By drawing a false moral equivalence between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir, the Financial Times—in its May 10 column—did more than just get the story wrong. It provided intellectual cover fire to a terror-exporting military regime, whitewashed Pakistan’s escalatory aggression, and smeared a democratically elected leader in a time of national trauma.
This is not just poor journalism. It is a dangerous distortion that actively enables Pakistan’s belligerence, rationalizes Islamist terrorism, and misrepresents the geopolitical stakes of the current India-Pakistan standoff.
Geopolitical gaslighting with real-life consequences
The FT piece begins with a cinematic juxtaposition: Modi, the elected head of the world’s largest democracy, hosting world leaders and signing a free trade agreement; and Munir, a religiously hardline general consolidating power through intelligence agencies, installing loyalists, and preparing for war. This setup would be laughable if it weren’t so insidious.
The article later declares: “South Asia’s fate is now largely in the hands of these two devoutly religious strongmen…both believe they are fighting a just war against a sworn enemy.”
This framing not only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of South Asian geopolitics, it also denies historical context. India is not fighting a religious war. It is responding—precisely and proportionately—to decades of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, most recently the April 22 Pahalgam massacre, in which 25 Hindu civilians and a pony ride operator were killed in cold blood by Pakistan-backed terrorists after identifying them as Hindus, in some cases by forcing them to strip to check for circumcision.
By calling both leaders “devoutly religious strongmen,” the FT conveniently erases the power asymmetry: one side is a democracy constrained by public accountability and law; the other is a military dictatorship that bankrolls and deploys jihadist proxies.
India’s terror strike was in response to Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam massacre
Let us set the record straight: India’s airstrikes were a response to terrorism, not a provocation. The strikes targeted terror infrastructure located deep inside Pakistan—facilities used to launch attacks like the one in Pahalgam.
Yet the FT fails to even mention this causal chain, instead describing India’s strikes as something that “triggered the region’s worst conflict in more than two decades.” This is not just misleading—it’s a textbook case of victim-blaming.
The article then details Munir’s preparations for war, missile tests, and backroom consolidations, presenting him as some misunderstood nationalist on equal moral footing with Modi. In doing so, it rationalizes Pakistan’s unwarranted retaliation that included drone and missile strikes on Indian civilian areas—acts of war under any international standard.
False moral equivalence employed as a propaganda tool
The real danger of this false equivalence is that it normalizes Pakistan’s military response. It implies that India and Pakistan are simply two hot-headed states caught in a tit-for-tat spiral, ignoring who started the fire.
Worse, the article regurgitates Pakistan’s narrative that “India is ideologically out to destroy Pakistan,” quoting ex-NSA Moeed Yusuf without scrutiny. It mentions India’s “Operation Sindoor” and popular support for Modi as if this is somehow comparable to Pakistanis burning Indian flags and effigies of the Indian prime minister. These are not equivalent expressions of nationalism; one stems from a defense against terror, the other from decades of radicalization and state-sponsored hate.
It is also notable that the article ignores General Munir’s own role in inflaming tensions. Just days before the Pahalgam massacre, Munir gave a speech declaring Hindus and Muslims as “two nations” and claiming Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein.” This isn’t abstract rhetoric—it is sectarian incitement, and India rightly called it “the last word in communal rhetoric.”
Western institutions must be held accountable
This is part of a broader pattern in Western media and institutions. The FT’s narrative dovetails with the IMF’s recent decision to grant Pakistan another loan, despite ongoing military escalation and provable terror links. Once again, the international community is financing the very military machine that fuels instability in South Asia.
These narratives do not just reflect misunderstanding—they have material consequences. They embolden Pakistan’s generals, weaken India’s diplomatic standing, and sabotage global efforts to fight terrorism. Worse, they shift attention away from the root issue: cross-border terrorism and religious radicalism emanating from Pakistan.
India has every right to defend itself
India did not start this war. It has no interest in destabilising South Asia. But it also cannot be expected to absorb terror attacks without consequence.
By comparing Prime Minister Modi to a bigoted general with a history of supporting jihadist proxies, the Financial Times is not engaging in balanced journalism—it is enabling Pakistan’s warmongering and worse, it is legitimizing its unwarranted military action against India’s civilian centres. And by whitewashing Pakistan’s escalation after India’s calibrated anti-terror operation, it is fueling exactly the kind of international misperception that puts innocent lives at risk.
India’s actions were measured. Pakistan’s were malicious. Equating the two is not just false—it is a form of complicity.
