Global Narrative or Bias? How International Media Frames Kashmir Compared to Indian Outlets

In the wake of rising tensions and frequent media coverage surrounding Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), and China-occupied territories like Aksai Chin, a glaring difference has emerged between how Indian media and international outlets describe the region. While Indian outlets commonly refer to these areas by terms such as "Jammu & Kashmir", "PoK", and "China-occupied Kashmir", international media giants like BBC, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and others routinely use terms like "India-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-administered Kashmir."

This discrepancy is not merely linguistic. It reveals a deeper international diplomatic tightrope where global institutions and governments try to avoid taking overt sides in what they classify as a "disputed territory." The terminology used by global media is often shaped by UN language, foreign policy neutrality, and the interests of Western powers in maintaining geopolitical balance in South Asia.

For India, the usage of such neutral-sounding terms feels like a dilution of its sovereignty and constitutional position over Jammu & Kashmir. Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, India has reiterated — both legally and politically — that the entire region of Jammu & Kashmir, including PoK and Aksai Chin, is an integral part of its territory. Conversely, the international media's persistence in using these administrative terms hints at a reluctance to fully endorse India’s stance, perhaps in an effort to maintain access to both India and Pakistan diplomatically.

Pakistan, on the other hand, welcomes the usage of "administered" terms, as it helps frame the conflict as bilateral or even international — rather than a settled internal matter of India. This plays into Islamabad’s long-standing strategy of internationalizing the Kashmir issue at global forums like the UN and OIC, often with the support of China and occasionally Turkey.

Critics argue that such phrasing from international outlets, often headquartered in Western democracies, reflects a double standard. While they refrain from calling out Chinese aggression in places like Aksai Chin or Hong Kong with the same intensity, they continue to highlight Kashmir as a "disputed" or "contentious" zone, despite clear domestic legal frameworks in India.

Ultimately, the language battle surrounding Kashmir is a reflection of larger geopolitical posturing — where media becomes a subtle but powerful weapon in shaping perception, allegiance, and international legitimacy. The issue is no longer just about borders, but narratives — and who gets to define them.