Indian Media’s Selective Storytelling: A One-Sided Narrative on Tibet, Kashmir, China, and the US foreign policy by Afzal Tahir.

CIA Operations In India; CIA, Secret Bases; 

Regime Changes In India.

In the age of digital information, media has the power to shape public perception, often choosing narratives that align with national interests. In India, this trend is increasingly evident in its portrayal of historical and contemporary geopolitical events, particularly concerning Tibet, China, and Indo-U.S. relations. A recent example of such selective storytelling is evident in videos and news coverage that distort facts about India’s role in the 1950s covert operations in Tibet.

The Distortion of the Covert Indo-US Tibetan Operation

John Prados, a respected historian and intelligence expert, has extensively documented the Indo-U.S. covert operation in Tibet, where India actively collaborated with the United States to train and supply Tibetan resistance fighters from Nepal. This was a Cold War-era effort to weaken Chinese control over Tibet. However, recent narratives in Indian media have conveniently downplayed India’s involvement, painting the operation as an American initiative while portraying India as a passive observer.

The above YouTube video exemplifies this trend, presenting an incomplete account of history. This selective approach misinforms the public and whitewashes India’s strategic choices, reinforcing a skewed nationalist narrative rather than an objective recounting of events. (Read John Prados' work, Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA & Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II).

A Broader Pattern: Bias in Indo-China and Indo-U.S. Coverage

This pattern of selective storytelling extends beyond Tibet. Indian media and vloggers often adopt a one-dimensional perspective on major geopolitical conflicts:

1. India-China Border Disputes: Coverage of India’s tensions with China, particularly in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, often omits key historical complexities. While the Chinese position may be rightfully criticized, India’s own border strategies, diplomatic failures, and historical agreements are rarely scrutinized in domestic discourse. 

2. Indo-U.S. Relations: The narrative surrounding Indo-U.S. ties is also filtered through a nationalistic lens. When relations are positive, the media portrays India as an equal partner to the U.S., emphasizing strategic cooperation. However, when friction arises—such as on trade policies, defense deals, or human rights concerns—coverage quickly shifts to portraying the U.S. as an unreliable ally, playing to populist sentiments.

3. Tibet and Kashmir: Indian media passionately defend its claim over Kashmir while supporting Tibetan autonomy against China. This dual stance exposes an inconsistency that Indian outlets avoid discussing critically. While Tibetan independence is framed as a righteous cause against Chinese-Tibet sharing sovereignty for mutual benefit of both, yet Kashmir’s own right to self-determination movements which was popular from the day the Prime Minister of Jammu Kashmir Sheikh Muhammad was toppled and was not allowed to take part in election till the Simla agreement and now Indian media seems to be unite to dismissed it as foreign-sponsored insurgencies.

Why Does This Matter?

The selective framing of these geopolitical issues does more than misinform—it reinforces nationalistic fervor while sidelining critical discourse. This one-sided storytelling risks:

• Limiting Public Understanding: A misinformed public struggles to engage in meaningful discussions on foreign policy and history.

• Straining Diplomatic Relations: Oversimplified media narratives can fuel hostility between nations and make diplomacy more difficult.

• Eroding Media Credibility: When media outlets prioritize nationalism over factual reporting, their credibility suffers, reducing trust in journalism as a whole.

Conclusion

As India rises on the global stage, the people of India deserve it, but its media must rise to the challenge of responsible reporting. A more balanced, fact-based approach is essential for fostering informed discourse and diplomatic maturity. Until then, the selective storytelling of history and international relations will continue to shape a distorted reality for the Indian audience, leaving crucial truths buried beneath the weight of reactionary ultra nationalism.