During the Pahalgam Massacre on 22 April 2025 in Jammu and Kashmir, at least twenty-six tourists were killed and more than twenty injured by five terrorists. The attack was the deadliest of its kind in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. According to reports, the terrorists specifically targeted male Hindus; among the victims were a Navy officer, an IB official, and an IAF corporal. Armed with M4 carbines and AK-47s and clad in military-style uniforms, the five terrorists wrought devastation. The attack was subsequently claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a front organisation of the Pakistan-backed terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

Whilst terrorists massacred tourists with bullets fired from AK-47s, another, more insidious form of terrorism commenced — one perpetrated not with weapons, but with words fired from keyboards and pens. Wars today are not confined solely to conventional battlegrounds; they are increasingly waged through the shaping of public opinion — namely, Narrative Warfare and Information Warfare — strategic approaches that harness stories and information to mould perception and achieve desired outcomes. A pernicious branch of this is ‘Terminological Terrorism’, a facet of Narrative Warfare, and thereby a subset of Information Warfare — a battlefront on which India, lamentably, often falters. This is a slow poison: it does not kill the body but distorts the mind, twisting one’s perspective and perception.

This practice — terminological terrorism — constitutes a dimension of information warfare and discursive colonisation, concepts first theorised in George Orwell’s Newspeak and Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, respectively. Moreover, cognitive linguistics reveals how euphemistic language inexorably slides towards semantic emptiness through the “euphemism treadmill”. Examining the Pahalgam massacre coverage through these lenses exposes how dominant media houses subtly reshape perceptions, devalue non-white suffering, and perpetuate unequal global power dynamics.

Here’s how terminological terrorism unfolds

Consider an article published by PBS, an American public broadcaster, regarding the Pahalgam terrorist attack on 22 April 2025:
“Indian police say gunmen kill at least 20 tourists, wound dozens of others at a Kashmir resort.”

This headline, upon scrutiny, may appear not only problematic but dangerously propagandistic — far removed from the grim reality — particularly if one is an aware Indian, rooted in the land's history and sensitivities. However, to the foreign observer, disconnected from local nuances, such language may not immediately raise alarm. Headlines, after all, are subtle sculptors of the mind.

The choice to use "gunmen" rather than "terrorists" in describing the Pahalgam attack represents a subtle yet profoundly malicious shift in narrative and tone — a hallmark of information warfare. This choice is particularly egregious given that the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front, a front organisation of Pakistan-backed terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba — groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations, United States, Russia, Japan, India, and others.

The insidiousness of soft language lies in its ability to dilute intensity and obscure reality. These micro-adjustments, reiterated over time, gradually reshape narratives, beliefs, and attitudes. A slight nudge towards "concealing the reality" — or, to borrow George Carlin’s trenchant phrase, “taking the life out of life.”

How does Soft Language Shape Perspective?

Soft language involves the use of milder or less direct expressions to avoid conflict, harshness, or accountability. Orwell’s Newspeak envisages a language engineered specifically to constrict thought by excising undesirable words and concepts. Replacing "terrorist" with anaemic labels such as "gunman" or "armed individual" mirrors this dystopian mechanism, rendering alternative interpretations of violence literally unspeakable.

The problem with Soft language is that it tones down intensity and obscures reality. These are micro-steps that will be reiterated over time, subtly tweaking the narrative, shaping beliefs, and our attitudes about a specific topic or situation. A slight nudge towards “concealing the reality” and “taking the life out of life,” as George Carlin used to call it.

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model identifies five filters — ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and dominant ideologies — that systematically colour mass-media output to serve elite interests. Within this schema, Western outlets often downplay Islamist-motivated violence in non-white contexts by employing softened descriptors, thereby reinforcing hegemonic narratives and marginalising the suffering of erstwhile colonised populations.

The term "gunman" could refer to virtually anyone — a shooter, policeman, terrorist, serial killer, robber — notice the intentional vagueness when it is deployed in the context of a terrorist attack. Such usage commits a rhetorical red herring. It leaves interpretation to the reader: Was it a terrorist or a man with a cause? Normalising terrorism by framing it as a mere shooting incident at a "Kashmir resort" pacifies the brutal reality, robs the intellect of critical discernment, and insidiously shifts public attitude.

The venomous fallacy of such language is evident — it effectively denies the fact that a terror attack took place in Pahalgam. Terrorism is sanitised, even rendered humane. A bald-faced lie — or, as soft language would now prefer, “misinformation.”

The Progression of the Word 'Gunman' through Soft Language

Observe the semantic drift:

Gunman → Gun Operator → Trigger Puller → Gun Shooter → Shooter → Armed Individual → Man with a Gun → Man Who Fired → Suspected Shooter → Known Assailant → Alleged Perpetrator → Lone Attacker → Radical → Militant → Armed Actor → Rebel → Insurgent → Dissenter → Fighter → Aggressor → Threat → Subject → Suspect → Detained Individual → Citizen Under Investigation → Troubled Citizen → Man with a Cause…

Thus, a terrorist metamorphoses into a hero, and a hero, conversely, into a terrorist.

One might recall how the CIA artfully employs soft language, preferring "neutralise" instead of "kill", or "depopulate the area" in lieu of "massacre civilians".

Soft Language’s Fatal Flourish

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam tragedy, phrases such as "militant incident" or "armed individuals" subtly reframe ideological savagery as impersonal acts of violence, thus diluting outrage and normalising extremism. Each semantic nudge — from "gunman" to "trigger-puller" to "suspected assailant" — incrementally erodes the collective conscience, masking the communal targeting that lay at the heart of the atrocity.

Terminological terrorism thus functions as discursive colonisation, imposing a Eurocentric linguistic framework that silences non-white narratives and suppresses historical truth. To counteract this, media organisations must adopt rigorous style-guides insisting on the precise usage of terminology, while educational institutions should cultivate media literacy skills that detect and dismantle euphemistic drift. Readers, too, must shoulder responsibility: interrogating every headline and demanding linguistic clarity is the first step in reclaiming the grammar of violence.

Conclusion

In the truest sense, this is Orwellian fiction materialised. A nation that masters Information Warfare holds an iron grip over the shifting of narratives. Soft language thus serves as the straw man’s most artful disguise. A terrorist may exhaust his ammunition, but writers — alas — will never run out of words.

Written by Wokeistan and Abhishek