Difference between “Terrorists” & “Militants”: Can it be used interchangeably?

Difference between “Terrorists” & “Militants”: Can it be used interchangeably?

KAKALI DAS

The Indian government has strongly expressed its concerns to the BBC over its coverage of the Pahalgam terror attack and the use of the term “militant” instead of “terrorist.”

The Ministry of External Affairs sent a formal letter to BBC India Head Jackie Martin expressing India’s displeasure about the way BBC covered the April 22^nd terror attack, in which 26 innocent civilians died.

It Is important to note that while the entire country mourns the loss of these innocent lives, many in the western media have been overly lenient in their coverage. They often use the terms “militants” and “terrorists” interchangeably, which can mislead the public about the gravity of the situation.

Some reports have even referred to the attackers as “gunmen.” Global media outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, and The New York Times, have used terms like “militants” or “gunmen” rather than “terrorists.” In fact, the US government’s House committee even corrected The New York Times on social media for using the term “militant.”

To understand why this matters, we need to differentiate between “terrorist” and “militant.” According to India’s Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a “terrorist act” is one aimed at causing fear or harm to the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India. It involves violence intended to create terror among the people. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes terrorism as the deliberate use of violence to create fear and achieve a political goal.

On the other hand, a “militant” is someone who uses violence to support a political cause. While both involve violence, the intent and the effect of terrorism are more specific. Terrorism is meant to create fear and terror among people, while militancy may not always have the same impact.

So, using the wrong terms can downplay the seriousness of an incident. Calling someone a “gunman” or “militant” minimizes their actions and shifts public perception. This is similar to how former President Donald Trump referred to the COVID-19 virus as the “China Virus,” which led to harmful assumptions about its origin.

Words in headlines are carefully chosen, and journalists deliberately pick them to shape the way an event is perceived. Referring to someone who violently attacks innocent civilians as a “terrorist” is crucial because it emphasizes the severity of the act. In this case, the attackers in Pahalgam, who killed innocent civilians and instilled fear, are clearly terrorists.

By underplaying the issue with the wrong terminology, the media is perpetuating a biased and racially insensitive narrative. Western media often shows more empathy for incidents involving white victims, as seen in the coverage of attacks in Paris or New York, compared to similar events in Asia, Africa, or Latin America.

The language used in these reports reveals an unconscious bias, where white perpetrators are often labeled “lone wolves,” while non-white perpetrators are immediately labeled terrorists.

The media’s selective coverage and portrayal of different communities highlight a systemic bias in how stories are prioritized and reported. The bottom line is that the Pahalgam attack was clearly an act of terrorism, and those responsible are terrorists. There should be no debate about this.

The headline should simply say: “26 innocent civilians gunned down by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir.” Until the western media adopts this unbiased perspective, it will be difficult for us to take their coverage seriously.

03-05-2025

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.