For Success of India-Pakistan Talks for Resolution, Media Must Behave Responsibly

Fiaz Pampori*

Now that there is an India-Pakistan ceasefire in place and there are hopes that the two sides would engage in a meaningful bilateral resolution to resolve all disputes, it is hoped that the media on both the sides plays its role responsibly.

Whenever India and Pakistan show even a faint sign of moving toward peace, a familiar and unfortunate pattern unfolds—television studios on both sides of the border erupt into noisy, divisive debates featuring so-called experts whose main aim appears to be provocation, not reconciliation.

These televised confrontations, often orchestrated by anchors hungry for TRP ratings, create a toxic atmosphere that poisons the public mood and sabotages diplomatic efforts before they can take root.

History has shown us that media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception. Unfortunately, in the case of India-Pakistan relations, a section of the electronic media has repeatedly played a destructive role.

During crucial moments of bilateral engagement, when both governments make sincere efforts to open communication channels, many TV news channels prefer to exploit tensions rather than promote understanding. Anchors invite hyper-nationalist voices who shout, accuse, and inflame, rather than inform and reason.

These TV debates give the false impression that the people of both countries are brimming with hatred for each other. Even though there is a sizeable size of war mongers on both sides of the borders, by and large citizens on both sides largely yearn for peace, better ties, and a shared future based on mutual respect.

This disconnect between the real aspirations of the people and the media narrative is dangerous. It builds a false perception that peace is impossible, which in turn puts pressure on political leadership to withdraw from dialogue out of fear of media backlash.

The recent military strikes and exchange of firing by the two sides once again exposed the irresponsibility of some news channels. At one point, while switching channels, I inadvertently tuned into an Indian news broadcast where the anchor, a retired military officer, and one inconsequential politician were not just shouting, but clapping, cheering, and literally dancing in the studio. They were also urging the Indian Army to set Karachi on fire.

One panelist even claimed that students in Pakistan should not bother drawing their country's map that night, as by morning the geography would change dramatically. This kind of language is not only inflammatory—it is reckless, dangerous, and deeply unbecoming of a democratic media.

Such dramatization for the sake of TRP is not just unprofessional; it is unethical and harmful to national interest. Fictional reports like the capture of Lahore or Karachi, and outrageous suggestions by so-called military experts to destroy entire cities, insult the intelligence of viewers and provoke unnecessary fear and hatred. Besides, they are opposed to international conventions on war and humanitarian laws.

The people on both the sides desire to build bridges, not burn them. And if peace is truly to be pursued, we must ensure that media platforms do not become battlegrounds of hate. There is an urgent need to regulate televised debates on sensitive issues like India-Pakistan relations. Anchors, panelists, and so-called experts who thrive on warmongering and misinformation must be held accountable and barred from spreading such narratives.

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, but it must come with a sense of responsibility—especially when national security, international relations, and the lives of soldiers and civilians are at stake.

If the peace process between India and Pakistan is to move forward, it must be shielded from the disruptive noise of irresponsible media. Let the media be a facilitator of understanding, not a factory of conflict.

(Fiaz Pampori is a Doda based journalist)