Using “militants” in this context risks downplaying the brutality of the act, especially since the victims were civilians. The nature of the attack and the clear targeting of non-combatants leave little room for a more neutral term.
By Bibhudatta Pradhan
The Indian government has formally objected to the BBC’s use of the term “militants” instead of “terrorists” in its reporting on the Pahalgam attack, which left 26 tourists dead at a Himalayan tourist site in Kashmir.
On April 22, terrorists opened fire on tourists visiting the high-altitude meadow of Pahalgam. According to reports, the assailants separated men from women and children, asked the men their names, and then shot them at close range.
The controversy over the terminology highlights the broader challenge journalists face: balancing objectivity, accuracy, and sensitivity when reporting acts of violence. It raises an important question — what is the appropriate word choice in such cases?
A “terrorist” is commonly defined as an individual who uses violence against civilians to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. The term implies deliberate civilian targeting, as seen in incidents such as the September 11 attacks in the United States.
By contrast, a “militant” typically refers to a person engaged in aggressive or confrontational activities, often using violence to support a cause, usually against military or state targets. The term “militant” is broader, can be more neutral, and is often applied to insurgencies, rebellions, or armed political movements in conflict zones.
The key distinction lies in the intent and the target. Terrorists aim to instil fear by harming civilians; militants are more often associated with targeting state actors or security forces. However, the lines can blur, particularly in complex conflicts where groups may shift tactics.
In journalistic practice, “terrorist” is typically used when civilian targeting is evident or when an organization has been officially designated as a terrorist group by credible authorities. In cases where the target, motive, or affiliation is unclear — particularly in the immediate aftermath of an attack — journalists often prefer the term “militant” to maintain neutrality until more information emerges.
Editorial guidelines from leading news organizations reflect this cautious approach. The BBC, in its BBC News Style Guide advises that the term “terrorist” should not be used without attribution. “Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom,” the guide states. Similarly, the AP Stylebook recommends avoiding labelling individuals or groups as “terrorists” without clear attribution.
In the 1990s, “militant” was commonly used by Indian English newspapers for Kashmir insurgents primarily targeting state forces, reflecting the insurgency’s nature. However, over the past two decades – especially after high-profile attacks targeting civilians — such as the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks — they began increasingly using “terrorist” in reports involving civilian targets. The shift was driven by changes in attack patterns, public outrage, and the government’s anti-terrorism narrative.
Professional journalism demands precision and impartiality, particularly in the use of terminology. In the case of the Pahalgam attack, there is little ambiguity regarding the appropriate word choice. Given that the attackers deliberately targeted and killed unarmed tourists, the use of the term “terrorists” is more accurate and appropriate.
Using “militants” in this context risks downplaying the brutality of the act, especially since the victims were civilians. The nature of the attack and the clear targeting of non-combatants leave little room for a more neutral term.
When covering violent incidents, the terminology should be guided by the nature of the attack, the identity of the victims, and the stated or evident motives of the perpetrators. While editorial guidelines provide important frameworks for consistency and objectivity, the ultimate responsibility rests with journalists: to inform the public without fear or favour — using language that faithfully reflects the reality on the ground.
Writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi