OPINION | Whitewashing Terror: NYT's Asim Munir Profile Fails Pahalgam Massacre Victims
The NYT piece by Salma Masood is less an exposé and more a regurgitation of tired tropes that serve neither truth nor peace.
The recent New York Times article by Salman Masood, “Pakistan’s Most Powerful Man Steps Out of the Shadows to Confront India," is a masterclass in selective narrative, thinly veiled innuendo, and the kind of superficial analysis that has come to typify Western reporting on South Asia’s most complex security dilemmas.
To call Masood an “ISI tool" is perhaps too generous; the piece is less an exposé and more a regurgitation of tired tropes that serve neither truth nor peace.
Recommended Stories
1. Propaganda Masquerading as Analysis
Masood’s article frames General Asim Munir as the architect of Pakistan’s “tough talk" in the aftermath of the Pahalgam massacre, painting him as a shadowy figure stepping into the limelight to flex nationalist muscle. This narrative conveniently ignores the actual sequence of events: the Pahalgam attack was a mass shooting targeting civilians, primarily Hindu tourists, in Kashmir-an atrocity that India, with ample justification, attributes to Pakistan-based militant proxies. Munir’s so-called “tough talk" is not leadership; it is a reactionary performance, designed to distract from the deep rot of state-sponsored terror that has festered for decades.
2. Whitewashing Pakistan’s Record
The NYT piece lauds Munir’s “decisive leadership" and “firm response" to Indian outrage, quoting his threats of “prompt, determined, and forceful response" to any Indian military move. Nowhere does Masood interrogate the core issue: why do groups like the Resistance Front, widely believed to be Lashkar-e-Taiba proxies, operate with impunity from Pakistani soil? Why did the TRF initially claim responsibility for the Pahalgam massacre, only to retract under mysterious circumstances? The article’s silence on these questions is deafening.
3. Manufactured Crisis, Manufactured Heroics
Let’s be clear: the current standoff is not a product of Indian “adventurism" but of a terror attack that left 26 civilians dead-an attack that fits a long pattern of cross-border violence traced back to Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment. The NYT’s focus on Munir’s “symbolic" tank-top speeches and his supposed transformation from a “behind-the-scenes" operator to a “central voice" is a transparent attempt to recast a crisis of Pakistan’s making into an opportunity for military grandstanding.
4. The Real Motive: Deflect and Distract
Why this sudden lionisation of Munir? The answer is not hard to find. Pakistan’s military is facing unprecedented scrutiny at home-economic crisis, political instability, and mounting criticism of its own role in fostering extremism. Nothing unites a divided nation like the spectre of an external enemy. The NYT, perhaps unwittingly, has become a conduit for this diversionary tactic, amplifying Munir’s rhetoric while sidestepping the uncomfortable truth of Pakistan’s long-standing support for jihadist violence in Kashmir.
5. Why Pahalgam Happened
The Pahalgam massacre is not an isolated incident; it is the inevitable outcome of a decades-long policy of using terrorism as statecraft. The NYT’s failure to confront this reality-its willingness to parrot the Pakistani military’s narrative and cast Munir as a “hard-liner" merely responding to Indian provocation-is not just lazy journalism. It is complicity in the obfuscation of terror.
Conclusion
Salman Masood’s piece is not journalism; it is narrative laundering. It obscures the real drivers of violence in Kashmir, whitewashes the Pakistani military’s role, and elevates a general whose primary claim to fame is presiding over a security apparatus that has repeatedly unleashed mayhem across borders. If the NYT wishes to be taken seriously on South Asian affairs, it must do better than serve as a megaphone for ISI talking points.
The world deserves honest reporting, not propaganda dressed up as analysis. The people of Pahalgam, and all victims of state-sponsored terror, deserve nothing less.
The author is an American Indian software professional in Chicago. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: