Hindi Newspapers Perspectives on the Israel-Hamas War

Introduction

The Israel-Hamas war received considerable coverage in traditional print and social media outlets worldwide. The reporting was diverse in its narratives and presented various perspectives. However, many media organizations faced criticism for their perceived biases. The common accusations involved partiality in framing the Israel-Hamas war in favor of one side (Adams, 2024; Edwards, 2023; Karagiorgos et al., 2023). Numerous studies have been conducted to study the reporting and framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by various media houses (Durante & Zhuravskaya, 2018; Kempf, 2012; McTigue, 2011; Ukka, 2023). However, there are no studies on the Indian Hindi media concerning the war. While there are nuanced and in-depth analyses of the Arab-Israel and Israel-Palestine conflicts from an Indian perspective (Kumaraswamy, 2010; Kumaraswamy & Quamar, 2018), research on the Hindi media coverage is negligible concerning India’s policy in the region.

According to Greg Shupak (2018), predominantly three narratives emerge in the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first focuses on Israel’s right to self-defense, and the second portrays both Israel and Palestinians as victims. The third depicts the conflict as one between extremists and moderates. Broadly, the coverage of Hindi-language newspapers falls within these narratives, especially the first two. However, the Indian media coverage, including that of Hindi-language newspapers, was focused on specific aspects of the Israel-Hamas war and overlooked more subtle nuances. The Indian media was critical in its approach for its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and its broader treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Chakraborthy & Wong, 2023; Newslaundry, 2023; Sharma, 2023).

This article examines the understanding of the Hindi-speaking population regarding the Israel-Hamas war, as reflected in the Hindi newspapers. The objective is to analyze the positions taken by these newspapers by systematically reviewing their editorials and opinion pieces. The article is divided into six sections: the first section discusses the significance of Hindi newspapers in India, while the five sections focus on their perspectives of the Israel-Hamas war through editorials and opinion pieces. It identifies five key themes addressed in these articles and offers a perspective on major events during the war.

Hindi Media in India

The landscape of the Hindi media is vast and expands to small towns and rural India in the heartland of the Hindi belt, predominantly in north and central India (Ninan, 2007). As per the 2011 census, the Hindi-speaking population stands at around 43.64 percent (Firaque, 2022). Notably, Hindi’s reach cuts across religious and caste divides, and although there are many spoken dialects of the language, the standard written language has a wider reach. Consequently, Hindi is the most popular media in India in print, online, and broadcast. Although many assume Hindi to be the language of Hindus, given the historical evolution of the language and the political Hindi-Urdu and Hindu-Muslim divide during the British Raj, over time, this communal divide has been bridged. Hence, in the twenty-first century, Hindi is no longer associated as the language of Hindus and is popular even among Indian Muslims (Ahmed, 2017); still, Hindi newspapers at times face accusations of their anti-Muslim bias (Fazili, 2019).

According to the Registrar of Newspapers in India (2021–2022), Hindi-language newspapers are top of the charts, with 16,793 publications, including 424 dailies. The scope of circulation of Hindi newspapers is evident from the fact that among the top 10 newspapers sold in India, five are in Hindi, namely, Dainik Bhaskar (Daily Sun) founded in 1958, Amar Ujala (Immortal Brightness) founded in 1948, Hindustan (India) publishing since 1932, Rajasthan Patrika (Rajasthan Newsletter) founded in 1956, and Dainik Jagran (Daily Vigil) founded in 1942. The article examines a total of eight newspapers, including the top five circulated Hindi dailies plus Jansatta (People’s Power) founded in 1983, Prabhat Khabar (Morning News) publishing since 1984, and Punjab Kesari (Saffron Punjab) founded in 1965. They are selected on the basis of their coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. The study covers 105 editorials and columns in these eight Hindi dailies between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2024. While most were originally written for the Hindi newspapers, 18 were translated columns from The New York Times, the TIME magazine and The Economist reproduced in Amar Ujala (4) and Dainik Bhaskar (14). Although translated, these editorials were used to reflect and support the existing narratives in Hindi newspapers.

As per India’s Audit Bureau of Circulations, as of April 11, 2023, Dainik Bhaskar, at 3,566,617, is the most circulated dailies and the largest-selling newspaper in the country. It is circulated in 14 Indian states and union territories (UTs). The second most circulated Hindi-language newspaper is Amar Ujala, at 1,744,512 and has a presence in 12 states and UTs. Hindustan, with 1,666,724 daily circulation is the third, with presence in 15 states and UTs. Rajasthan Patrika at 1,385,561 and Dainik Jagran at 1,277,605 have the fourth and fifth highest daily circulation and are present in 11 and 16 states and UTs, respectively. Prabhat Khabar with an estimated daily circulation at 800,000, Punjab Kesari at 700,000, and Jansatta at 300,000 are published in 13, 10, and 10 states, respectively.

Most of the Hindi newspapers are owned by individuals or private limited companies (Bhula, 2022, 2023a, b, c, 2024). In terms of political orientation, Dainik Jagran, Rajasthan Patrika (Sitapati, 2013), and Prabhat Khabar are considered pro-Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), the ruling party in India (Neyazi, 2018). Though Dainik Bhaskar has traditionally been pro-BJP, it was critical of the Indian government’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic (Madhok, 2021). Jansatta (published by the Indian Express group), Amar Ujala (published by a private limited company of the same name), and Hindustan (published by Hindustan Media Ventures Limited and owned by the Birla group of companies) are considered a pro-Congress or left-leaning (De & Pal, 2022; Joseph & Newslaundry, 2020).

Events of October 7

The initial coverage in Hindi newspapers was merely reporting on unfolding events, and editorials and columns began to appear only following Israel’s response to the Hamas’s attack. These articles primarily focused on the description of the attack by providing some details of the atrocities committed by Hamas. They also examined the broader implications of Hamas’s actions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, the editorials sought to understand the reasons and underlying motivations of the Islamist group.

In light of the prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Hamas attack on October 7 was unprecedented and widely labeled as an “act of terrorism” (Chaturvedi, 2023; Gupta, 2023b; Siddiqui, 2023). Some articles characterized it as “genocide” of the Jews (Chawla, 2023) and a “widespread hate crime against Israelis” (Gupta, 2023a; Katju, 2023). An editorial described Hamas’s attack as a “cowardly” (Patni, 2023) and “unforgivable” act (Katju, 2023; Kumar, 2024). In particular, an editorial emphasized the treatment of women and noted, “Israeli women and children are being killed so ruthlessly for the first time. The marks of torture, rape, and other heinous atrocities that are being found on their bodies will not be easy to erase and forget” (Tomar, 2023d).

Concerning Hamas as an organization, one sees duality in the articles where Hamas was labeled as a “terrorist organization” on the one hand (Chaturvedi, 2023; Gupta, 2023b; Pasha, 2023) and “an armed resistance movement” (Rawat, 2023) on the other hand. The severity of Hamas’s actions was emphasized by comparisons with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (Dainik Jagran, 2023b; Friedman, 2023). Concerns were also raised about the potential impact of the attack in boosting the morale of extremist groups in across the world, especially in Jammu & Kashmir (Patni, 2023).

Although the on-ground reporting by Indian media is limited, as the majority depended on international and Indian news agencies, a few notable journalists reported from Israel. ¹ A senior female journalist, Barkha Dutt, spent eight days at the frontline of the Israel-Hamas war before Israel’s land invasion began. Her article was reproduced in Dainik Bhaskar from English (Hindustan Times), where she described the details of the attack inside Israel: “Houses were completely destroyed; the whole families were burnt alive, and children were targeted” (Dutt, 2023). Another editorial was written to describe the nature of the Hamas attack, “Israeli women’s clothes were ripped to shreds, and they were paraded naked” in the Gaza Strip (Friedman, 2023; Pant, 2023).

A notable segment of editorials/columns condemned Hamas’s actions in a strong and unequivocal language. The articles characterized the Islamist group’s “brutality” and “savagery” (Verma, 2023) in emotive phrases such as “deserves condemnation beyond words” and “sunk humanity to new lows” (Bhagat, 2023). An article by noted American columnist and media personality Thomas Friedman published in The New York Times (October 12, 2023) was reproduced in Amar Ujala, and Dainik Bhaskar that compared October 7 with the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre of the Palestinians in terms of their severity. Although the article was not written in Hindi, the conscious decision to translate the particular article showcased the newspaper’s dispositions that viewed Hamas’s attacks as wrong. It also corresponded to its editorial position that terrorism was not the legitimate way of resolving the political conflict (Jansatta, 2023f). Moreover, the attack was characterized not merely as a physical assault but as an affront to the values of peace. It was underscored by the stress on the victims who were identified as part of “democratic-liberal Israel” (Friedman, 2023) and were actively engaged in peace initiatives and humanitarian aid (Friedman, 2024a; Dutt, 2023).

Another critical theme that emerged was that it invigorated a renewed interest in the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One editorial framed the attack as an “invasion” against Israel (Dainik Jagran, 2023c) because of “a wrong decision” (Kumar, 2023a) made by Hamas to attack Israel on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War (1973). Hamas was held responsible for perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Sonnenfeld, 2023; Tomar, 2023b,c) and for its failure to not use its resources and power to advance economic and social progress in the Gaza Strip (Chawla, 2023a). With the renewed Israel-Hamas war, it was considered that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had reached its “most brutal point” (Friedman, 2023; Guha, 2024). Further, some articles blamed Hamas for accentuating the suffering of the Palestinians (Chawla, 2023a).

Israeli Response and Gaza Crisis

On a broader level, two kinds of reactions emerged on the Israeli retaliatory actions: the first refers to Israel’s right to self-defense (Bhagat, 2023), and the second one entailed condemnation of violence against Palestinians, with emphasis on violence against women and children (Kaushal, 2023; Patni, 2023). Articles characterized the Hamas attack on Israel as “barbaric,” “dreadful,” and “horrific” (Kumar, 2024), which “naturally” (Chopra, 2024; Jansatta, 2023d) intensified Israeli anger and the desire for retaliation. It was argued that Israel was “forced” to take military action against Gaza (Dainik Jagran, 2023c), believing it had no other option but to respond in self-defense (Jansatta, 2022a). “Palestinian militants of Hamas have launched an unprecedented attack on Israel without any immediate provocation, forcing Israel to declare war,” noted an article that was reproduced in Dainik Bhaskar (October 2023) from TIME magazine (Sonnenfeld, 2023).

In the context of the argument about existential threats to Israel, articles further explained Israel’s response following the Hamas attack (Stephens, 2024). One article framed the attack as unprecedented on Israel and akin to the impact of the 9/11 attacks in the USA (Pant, 2023). One article examined the subject of Hamas’s targets that heightened the sense of threat on “Israeli kibbutzim” (Dutt, 2023). The communal living in kibbutzim was described as similar to “old-fashioned Indian habitations.”

Although the articles illustrated a comprehension of Israel’s realities and right to self-defense, they added critical caveats words like “but” and “however.” They questioned the approach of the Israeli response and actions on strategic and moral grounds (Guruswami, 2023; Jansatta, 2024d). On the strategic level, the Israeli government’s military actions were conceived as doubtful in achieving political and diplomatic goals (Friedman, 2024a; Gupta, 2023b). These military actions were framed within the context of Israel’s historical strategy toward the Palestinians. It was argued that Israeli military strategies were inadequate and flawed because, despite its campaigns against Hamas over the years, Israel did not succeed in neutralizing the organization (Gupta, 2023b).

On moral and humanitarian grounds, the prominently talked subject of the editorial was the human cost of the continuous conflict, particularly in the Gaza Strip. To highlight the severe humanitarian crisis in the Strip, one article described an incident in which Palestinians “standing hungry and helpless” in line for food, becoming “victims” of Israeli gunfire (Jansatta, 2024e). The other article condemned Israel by using terms like “ethnic cleansing” (Guruswami, 2023). In the translated article from The Economist in Dainik Bhaskar (April 18, 2024), a surgeon presented a first-hand experience of the humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip, particularly in Rafah. He talked about the overcrowding, inadequate medical care and dire living conditions to highlight the profound suffering of the Palestinians (Nott, 2024). However, it was also argued that both sides endured substantial suffering, and a one-sided perspective was described as a “form of racism” (Kaushal, 2023).

The Israel-Hamas war intensified the deeply rooted and difficult-to-resolve Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both Israel and Hamas making decisions that were influenced by their entrenched positions (Chopra, 2024c; Jansatta, 2024a). Israel was described as a “cruel and insensitive country” driven by a sense of revenge (Rajput, 2023). An article even took to the religious lens to question the nature of violence in Judaism and Islam:

Questions have to be asked. First of all, religious leaders and then political masters have to understand how such killings are justified. If such killings are justified, then the boasting of religions being humane should stop. Who is responsible for the bloodshed that has been going on in the name of Palestine for the last seventy years? Is enmity nurtured in human veins in these areas, so that blood can be shed when the opportunity arises? Are young people in such areas only to shame humanity? Does anyone write the history of his country with such blemishes? (Tomar, 2023f)

Both Hamas and Israel (Chopra, 2023b, 2024a, b) were accused of violating international humanitarian laws (Jansatta, 2023c) and exploiting civilian casualties to gain international support and to justify their actions (Jansatta, 2023a, c). It was acknowledged that Israeli actions had damaged its international reputation and diminished the sympathy it initially received following the Hamas attack (Bhagat, 2023; Friedman, 2024b; Jansatta, 2024a).

A consistent narrative that emerged in the articles was that although Hamas’s violence was indefensible, Israel’s subsequent retaliation was also problematic and objectionable. One editorial stated, “Just as they fought wars without any rules, we also fight wars without any rules” (Chidambaram, 2023). Indeed, some articles even equated Israel’s response in the Gaza Strip with Hamas’s attacks (Jansatta, 2023f; Kaushal, 2023; Kumar S., 2023, 2023c) on moral and legal standards (Jansatta, 2023d). The actions were described as “indiscriminate” military operations, a “large-scale massacre” (Jansatta, 2024g), “in human” (Verma, 2023), “excessive” (Jansatta, 2024a) and “extensive aggression” (Minal, 2024; Tomar, 2023d). It was condemned as “unjustifiable brutality,” which equated all Gazans with Hamas and led to collective punishment (Guruswami, 2023).

A few articles questioned the Israeli responses in the context of proportionately of the threat posed by the Hamas attack (Bhagat, 2023). For this, frequent comparisons of fatalities were highlighted to showcase significant disparities between the October 7 attacks and Israel’s responses (Jansatta, 2024a, c; Kaushal, 2023). The argument was made that Israel’s retaliatory actions did not align with stated intent of only targeting the militants (Jansatta, 2023e, h). Instead of targeting Hamas terrorists, the operations were causing civilian casualties (Jansatta, 2023c; Rajput, 2023).

Israeli policies and actions in the Gaza Strip were considered a betrayal of its founding vision, which was called “progressive, socialist, and democratic” ideals. An article drew a parallel between the historical suffering of Jews and the Palestinians to argue that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians mirrored the injustices and suffering that Jews endured historically (Rajput, 2023). Another argument was made that the Palestinian struggle became reminiscent of the Jewish fight for a homeland before 1948. While criticizing Israeli actions, some condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Punjab Kesari, 2023), and one article stressed that Israel became “arrogant and oppressive” under his government (Guruswami, 2023). Meanwhile, another article related the Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip to the domestic political situation, wherein Netanyahu gained a political reprieve by directing the popular attention away from his corruption charges to external threat (Chopra, 2023f; Friedman, 2024). It was argued that Netanyahu lacked a long-term vision for Israel and only prioritized his political survival (Chopra, 2023c; Friedman, 2023; Kumar, 2024).

Interestingly, articles also viewed the war in the context of regional actors and their positions. It was argued that the Hamas attack was motivated by the ongoing negotiations and potential peace agreements between Israel and Saudi Arabia (Dainik Jagran, 2023d; Friedman, 2023; Pant, 2023). The situation was compared to previous efforts by Hamas to disrupt peace processes, such as their actions during the Camp David Summit in 2000 (Sonnenfeld, 2023). The intent behind the October 7 attack was to provoke a reaction that would damage Israel’s reputation and erode its support among Arab nations (Bhagat, 2023; Friedman, 2023). One editorial traced the motives behind the attack to the Israeli military actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 2021 (Rawat, 2023). Another article took the statement of the United Nations Secretary-General to stress that the Hamas attack should be viewed in the context of Israeli occupation spanning the past 56 years (Chopra, 2023c).

The articles discussed Iran’s role in supporting Hamas during the attack and the economic support lent to Hamas (Jansatta, 2023g; Mitra, 2023b; Tomar, 2023c). An article claimed that Iran’s strategy involved allowing Israel to destroy Hamas (a Sunni organization) so that only Hezbollah (a Shia group) would remain as the sole armed threat to Israel (Mitra, 2023b). Another article compared the relationship between Iran and Israel to the relationship between Pakistan and India and suggested that just as Pakistan poses a threat to India, particularly with its nuclear capabilities, Iran would pose a similar threat to Israel (Soti, 2024).

Conflict through the Historical Lens

As the war progressed, most coverage was limited to news reporting. However, the editorials and commentaries stressed on historical roots of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contextualizing the Hamas-Israel war, the articles considered and dwelled on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was argued that the Israel-Hamas war was rooted in long-standing historical and religious interpretations over identity and land, and it should be understood in such contexts (Chidambaram, 2023; Prashant, 2023). However, the differing interpretation of the events and conflict was significantly influenced by where one started the conflict in the historical timeline. Discussing the conflict’s timeline encompasses two distinct historical periods: ancient times and the twentieth century.

The historical claim of the Jewish people to the land was accepted with their historical presence in the region (Sharan, 2023). While examining the term “Palestine,” it was argued that it existed before Islam’s advent (Paranjape, 2023; Punjab Kesari, 2023). Another editorial noted:

The region was renamed Syrian Palestine by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the second century … Only its name was heard as a region, and there was no Islamic element in it. The word ‘Palestine’ is not mentioned in the original Islamic texts themselves. That region is always mentioned as Syria (Sharan, 2023)

Regarding religious significance, many articles recognized the land’s importance for Muslims and Jews. It was acknowledged that the religious status of Jerusalem and its importance to Israelis and Palestinians (Chopra, 2023a) contributed to the complexity of the conflicts (Prashant, 2023). The articles varied broadly across two dimensions when it came to the religious dimensions of the Israel-Hamas war. The first set of articles discarded religion as a factor in the conflict. For instance, it was argued that Israel was created on the Arab-Palestinian land in 1948, and “since then, the Jews have lived on this land” (Chidambaram, 2023). As a result, the conflict was perceived as a dispute over territorial claims (Chopra, 2023b).

Meanwhile, another set of articles argued that religion played an essential role in the conflict. One article cited the Hamas manifesto (1988) and used Hassan al-Banna’s statement (Article 28), “Islam will destroy Israel, just as it has destroyed others before” (Sharan, 2023), to argue that Hamas’s only goal is to destroy Israel (Dainik Jagran, 2023; for more see, Hamas Charter, 1998). To highlight the role of religion from Hamas’s perspective, an article took to Hamas’s charter to argue that its position on peace with Israel stands “against Islam” (Chawla, 2023a; Gupta, 2023).

The other perspective presented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict traced its origins to the early twentieth century, particularly in the first part of the century when Jewish immigration proliferated. In this regard, Zionism was identified as a cause for regional tensions that aligned with colonial power and characterized it as a colonial endeavor:

The region was under British rule from 1923 to 1948. During that period, the British facilitated large-scale Jewish immigration, with Jews fleeing the atrocities of Nazism in Europe being resettled here…The British collaborated with the Jewish community and formed an anti-terrorist force of armed groups and British-led Jewish fighters called the Special Night Squad (sic) (Rawat, 2023)

While taking the reference to Linda Grant’s 2002 novel When I Lived in Modern Times, Indian historian Ramachandra Guha sought to showcase the colonial and paternalistic mindset of the Zionists toward Palestinians even before the creation of the State of Israel. He also mentioned Martin Buber’s letter to Mahatma Gandhi to substantiate his case further (Gandhi, 1939, For more, see Buber, 1939). Another article returned to Mahatma Gandhi’s 1938 statement in Harijan (Rawat, 2023; also see Kumaraswamy, 2018).

Interestingly, in contrast to such argumentations, an editorial called Zionism a “historic anti-colonial movement” (Jansatta, 2023e; Stephens, 2024) because of the Jewish return to their ancestral land within the context of historical persecution, which started in the Roman era and included the Holocaust. The development of the term “Palestinian people” was also examined through historical and political motivations. ² One article asserted that Palestinian identity and national struggle were modern constructs of the Cold War era ³ (Sharan, 2023) and a reaction to Zionism (Rawat, 2023).

Several significant historical events and developments related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were also described: the Balfour Declaration (1917), the Arab revolt of 1936, the UN partition plan (1948), the Six-Day War (1967), the UN Resolution 242 (1967), the First Intifada (1987–1993), and the rise of Hamas (Guha, 2024; Rawat, 2023; Verma, 2023). The article about these events highlighted the Palestinian rejection of the principle of two-nation because of its “unjust” nature (Punjab Kesari, 2023). In contrast to the internally divided Palestinian entities (Rawat, 2023), Israel was viewed as a powerful and strategically advanced country in the region. Consequently, one article argued that “it is impossible to separate the land from Israel, despite the historical claims of the Palestinians” (Chidambaram, 2023).

The occupation of Palestinian land represented a significant issue; however, the specifics of what this occupation entailed were not clearly defined. One article wrote, “Even before the formal end of British rule, Israeli forces were engaged in a campaign to expand their territory, ultimately capturing 78 percent of historic Palestine” (Rawat, 2023). After the 1948 Israel-Arab war, it was noted that Egypt and Jordan had control over the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively, (Kumar, 2023) until the Six-Day War in 1967 (Verma, 2023). Over the expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied areas (Guruswami, 2023), one article emphasized that “it is unacceptable for any country to occupy the land of others” (Jansatta, 2023e, 2023g). The other articles criticized the peace agreements between Israel and Palestine. “Oslo Accords was not successful because it complicated the process of achieving an independent Palestinian state by granting Israel control over substantial portions of the West Bank and its water resources” (Rawat, 2023).

One article based on Aldous Huxley’s 1936 novel Eyeless in Gaza explained the violent responses in the Israel-Hamas war through the historical understanding of victimization and revenge (Paranjape, 2023). ⁴ The articles justified the historical violent acts in the conflict through the lens of ideological and religious beliefs (Paranjape, 2023; Prashant, 2023). An article noted:

Their (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) central beliefs are exactly the same, but still, due to different beliefs, they have conflicts among themselves. Wherever there is a game of belief, there is bound to be a fight…We have spread stories in the name of religion, and everyone has their own different stories…All these are just emotions based on imagination, nothing more than that (Prashant, 2023)

As a result, it was identified that both Israelis and Palestinians would have to recognize and respect each other’s rights over the land to attain peace (Paranjape, 2023). It argued that conflict resolution could only be achieved through diplomatic negotiations and dialogue rather than violence (Jansatta, 2023f; 2023h; Kumar, 2023b; 2023c; Minal, 2024). They continued calls for a ceasefire and an end to the humanitarian crisis (Tomar, 2023e). The short-term ceasefire was considered a positive step (Tripathi, 2023). However, the articles highlighted the contradiction in the approach to humanitarian concerns. The efforts were made “to release each other’s kidnapped civilians and captured soldiers" (Jansatta, 2024a), but the lives of civilians were deprioritized in the context of military strategies and negotiations (Jansatta, 2023f).

Indian Response and Domestic Politics

The Indian government adopted a two-pronged approach to the conflict. Just after the attack, it condemned the attack and, at an international level, showed support for Israel. Meanwhile, it reiterated its support of the two-state solution. Both stances of the Indian government were viewed positively and were justified in Hindi newspapers. The discussion was framed on the broader context of India’s economic and energy relationships with the Middle Eastern countries. The articles also argued that India should take an active role in facilitating peace talks, given its unique diplomatic relationships with Israel and Arab countries (Dainik Jagran, 2023c; Siddiqui, 2023; Trigunayat, 2024).

India promptly took an anti-terrorism stance following the Hamas attack on Israel. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack on X (formerly Twitter) and asserted India’s strong opposition to terrorism in any form and also its strong friendship with Israel (Modi, 2023). In response to a question in the Lok Sabha on February 2, 2024, the Minster of State for External Affairs, V. Muraleedharan stated India’s stand on the Hamas attack as a form of terrorism (MEA, Government of India, 2024). Similarly, one editorial compared the October 7 attack to the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008 (Dainik Jagran, 2023a), and presented similarities between India’s and Israel’s experiences with state-sponsored terrorism (Soti, 2024; Patni, 2023). Over the last decade, India has increasingly adopted a firm anti-terrorism stance in various international forums (Jawla, 2024). The articles looked at the stance in alignment with India’s experience in combatting terrorism to gloss over its current responses (Jansatta, 2023e; 2023g).

One article endorsed India’s response, calling it a “necessary” and justified measure within its broader diplomatic strategy. To emphasize the severity, scale, and impact of the Hamas attack on Israel, it was described as “many times more horrific” than the Mumbai attacks. Articles stressed that India’s historical support for Palestine did not preclude condemnation of terrorism and illustrated the difference between supporting Palestinian rights and endorsing terrorism (Dainik Jagran, 2023c). Pawan K. Verma, a retired foreign service officer and a former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from Janta Dal (United) affirmed that India’s condemnation of the attack was appropriate and aligned with its national interests (Verma, 2023).

Regarding Indian voting patterns at the UN resolutions related to the Gaza crisis, editorials and opinions in Hindi newspapers consistently defended the Indian position although many in English media such as The Hindu and The Wire were critical. India abstained from the UN General Assembly Resolution, adopted on October 27, 2023 (UN Press, 2023), that called for a humanitarian truce and ceasefire in Gaza (Jansatta, 2023f). The government argued that it did not include “explicit condemnation” of the October 7 terror attacks in Israel and address the issue of hostages (Haider, 2023). The Indian stance was perceived as the right choice and the UNGA resolution was criticized as “meaningless and ineffective” (Dainik Jagran, 2023a). In addition, it was stated that the majority was mistaken in their decision. Vivek Katju (2023), a retired foreign service officer, explained that India’s approach balanced its interests, saying, “India has been balancing its interests in the region through bilateral partnerships while avoiding internal conflict” (Katju, 2023).

However, as the conflict persisted, India increasingly emphasized a two-state solution as the way forward. This position was also reflected in the articles discussing the issue (Dainik Jagran, 2023c; Jansatta, 2023c). It was argued that India’s support for Israel aligned with its stance against terrorism but did not imply opposition to the Palestinians (Chopra, 2023a; Jansatta, 2023i). Interestingly, in response to the attack on Gaza’s Al-Ahli Hospital on October 17, 2023, the articles refrained from attributing blame to any particular party and observed that both sides were accusing each other. Following the attack, India reiterated its support for an independent Palestine (Chopra, 2023b; Jansatta, 2023f) along with the security of Israel (Kumar, 2023b). The Indian Prime Minister expressed condolences to the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and sent relief material (DD News, 2023). The language in the articles was assertive and supportive of India’s humanitarian stance and framed its actions as “principled and morally driven.”

The second resolution was brought to UNGA in November 2023, where India voted in favor and marked a change from the October 2023 vote. The resolution’s demands were an immediate ceasefire and unconditional release of all hostages. The articles considered India’s support for the resolution as humanitarian and its commitment to addressing widespread human rights violations (Jansatta, 2023f) and a balance between its diplomatic ties and its humanitarian values (Chopra, 2023b) while maintaining its position against terrorism (Jansatta, 2023b, f).

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a profound impact on India’s Middle East policy. As a result, India considered following a careful balancing act while managing its economic and diplomatic relations with both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. When the Israel-Hamas war drew in Iran and its proxies, the articles started to look at the concern about the potential spread of the conflict and its implications for India and its expatriate population in the Arab countries (Jansatta, 2024e; Joshi, 2024; Rakheja, 2023; Ranade, 2024; Tomar, 2023a; Trigunayat, 2024). India refrained from taking sides explicitly, given the importance of Iran and Israel in its regional policy (Sharma, 2024; Verma, 2023). The growing presence of China in Iran was also cited as a threat to India (Kuruva, 2024). A journalist also highlighted the complexities of India’s diplomacy in the Middle East by providing a background to former India President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit in 2015 to Israel, Palestine, and Jordan (Chaturvedi, 2023). It was argued that the trip was designed to be considered neutral and balanced and highlighted India’s careful balancing act vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine. ⁵

Interestingly, a few columns in Hindi newspapers covering the Israel-Hamas war talked about the southern Indian state of Kerala, which has traditionally been ruled by either the Indian National Congress (INC) or the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) and has been outspoken in its support for the Palestinian cause. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal virtually addressed a rally organized by the youth wing (Solidarity Youth Movement) Kerela unit of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind in Kerala’s Malappuram district on October 27, 2023 that created much controversy (The Indian Express, 2023). One article called the incident “unfortunate, worrying and shameful” (Dainik Jagran, 2023b) and labeled it as “communally poisonous” and anti-Semitic (Chawla, 2023), which was “deliberately advocating terrorism” (Dainik Jagran, 2023b). The Indian Muslim community was criticized for failing to condemn Hamas’s brutality and for not questioning the legitimacy of its broader objectives (Kumar 2024; Dainik Jagran, 2023; 2023b).

One article drew a similarity between the Indian Muslim position on waqf land and Hamas’s position on Jerusalem. It was argued that Hamas’s manifesto, which states, “Any land which Muslims have once occupied forcefully will be their property till the end of time,” (Sharan, 2023). Another article juxtaposed the support of Hamas with the support of Malabar Muslims to the Ottoman Caliphate during the Mopla revolt (1921), which the author regarded as an “anti-Hindu revolt” (Chawla, 2023; also see: Ambedkar, 1945, pp. 183–184). Another article highlighted the significant “Soviet-era Marxist influence” on the Indian political discourse, while also noting its strong impact on perspectives regarding terrorism and ideological conflicts (Gupta 2023; Sharan, 2023).

Global Responses to the Gaza Crisis

The articles in the Hindi newspapers also looked at the international community’s reaction to the war, especially the USA and the Arab countries. The Western countries supported Israel and its right to self-defense. Other countries, especially in the Global South, alongside international bodies like the UN, were critical of Israeli policies toward Palestine. The articles noted that such criticism of Israel followed a failure to acknowledge the brutality of the Hamas attack. However, the articles further noted that not only the support for Israel and Hamas polarized international reactions but also increased anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate crimes in the West against the Jewish and Muslim communities (Sharma, 2024). Further, it was accepted that the deadlock over the release of hostages added to the complexity of the crisis (Chopra, 2023f).

A notable criticism was directed at international institutions and major world powers for their ineffective or counterproductive responses to the war conflict (Tomar, 2023c). The primary concern expressed was the perceived failure of the UN to stop the conflict (Kumar, 2023a) and the world body was called a “toothless lion” (Kumar, 2023b). However, the International Criminal Court (ICC) decision on issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and three Hamas leaders was perceived as symbolically significant. One article noted that it was an international attempt to hold individuals accountable (Jansatta, 2024g). The recognition of Palestine as a state by Norway, Spain, and Ireland was also considered a significant development (Jansatta, 2024b).

The Western powers, especially the USA, were criticized for their blind support of Israel (Chopra, 2024b). The post-Hamas attack visits by US President Joe Biden (October 18) and Secretary of State Antony (October 12) to Israel were interpreted as support for Israel (Chopra, 2023b; Kumar, 2023b; Tomar, 2023a). Most newspapers were critical of the Biden administration’s inability to mediate a ceasefire and called its stance hypocritical given that, on the one hand, the administration called for humanitarian assistance and a ceasefire, while on the other hand, it provided military and economic support to Israel (Chopra, 2023b; Kumar, 2023c; Rajput, 2023). The US government faced criticism for its “double standards” regarding student protests in other countries while taking a heavy-handed approach in handling students’ protests domestically (Sharma, 2024).

Reactions to student protests in American universities primarily fell into two categories. Supporters of the protests argued that these demonstrations were a response to perceived inaction regarding the war and the US support for Israel (Kumar, 2024; Sushil, 2024). They attributed this to the considerable economic influence of pro-Israel groups in American politics and educational institutes (Sushil, 2024). Furthermore, they contended that the US policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was driven by electoral and strategic interests (Chopra, 2024b; Raza, 2024). The protest organized by the Jewish Voice for Peace, which called for peace and a ceasefire, was seen as distinct from conflating Israeli and Jewish identities (Pandey, 2023).

On the other hand, the campus protests were viewed as supporting Hamas (Friedman, 2023). The student protest faced criticism for being entirely anti-Israel and for solely focusing on the Palestinians and completely ignoring the Hamas attack on Israel and its underlying motivations (Sharan, 2023). An article written in the early stages of the attack portrayed Israel as the victim and Hamas as the perpetrator. It labeled criticisms of Israel’s retaliation as a “form of hate crime” and considered them “morally flawed” (Gupta, 2023a).

The brutality of Hamas’s actions was considered beyond the scope of rational explanation or justification. It was, therefore, argued that the Arab countries were unable to support Hamas, even though they voiced support for the Palestinian cause (Tomar, 2023d). A translated editorial quoted the statement made by Mansour Abbas, an Israeli-Arab politician, who strongly condemned and insisted that there cannot be any “ifs and buts” over the Hamas attack (Friedman, 2023b). The other article argued that Gulf countries were not supportive of the Palestinian cause due to Iran’s backing of Hamas (Mitra, 2023b). However, Arab countries faced criticism for not doing enough to support the Palestinians. Critics argued that their responses were influenced by economic and political considerations (Chawla, 2023a). Others attributed this to the influence of the USA. However, it was noted that the Arab countries were also not unanimous (Chopra, 2023a; Pasha, 2023). This issue was underscored during the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Mecca November 2023, where Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt rejected an Algerian proposal to sever diplomatic and economic ties with Israel. One article identified nationalistic sentiments and international divisions as factors that prevented a unified Arab response (Gupta, 2023a). Qatar’s role as a mediator between Hamas and Israel was examined briefly, wherein Qatar was regarded as a “dangerous, destructive, spoiler-like country” that was not facilitating genuine negotiations (Mitra, 2023a).

Conclusion

Overall, the coverage of the Gaza crisis in the Hindi newspapers illustrated divergent perspectives highlighted by the choice of language and the argumentation that the authors and editors justified through historical, religious, and moral viewpoints. When looked closely, there was inconsistency in following the war, given the columns/editorials covered merely the sore points of the conflict not the details therein. There was a unanimous condemnation of Hamas’s actions, followed by the support for Israeli response in the Gaza Strip; but this was taken over by condemnation of Israel due to the rising death toll among Gazans. Frequent references to historical, religious, and moral claims were made to understand and sometimes justify the responses of both sides.

Furthermore, there was unanimous support for the Indian responses to the developments unfolding since the October 7 attack. In that sense, the official responses were understood in the context of India’s own experiences with terrorism and its interests in the region. Meanwhile, there was only a limited discussion on the issue of hostages. Moreover, there were no explicit mentions of rapes and brutality against women, except for a few instances in the initial coverage, as they were subsumed under the broad category of terrorism. On international responses, the newspapers were vocal in criticizing and analyzing the global responses to the crisis. They largely remained reactionary and representative of the larger discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that remains less studied and less understood in Hindi language media in India.