Unmasking the ‘Three Men’: Why Reuters’ Indian Staff Remain Silent on Bharat’s Perspective

On the same day that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh spoke about the crucial Operation Sindoor in Parliament, Indian security forces took significant action against terrorism. In a notable operation in Kashmir named Operation Mahadev, three members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba were killed. These included Suleiman Shah, a former Pakistani soldier linked to the Pahalgam massacre, along with Abu Hamza and Yasir.

However, a Reuters report referred to these terrorists merely as “three men,” raising eyebrows. The writers, all Indian journalists for an international media outlet, seemed to downplay the seriousness of the situation. This isn’t just about one report; it reflects a troubling trend where foreign media misrepresents serious issues related to India’s national security.

### Why This Matters

The term “men” strips away the reality of their actions. Instead of honoring the bravery of Indian soldiers, the report seemed to sanitize the story. When contacted, YP Rajesh, the Chief of Reuters’ South Asia Breaking News Hub, declined to comment, reflecting a lack of accountability.

Many are questioning whether Indian reporters for foreign publications prioritize these global narratives over national interests. A recent analysis found that over the past few years, Reuters has often underplayed threats to India, echoing narratives from countries like Pakistan and China rather than presenting the facts.

### A Pattern of Distortion

Here are some examples of this trend:

– In May 2025, Reuters inaccurately reported that Indian fighter jets had crashed, depending entirely on Pakistani sources.
– A similar incident occurred when a false report suggested Chinese jets downed Indian aircraft.
– During the Delhi Riots in 2020, the focus was on blaming Hindus while ignoring the deaths of Hindu victims.

The takeaway? When India defends itself, the media sometimes refers to perpetrators as “men,” while attacking Indian forces. It raises the question: how can we trust a narrative that shows such clear bias?

### The Social Media Backlash

The public response has been swift. Social media users and public figures, such as Major Surendra Poonia, have criticized Reuters for its portrayal of terrorists. Tweets have made it clear that many believe this misrepresentation undermines national security. One tweet read, “They are not ‘men,’ they are terrorists. Shame on you, Reuters.”

### A Call for Accountability

The increasing silence from Indian reporters working abroad is concerning. When they fail to advocate for their country, it empowers harmful biases. This reveals the potential for journalistic ethics to be compromised when editorial policies prioritize international perspectives over national truths.

The response on social media highlights a growing awareness that foreign media can distort India’s image. It’s not unusual, but when Indian journalists take part in this, it crosses a line. The goal should be to represent the truth—especially when it comes to national security.

Operation Mahadev was more than a military action; it expressed India’s determination not to tolerate terrorism. Journalists ought to recognize this reality without editorializing that takes away from the gravity of the events.

In conclusion, if journalists struggle to call a terrorist a terrorist, the validity of their work comes into question. It’s vital for journalists, especially those from India, to prioritize the nation’s interests over allegiance to foreign media agendas. The truth must come first.



Source link

Indian employees,monsoon session of parliament,operation Mahadev,Operation Sindoor,reuters,Western Media