In the early hours of May 7, 2025, the Indian armed forces launched a calibrated military operation, targeting terrorist training camps at nine locations across Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. Dubbed Operation Sindoor, this action was a direct response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on 22 April 2025 when 26 civilians were killed. The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-backed Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack 1, 2. Pakistan escalated the situation by striking both civilian and military installations within India. India responded with counter-retaliatory strikes, targeting Pakistani military infrastructure. After three days of sustained hostilities, during which Pakistan Army suffered “significant losses in numbers, morale and initiative” (ANI News, 2025), the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) of Pakistan reached out to his Indian counterpart to request a ceasefire—temporarily halting India's military operations 3. As far as India was concerned the “original escalation” was the Pakistan-backed terror attack on 26 civilians in Kashmir on 22^nd of April 2025 4.

Global media, however, portrayed the incident through a markedly different lens—often framing India as a violent aggressor. Coverage tended to depict the episode as merely the latest escalation in the long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry over Kashmir, while downplaying the April terror attack. From previous scholarship on conflicts like Israel–Gaza 5 and Russia–Ukraine 6, we can identify recurring patterns when one side is predominantly framed as the aggressor. These frames not only decontextualize violence but also legitimizes the “victim” side's struggle. Geopolitical adversaries’ sides are often hyphenated in a chosen frame of equivalence, and historical complexities are flattened. We observe similar framing patterns in the international media coverage of Operation Sindoor.

Global outlets consistently hyphenated India and Pakistan, decontextualizing India's various grievances and downplaying the deadly April 2025 Pahalgam attack. For example, the Pahalgam attack was variously described as a “militant attack” or “gun attack” by AP News 7, 8, a “mass-shooting”, or simply an “attack” by DW 9—removing explicit references to religious terrorism. At the same time, in the portrayal of India and Pakistan—two vastly different nation-states, one a secular democracy with a fast-growing economy and the other marked by military rule, a theocratic political structure, and economic dependence on IMF support—global media tended to blur these distinctions. From an Indian perspective, such negative framing has tangible social consequences as it engenders biased public discourse. This study examines 16 media articles, to analyze such framing strategies. Using thematic analysis, the research identifies dominant frames, exploring their motivations, and implications for geopolitical narratives.

The study draws on media framing theory as its theoretical basis. Framing refers to the way information is organized, packaged, and presented in order to shape how audiences interpret and understand events. Certain elements of a story—whether visual or textual—are selectively emphasized while strategically omitting others, thereby guiding the audience’s perception of reality 10. A thematic analysis of international media coverage (N = 16) related to the India–Pakistan military escalation in May 2025 is conducted to identify the frames to understand how media narratives shape public understanding of geopolitical events. The articles were selected from a purposive sample of prominent global media outlets known for international conflict coverage (Table 1). Each sampled article was subjected to close reading, with relevant excerpts—including headlines, key phrases, and relevant descriptors—carefully extracted and cataloged. These textual elements were then organized into themes, based on recurring patterns in language use and narrative focus. These themes were mapped to higher-order frames, such as aggressor–victim, hyphenation, and decontextualized violence.

The following frames were identified through thematic analysis: aggressor–victim, hyphenation, and decontextualized violence. These are presented in Table 2, which outlines each frame and provides a brief description of each frame. Each frame comprises underlying themes, and a number of textual examples were matched to these themes during analysis. The terminology of frame, theme, and example is used consistently throughout the study.

As illustrated in Table 3 through Table 5, media coverage of Operation Sindoor is shaped by a distinct set of frames and recurring themes. The dominant narrative positions India and Pakistan as comparable regional rivals, bound by a shared history and the Kashmir dispute. Within this framing, India—despite being a secular democracy governed by the rule of law—is frequently cast as the aggressor. At the same time, Pakistan’s long-standing support for terror groups is often minimized or overlooked. All three identified frames are supported in existing literature in various contexts: the aggressor–victim frame in conflict reporting 27, 28, the hyphenation frame in geopolitical discourse 29, 30, and the decontextualized violence frame in legal and policy contexts on violence 31, 32.

These portrayals reflect deeper geopolitical alignments going back almost eight decades. For much of the post-World War II era, the West—the Euro-American bloc—was the undisputed global arbiter of geopolitics. This dominant position, forged from a unique convergence of economic, military, and ideological strengths, allowed it to largely shape the international order, including the control of prevailing narratives 33. During the Cold War, this Western dominance manifested in different ways in the Indian subcontinent, and Pakistan emerged as a key ally of the West, receiving substantial military and economic aid 34. Pakistan's consistent alignment with Western interests including a post-9/11 "War on Terror" partner 35, has often translated into diplomatic favoritism, despite evidence of its continued support for non-state militant actors. Conversely, India's pursuit of non-alignment, coupled with its close relationship with the Soviet Union, meant it was often viewed with suspicion or as implicitly aligned against Western interests 36.

This established a narrative framework where India could rarely be portrayed favorably, as doing so would undermine the geopolitical utility of designated allies. This framing aligns with established theory on conflict reporting that media outlets rarely challenge the dominant political narratives of their home country or allied states.

The identity of the aggressor is determined by which political elite’s version of events the press chooses to adopt. Consequently, news media tend to depict the opposing side—or “enemy”—as the initiator of violence, while presenting their own nation or allies as merely acting in self-defense, even when objective facts suggest otherwise. This process of “vilification” is frequently accompanied by a systematic reinforcement of negative stereotypes about the adversary:

“In times of war, the press is an important agent of vilification, a tool that enables leaders to mobilize public support for their policies.” (Wolfsfeld, 2004, p.14) 37.

“The news media are easily mobilized for the vilification of the enemy… Claims about our own acts of aggression and the other’s suffering are either ignored, underplayed, or discounted. We are always the victims, they are always the aggressors.” (Wolfsfeld, 2004, p. 23) 37.

Issues of national identity and geopolitical alignment often lead media outlets to frame international events in ways that reflect their home country's strategic interests 38. Major media houses frequently “manufacture consent” by reinforcing narratives aligned with political and economic elites, rather than offering an unbiased account of conflict, in line with Herman and Chomsky's (1988)39 propaganda model. This is further compounded by India's rapid economic growth, increasing military capabilities, and assertion of strategic autonomy, and the fact that the U.S. is no longer being seen as the sole dominant global power 40. This complicates India's place in established Western narratives. Consequently, despite being a thriving secular democracy and major economy, India is often portrayed negatively in Western media. Meanwhile, Pakistan, despite its crumbling economy and documented ties to terror sponsorship, frequently receives greater sympathy. By hyphenating India and Pakistan, Western foreign policy and media circumvent such discrepancies and effectively flatten the stark disparities between the two nations.

This false equivalence, where both parties are often held equally culpable despite significant power asymmetries and historical context (Philo & Berry, 2011) 41, is evident in media's use of neutral terms like “militant” instead of “terrorist.” Although often seemingly adopting objective language, wartime coverage frequently embeds subtle biases that decontextualize violence and obscure underlying asymmetries. For example, a CNN report by Iyer et al. (2025)26 presents what appears to be balanced testimonies from both sides of the Line of Control. However, a subtle pro-Pakistan bias is evident: a resident from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir directly blames the Indian Army for violence, while an Indian testimony ambiguously refers to “shelling” without naming the Pakistan Army. Another Indian respondent notably criticizes the war itself, asking, “Does anyone take consent from us people before starting a war?” Such statements, presented without context, implicitly blames India while omitting the precipitating terrorist attack, thus downplaying causality and flattening asymmetries.

This study, while offering in-depth qualitative analysis, is limited by its small sample size (N=16). The focus on English-language outlets also potentially overlooks coverage in other major languages, such as French, Spanish, or Arabic. Furthermore, the analysis is restricted to the three-day conflict, which might not reflect subsequent media narratives. Future research could employ larger sample sizes and adopt a comparative longitudinal approach, examining how framing shifts across different conflict phases or among media in various geopolitical blocs.

The analysis of international media coverage surrounding Operation Sindoor, launched by India on May 7, 2025, in the wake of the devastating April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, reveals a large difference between India's stated intent and global perception. While India viewed the operation as a measured response to the April attack that claimed 26 civilian lives, international media majorly portrayed India as the primary aggressor, often minimizing the initial act of terror. This study's thematic analysis of 16 prominent global media articles identified three dominant framing strategies: “aggressor–victim,” “hyphenation,” and “decontextualized violence” which demonstrably obscured the underlying causes and flattened asymmetries. The study contextualizes the findings by examining how historical post-World War II alliances such as India-Russia and US-Pakistan, the ongoing dynamics of Euro-American hegemony, and India's role as a rising global power, shape these narratives. As the study demonstrates, promoting a more historically informed and balanced geopolitical discourse is essential. It will not only allow a better public understanding of key issues but also promote responsible international engagement on global issues.