There is a deeply unsettling pattern in how acts of violence are reported in India depending on the identity of the victim including this the chilling terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir that killed the lives of 26 tourists. Attacks on Hindus, especially in conflict-sensitive regions like Kashmir, Bengal, Kerala, and border districts — are often described in vague, de-escalatory terms such as “clashes,” “local tensions,” or “communal violence.” The words "persecution" or "targeted killings" are conspicuously avoided, even when evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

Contrast this with how incidents involving minority communities are reported: terms like “mob lynching,” “hate crime,” “Islamophobia,” and “religious persecution” are frequently and prominently used. These descriptions carry emotional and moral weight, and rightly so, but the selective application of such language reveals a glaring bias.

The Pahalgam terror attack is a stark example. The specificity of religious targeting was omitted from headlines and often from the body of the report itself. These newspapers mostly hid the truth or minimised that aspect in their reports. In doing so, they not only failed their readers but also overlooked the grief and trauma of the victims’ families who have publicly recounted how their loved ones were selected and killed after failing to prove their faith. Moreover, there was no mention of the word “Hindu” except one newspaper

Print media such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times have somewhere in the paragraphs mentioned that religious identity checks were conducted by the terrorists on their front pages. Papers such as The Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age omitted key details such as the timeline of the attack or what the terrorists actually did during the assault.

The Free Press Journal, in a mere 3–4 paragraph report on its front page, offered no mention of the word “Hindu” or the methodical way the attackers separated victims. Similarly, The Indian Express, though covering the attack in other sections, did not highlight on its front page the accounts of survivors being asked to recite Islamic verses, an act of forced religious identification preceding the killings.

The Deccan Herald and The Tribune did mention eyewitness accounts, but crucially omitted any references to those who clearly stated that the attackers checked IDs, asked for names, and pulled down trousers of male victims to check for religious markers before shooting.

Mid-Day, in perhaps the starkest example of editorial neglect, buried the entire report on Page 11, with only a one-line mention on the front page. The Millennium Post, crossed all limits when it prioritised reporting on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee inaugurating projects over the brutal terror attack. The front page of the publication gave more space and prominence to the CM's event, while the massacre received only passing mention.

Even when religious identity was vaguely acknowledged, the language was carefully chosen to avoid clarity. The Telegraph India vaguely reported that the “militants appeared to have asked their religious identities,” but did not use the word "Hindu." DT Next noted that eyewitnesses painted a chilling picture of the gunfire but failed to mention the most telling details—the checking of IDs and asking of religious identity.

In contrast, The New Indian Express stood out as one of the few newspapers that directly mentioned the targeting of “Hindu tourists” and noted that terrorists separated them after checking identities.

Media Coverage of Leading English Newspapers of Pahalgam Terror Attack: (Screenshots of the front pages are at the below the table)