Kashmir. It reported ongoing skirmishes along the Line of Control, with small-arms fire and mortars traded daily, and framed India’s accusation of Pakistan’s “cross-border complicity” against Islamabad’s vehement denials. When the strikes hit, The Guardian called them a “high-stakes gamble,” warning of a spiral neither side could control.
The BBC took a similar tack, detailing U.S. and U.K. diplomatic efforts to cool tensions, with Rubio and Foreign Secretary David Lammy engaging their Indian and Pakistani counterparts. The European Union’s Kaja Kallas, on May 2, labeled the situation “alarming,” pushing for dialogue over destruction.
European coverage was rich in context, tracing the conflict to the 1947 partition and the three wars—two over Kashmir—that have scarred India-Pakistan relations. But it was light on specifics about Operation Sindoor’s outcomes, reflecting a focus on diplomacy rather than military minutiae. The tone was one of concern, urging both nations to prioritise stability in a region critical to global trade and security. For Europe, the stakes were clear: a misstep could ripple far beyond South Asia.
In the Gulf, media outlets navigated a delicate balance, given their economic ties to both India and Pakistan. Gulf News reported the strikes, confirming Pakistan’s army acknowledgment and the 48-hour airspace closure. It stuck to the facts: 26 dead in Pahalgam, nine terror camps targeted, no Pakistani military sites hit. The tone was neutral, condemning terrorism broadly while avoiding judgment on the strikes’ legitimacy.
Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, offered a broader lens, noting Pakistan’s claim of a “false flag” operation and India’s evidence tying Lashkar to the attack. It highlighted diplomatic moves, with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait reaching out to India to advocate restraint, per The Hindu on May 1. Kuwait’s Foreign Minister even expressed solidarity with India’s anti-terrorism fight, a nod to shared concerns about extremism.
The Middle East’s coverage reflected its role as a diplomatic tightrope walker. With millions of Indian and Pakistani expatriates in the Gulf, and billions in trade at stake, outlets like Arab News emphasised regional stability, framing the conflict as a threat to energy markets and migration flows. The lack of casualty figures or strike details mirrored Western restraint, prioritising de-escalation over sensationalism.
In India, the media erupted in a chorus of defiance and pride. Times Now trumpeted Operation Sindoor as “justice served,” detailing the strikes on nine terror camps with surgical precision, sparing Pakistani military targets to avoid all-out war.
India Today went further, claiming Pakistan’s artillery reserves could sustain only four days of conflict, crippled by arms deals with Ukraine and Israel.
The Hindu chronicled India’s diplomatic blitz—outreach to UN Security Council members like Denmark and Kuwait, and a trade ban that slashed Pakistan’s $0.42 million in exports to India. The tone was unapologetic, casting Pakistan as a “terroristan” finally held accountable.
Pakistan’s media, though less prominent in global reports, pushed back hard. Outlets like Dawn and Geo News, referenced in Indian coverage, portrayed India’s strikes as reckless aggression, dismissing accusations of complicity in Pahalgam as propaganda.
Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar called for an international probe, while Defense Minister Khawaja Asif warned of a “decisive response.” The narrative rallied domestic support, with parliament passing a resolution denying involvement and military exercises near the LoC signaling readiness.
China, Pakistan’s steadfast ally, kept its coverage muted. CGTN reported Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s call for restraint, warning that conflict would jeopardise the $52 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The tone was pragmatic, sidestepping the strikes’ merits to focus on economic stability.
Other Asian outlets, like Japan’s Asahi Shimbun and Singapore’s Straits Times, echoed Western concerns about nuclear risks, urging UN mediation.
The world’s media didn’t just report—they chronicled a flurry of diplomatic maneuvering. The United Nations, led by Antonio Guterres, offered to mediate, engaging India’s S. Jaishankar and Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif.
The U.S., U.K., EU, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait pushed for de-escalation, with the Pentagon’s support for India balanced by Rubio’s calls for calm. India’s outreach to non-permanent UN Security Council members aimed to isolate Pakistan, which, as a 2025-26 Council member-elect, vowed to raise the issue itself. The global press highlighted these efforts, framing them as a firewall against a broader conflict.
The facts were stark: 26 civilians killed in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025; nine terror camps struck on May 6; Pakistan’s airspace closed for 48 hours. India’s diplomatic measures—suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, banning trade, expelling diplomats—were widely reported.
Yet, no outlet, from The Wall Street Journal to Times Now, provided casualty figures or damage assessments from the strikes. This gap, likely due to restricted access and both sides’ tight control over information, left the story incomplete, forcing reliance on official claims and counterclaims.
Global media painted a mosaic of perspectives, each colored by regional priorities. The U.S. saw a counterterrorism win and a chance to bolster India against China. Europe fretted over nuclear risks, urging dialogue. The Gulf played neutral, guarding economic ties. India celebrated, Pakistan deflected, and China stayed guarded.
The coverage, while rich in context, lacked the grit of on-ground details, a testament to the conflict’s opacity. Yet, the universal thread was urgency—a plea to pull back from a precipice where miscalculation could spell catastrophe. In a world holding its breath, the story of Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor wasn’t just about vengeance; it was about the fragile line between justice and chaos.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
