The Fragmentation in the Global Fight Against Terror
07-05-2025
06:30 AM
1 min read
Context
- The recent terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, has once again laid bare the cracks in the international community’s approach to combating terrorism.
- While many nations were quick to condemn the violence, their calls for restraint from both India and Pakistan reflect a troubling trend: the erosion of global solidarity in confronting terror, particularly when it emanates from Pakistan and targets India.
- Amid these developments, it is important to explore the implications of the Pahalgam attack, the global community’s fragmented response, the double standards India faces, and the strategic path India must chart in response.
The Shattered Illusion of a Unified Anti-Terror Front
- In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, global powers issued statements that were, at best, diplomatically cautious and, at worst, morally ambiguous.
- Calls from the United States, the European Union, and Russia for restraint from both sides effectively equated the victim (India) with the perpetrator (Pakistan), diluting the moral clarity necessary for a resolute stand against terrorism.
- This marks a stark departure from the early 2000s, when the global community, galvanised by the 9/11 attacks, stood united in a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to terrorism.
- The erosion of this collective will is partly due to shifting global priorities.
- With ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and broader West Asia, the appetite for new conflicts, particularly in Asia, is limited.
- In this climate, India’s security concerns are often subordinated to broader fears of regional escalation, especially given Pakistan’s use of its nuclear status as a deterrent against decisive international action.
The Return of My Terrorist vs. Your Terrorist
- The global fight against terrorism has reverted to a selective, interest-based approach.
- Western nations focus on right-wing extremism or REMVE (racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism), while the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) often turns a blind eye to Islamist terrorism, citing Islamophobia.
- Canada’s refusal to act against anti-India elements operating from its soil, under the guise of free expression, is emblematic of this hypocrisy.
- Similarly, China’s consistent use of its veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to shield Pakistan-backed terrorists underlines how geopolitics trumps principle.
- This trend is not limited to India.
- Africa, too, is facing a surge in terrorist activity, especially in the Sahel region.
- However, the international response remains muted, with terrorism in Africa and Asia increasingly regarded as someone else’s problem.
The Double Standards Faced by India
- Solidarity but Conditional Sympathy
- India’s experience with cross-border terrorism, primarily from Pakistan, is met not with solidarity but with conditional sympathy and cautionary warnings.
- The narrative of regional stability is often invoked to pressure India into restraint, even when its citizens are the victims.
- Ironically, the same Western powers that support Ukraine’s resistance against nuclear-armed Russia are hesitant to endorse India’s right to defend itself from a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
- Little Acknowledgment of Hinduphobia
- The Pahalgam attack itself, in which Hindus were allegedly targeted based on religion, reveals another dimension of global apathy.
- While Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia are widely and rightly condemned, acts of Hinduphobia, such as this attack, receive little to no acknowledgment.
- This silence is compounded by incidents such as U.S. presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy being vilified for his Hindu faith, highlighting the marginalisation of non-Abrahamic religions in global discourses on religious freedom.
- One notable exception came from U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who explicitly recognised the religious nature of the Pahalgam attack, describing it as a horrific Islamist terrorist attack.
- Her stance stands in contrast to the broader diplomatic hedging seen elsewhere.
Strategic Implications and the Path Forward
- Despite its diplomatic isolation in this context, India is not without leverage.
- It has the opportunity, and arguably the necessity, to recalibrate its strategy. Domestically, this involves maintaining vigilance and strengthening counter-terror mechanisms.
- Internationally, India must double down on its campaign against religiophobia, especially targeting the blind spots regarding non-Abrahamic faiths.
- India’s geopolitical strategy must also evolve.
- Its decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty and challenge Pakistan’s narrative at the UNSC are signs of a more assertive posture.
- While Pakistan's efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue through emergency sessions of the UNSC have largely failed, India's ability to sustain international support hinges on diplomatic dexterity and the strategic use of its global partnerships.
- Furthermore, India should leverage its relationships with key Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are pursuing internal reforms and could play a role in influencing Pakistan’s behaviour.
- India’s multi-alignment policy must translate into tangible diplomatic dividends, particularly in the realm of counterterrorism.
Conclusion
- The Pahalgam terror attack is not just an isolated act of violence; it is a stark reminder of the international community’s selective moralism and India’s growing isolation in the global fight against terrorism.
- As collective resolve against terror diminishes, India must prepare to go it alone, diplomatically, strategically, and ideologically.
- By asserting its geopolitical autonomy and refusing to be constrained by international double standards, India can shape a more secure future for itself, while also highlighting the urgent need for a renewed, truly global consensus on combating terrorism in all its forms.
Q1. What did the Pahalgam terror attack reveal?
Ans. The Pahalgam terror attack revealed the global community’s fragmented and inconsistent approach to combating terrorism.
Q2. How has the global stance on terrorism changed since 9/11?
Ans. Since 9/11, the global stance on terrorism has shifted from a united, collective fight to a selective and interest-driven approach.
Q3. Why is India often urged to show restraint after terror attacks?
Ans. India is often urged to show restraint due to international concerns about regional stability and the fear of escalation with nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Q4. What term is used to describe the global silence on violence against Hindus?
Ans. The term "Hinduphobia" is used to describe the global silence and lack of condemnation regarding violence against Hindus.
Q5. What strategy must India adopt in response to the global inaction on terrorism?
Ans. India must adopt a strategy of assertive diplomacy, strategic autonomy, and take the lead in global counterterrorism efforts.
Source:The Hindu
Power and Pitfalls of Digital Influence
07-05-2025
06:30 AM
1 min read
Context
- In the digital era, India finds itself at the epicentre of a complex and multifaceted battle against misinformation and the emerging trend of de-influencing.
- As internet penetration deepens and social media becomes the default space for interaction and information, the promise of connectivity is shadowed by the proliferation of unchecked content.
- While these platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for expression, community-building, and awareness, they also open floodgates to clickbait, sensationalism, and disinformation, especially in areas as sensitive as health, finance, and consumer welfare.
The Rise and Risk of De-influencing
- De-influencing, a trend wherein influencers discourage certain purchases or habits, appears on the surface to promote mindful consumption.
- However, its implementation is often driven by shock value and emotional manipulation. Instead of fostering discernment, many influencers exploit algorithms by engaging in hyperbole, half-truths, and controversy to boost visibility and monetisation.
- This not only skews consumer perception but also undermines trust in both genuine advocacy and expert opinion.
- In many instances, social media users rely more on influencers than verified professionals for advice, particularly concerning health and finance.
- As a result, misinformation spreads with alarming speed and reach, amplified by artificial intelligence and algorithmic feeds.
- The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risks Report rightly flags India as one of the most vulnerable nations to digital misinformation, due to its growing online population and the virality of AI-generated content.
Legal and Ethical Boundaries
- India’s constitutional commitment to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is a cornerstone of its democratic ethos.
- However, as the Supreme Court has reiterated, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), speech that endangers public order, decency, or morality, or causes defamation, can be curtailed.
- These principles are increasingly relevant in the context of influencer-driven digital content.
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aims to combat misleading advertisements by holding influencers accountable for false or deceptive promotions.
- Complementary frameworks under the IT Act, the Intermediary Guidelines (2021), and defamation laws also serve to curb harmful online behaviour.
- Though voluntary, the guidelines issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) set essential ethical standards for influencer conduct, with consequences like blacklisting and public naming in case of non-compliance.
- However, enforcement remains uneven.
- The effectiveness of these measures depends on consistent implementation and digital literacy.
- Influencers must recognise that transparency, not virality, is the new currency of credibility.
Health Content: A Critical Risk Area
- The stakes are even higher in the realm of health and wellness content.
- Here, misinformation can have tangible consequences, from misdiagnoses to harmful self-treatment.
- Trends such as detox water tutorials or misleading weight-loss advice often masquerade as legitimate wellness information, when in fact they lack any scientific foundation.
- The influence of such content is particularly dangerous when it capitalises on fear or exploits ignorance, blurring the line between information and manipulation.
- Legal precedent is beginning to address these gaps.
- In Indian Medical Association vs Union of India, the courts held influencers accountable for promoting misleading health content, reinforcing that only qualified professionals with disclosed credentials should offer medical advice.
- Additionally, a Delhi High Court ruling emphasised that freedom of speech does not protect defamatory or misleading statements, particularly in the health sector.
- To enhance accountability, a proposed registration or accreditation system for health-related influencers could function as a verification mechanism.
- This would create a centralised database to track and evaluate the credentials and content of those influencing public health narratives, a step toward curbing misinformation and rebuilding trust.
The Ethics of Influence and Consumer Empowerment
- Influencers wield enormous power to shape public discourse. Their content often combines persuasive storytelling with curated data and emotional appeals.
- This blend can be compelling but also misleading. When influencers intentionally cherry-pick information or rely on ambiguous phrasing to exaggerate claims, they undermine the integrity of public communication.
- The erosion of trust that follows harms not only consumers but also the long-term viability of digital influence as a tool for advocacy and engagement.
- Trust is a fragile commodity and exploiting it for personal gain, through unverified claims, paid promotions disguised as organic opinions, or sensational negativity, leads to reputational damage that affects both individual influencers and the broader digital ecosystem.
- Brands, too, have a responsibility to vet their partnerships and invest in consumer education to support informed decision-making.
Conclusion
- India's battle against misinformation and de-influencing demands a multi-pronged response.
- Stricter regulatory enforcement, ethical self-regulation, and widespread digital literacy are all crucial.
- Influencers must evolve from mere entertainers to responsible communicators, especially when dealing with topics that affect public welfare.
- While legal frameworks like the Consumer Protection Act, SEBI regulations, and judicial rulings are stepping stones, they must be supported by ethical norms, transparency protocols, and perhaps most importantly, critical thinking among users.
Q1. What is de-influencing?
Ans. It’s when influencers discourage certain purchases, often to promote mindful consumption.
Q2. Why is India vulnerable to misinformation?
Ans. Due to high social media use and the rise of AI-generated content.
Q3. What law holds influencers accountable for misleading ads?
Ans. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Q4. Why is health content more sensitive online?
Ans. Because false health advice can directly harm public safety.
Q5. What do courts say about freedom of speech and misinformation?
Ans. Free speech doesn't protect harmful or false content.
Source:The Hindu
Download PDF
Share this article
