Western indifference to a recent terrorist attack in Kashmir reflects dangerous double standards, overlooking the global risks of escalating India-Pakistan tensions.

The terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area of Kashmir on April 22 has reopened a Pandora’s box in the already strained relations between India and Pakistan, pushing the two nuclear-armed neighbors once again toward the edge of armed confrontation. The international community watches with bated breath as veteran political tacticians—Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif—navigate a crisis with far-reaching implications.

The attack, captured and shared on social media by Rishi Bhatt, a tourist who happened to be in the area, shows the assailants deliberately targeting men—specifically those who could not recite the Muslim declaration of faith, the Basmala.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded with an unequivocal warning, stating that the terrorists and those who support them will face punishment “beyond imagination.” Meanwhile, speaking to Reuters from his office in Islamabad, Pakistan’s Defense Minister declared that the country had reinforced its military presence along the Indian border. Khawaja Asif stated, “In a conventional armed conflict, both countries should refrain from using the nuclear option. We have reinforced our forces because it is something we expect, as we believe an attack from India is imminent. Therefore, in this situation, certain strategic decisions must be made.”

What is paradoxical—and deeply troubling—is that although The Resistance Front (TRF) openly claimed responsibility for the attack, much of the Western media hesitated to label the perpetrators as terrorists. Instead, they were described as “armed men” or “militants.” In response, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a public apology on social media for the way The New York Times had covered the incident, criticizing its description of the attackers and the event itself. “At least 24 tourists were shot by militants in Kashmir,” the article read. The Committee called the reporting “out of touch with reality” and further condemned the Times for its tendency to downplay acts of terrorism, especially when the victims are in India or Israel.

Why does The New York Times maintain this neutral framing and avoid calling the Kashmir attack what it clearly was—a terrorist act? It’s even more paradoxical considering the attack occurred during the visit of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to India. This instance is far from isolated. A sizable portion of Western media, what former President Donald Trump referred to as the “traditional media,” regularly downplays terrorist attacks by labeling them “shootings” or “militant activity.”

Analysts have long noted this double standard, especially when it comes to Kashmir. Linguist Noam Chomsky has argued that language functions as a powerful form of propaganda—so it’s no coincidence that this particular attack was diluted in meaning by being described as the work of “fighters” rather than “terrorists.”

For decades, Pakistan has carried out what India calls “cross-border terrorism,” often claiming that the attacks are perpetrated by “non-state actors”—a classic proxy war tactic. India has repeatedly provided evidence to Pakistan linking the perpetrators to territory under Islamabad’s control, but Pakistan has consistently refused to cooperate in bringing them to justice. Its ongoing game of denial and evasion has failed to convince even the most sympathetic observers.

If India and Pakistan were to go to war, nuclear escalation—however undesirable—would be on the table. Both countries are nuclear powers, and the mere possibility of armed conflict raises serious global concerns. In 2019, then–Pakistan Railway Minister Sheikh Rashid told Geo News that “Pakistan has small atomic bombs of 125-250 grams that can hit a targeted area in India,” making it alarmingly clear that Islamabad is prepared to consider nuclear deployment if war erupts over Kashmir.

So far, Pakistan has benefited from India’s no-first-use nuclear policy. But India has developed a counter-strategy to deter nuclear blackmail: the Cold Start doctrine. This strategy allows for rapid, limited military strikes intended to inflict punishment on Pakistan without escalating into nuclear war. It relies on speed, surprise, and precision—deliberately designed to avoid giving Pakistan the justification for a full-scale counterattack. Surprise remains a cornerstone of the Cold Start approach.

Should nuclear weapons be used, the India-Pakistan conflict would immediately spill beyond the region, morphing into a global crisis. Yet why must we reach the brink of catastrophe before the world recognizes the true nature of Pakistan’s provocations in Kashmir?

The international community must understand—and Western journalists must help make clear—that these are orchestrated terrorist attacks directed by Pakistan against India. While Turkey denies providing military aid to Pakistan, it supports Islamabad economically and indirectly through defense cooperation. The alliance between these two theocratic states—Pakistan and Turkey—is no secret. Should war break out, China and Turkey would likely back Pakistan. However, with recent shifts in international law regarding terrorism, the United States, Europe, and the UAE are more likely to support India in the event of a larger conflict.

India, meanwhile, is carefully planning its next moves. In response to the attack, it has shut its airspace to Pakistani civilian and military aircraft—just days after Pakistan did the same to India—and has pulled out of the Indus Waters Treaty, signaling that diplomacy is fraying.

Yet Pakistan’s continued hostility stems from a deeply rooted fear—one that is existential in nature. In 1993, the CIA declassified a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revealing Pakistan’s internal anxieties. The report concluded that Pakistan fears India not just in military or economic terms but existentially. The NIE anticipated that any future war would most likely be triggered by a Kashmir-related incident and that Pakistan would begin from a defensive posture.

Pakistan’s record as an exporter of terrorism is long and troubling. It has faced serious, well-documented accusations of harboring terrorists and enabling attacks worldwide—from India and Afghanistan to Russia, Iran, and the UK. A detailed report by the European Foundation for South Asian Studies laid bare the connections between the Pakistani military, ISIS, and extremist clerics.

The timing of this latest attack is strategic, not coincidental. With Pakistan currently engulfed in deep economic distress and struggling with fragile social infrastructure, triggering a war with India could serve as a convenient rallying cry. A war would mask the state’s dysfunction by inflaming nationalistic fervor and providing a temporary sense of unity and pride.

As Sajjan Gohel, International Security Director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, aptly puts it: “We must give the terrorist attack in Kashmir the importance it deserves by seeing the victims as human stories and not numbers.” It is imperative that those of us in the West understand what is truly at stake. A war between India and Pakistan would not be a distant regional conflict—it would be a global emergency. Our first act of responsibility must be to use language that reflects reality. Call it what it is: terrorism.