A Comparative Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani, Indian, and International Media Framing the Pahalgam Incident: Using Van Dijk's Three-Dimensional Model

Abstract

This study explores the coverage of the Pahalgam incident (April 2025) in national and international media using a comparative critical discourse analysis. With an emphasis on two international news sources (BBC and Al Jazeera) and four national ones (Dawn, The News International, Hindustan Times, and Times of India), it investigates how language creates power relations, ideologies, and narratives of the event. The study is based on van Dijk's three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis model, which analyzes discourse on micro (textual), meso (production and distribution), and macro (sociopolitical) scales. The investigation seeks to reveal hidden ideologies and power relations by answering how linguistic decisions represent bias, construct identities, and legitimize or delegitimize action. Information was gathered from sample articles released within three weeks of the event, and qualitative analysis on lexical options, agency, thematization, and ideological framing were applied. Findings reveal contrasting accounts: international media was measured in its tone, focusing on humanitarian sentiments and refraining from the attribution of blame, while Indian media labeled the incident as a terrorist attack that demanded retaliation and frequently connected it with Pakistan. The media in Pakistan, while highlighting human rights issues and demanding probe before blame, juxtaposes the different discourses. These varied representations show how media discourse is influenced by national interest and political alignment, illustrating how national interest and political positioning influence media discourse. The research adds to the understanding of media's influence in shaping public opinion, providing insights into the intersection of language, power, and ideology in conflict reporting.