By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel
On 26 August 2026, the people of Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Dhading districts of Nepal awoke to one of the darkest days of their lives. The reason: they witnessed a devastating flash flood, reportedly caused by an ice avalanche in the Lhende-Bhotekoshi river system, which swept away more than 1,500 people. The number is still rising. The disaster damaged more than 800 houses and left survivors struggling in the aftermath of the calamity. The tragedy attracted global attention, compelling people around the world to extend help on humanitarian grounds. The media—both national and international—reached ground zero to cover the devastation. Our next-door media also joined the bandwagon and immediately engaged in crisis reporting.
It is worth mentioning here that the Indian media has come of age. It has earned a reputation for exposing malpractice, speaking on behalf of vulnerable communities, and holding those in power accountable to ensure that the rule of law prevails and democracy flourishes. Right from the days of the freedom struggle, the Indian media stood by political parties in their fight for independence. Post-independence, it has worked hand in hand with the government and political parties in transforming India socially, economically and politically. In addition, it has informed, empowered and educated the masses, enabling them to engage with the government and demand accountability and transparency on issues that matter to them. Sadly, however, the same Indian media faces criticism and often comes under scrutiny while reporting humanitarian crises, both at home and abroad.
Look at the recent flash floods in the Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Dhading districts of Nepal and their coverage by the Indian media. One can find plenty of incidents in which some journalists and media personnel appear to have breached the ethics of crisis reporting. In one such instance, a reporter seized a wounded survivor and paraded her in front of the camera rather than providing her with clothing to stop the bleeding. Another reporter asked a woman whose son was buried under the wreckage, “How do you feel?” Yet another reporter was seen asking what technology was being used for rescue work. Of course, journalists reporting on crises are supposed to ask questions related to the tragedy. But the approach in these cases was deplorable.
Well, this is not the first time that the Indian media and journalists have faced criticism. Over the years, we have seen many instances—whether in crisis reporting or politics—in which Nepalese people have expressed their fury over the way sensitive issues are handled by Indian media outlets and journalists. In 2015, a devastating earthquake wreaked havoc across fourteen districts of the country. More than 7,000 people were killed, and many more were wounded. While Nepal was struggling to recover from the high-magnitude earthquake, the media from across the border faced intense criticism. The reason was not complicated. It was the conduct of some Indian media outlets and journalists during the crisis.
The survivors were seen lashing out at them. So much so that the hashtag #GoHomeIndianMedia became a major social media trend in Nepal. Netizens launched a barrage of criticism against Indian media outlets and journalists over what they described as unethical coverage of the earthquake.
No sane-minded person would disagree with the fact that India’s response to the tragedy was swift and enormously helpful. The prompt humanitarian support provided by the New Delhi administration helped Nepal’s post-disaster recovery. For this reason, India earned considerable praise. However, the conduct of some Indian media outlets and journalists overshadowed the support provided and the rescue efforts undertaken by the Indian government during Nepal’s post-disaster recovery.
When we examine Indian media outlets and journalists from the perspective of humanitarian crisis reporting, we find that they often go awry. They sometimes exaggerate the severity of a crisis to maximise viewership and subscriptions. To be honest, one can be taken aback when watching some Indian news programmes reporting on such crises. At times, one might wonder whether one is watching a news channel covering a humanitarian crisis or a programme informing viewers that Indian aircraft have entered Nepalese airspace and are operating under Indian control.
Nepalese people are accustomed to watching shrill and jingoistic prime-time programmes on some Indian news channels. So-called self-proclaimed experts are invited to share their thoughts and opinions, which are often neither evidence-based nor relevant, primarily on India-Pakistan relations. The hosts and their guests frequently engage in needless debates and discussions, losing sight of the objective of the programme. Following the flash floods in Nepal, these news channels shifted their coverage towards the devastation in Nepal. As a result, Nepalese people now find themselves at the receiving end of similar jingoism.
Common sense tells us that the role of journalists and media outlets during a crisis is to inform the world about human casualties, infrastructure damage, the plight and suffering of survivors, and the causes of the disaster. This is a fundamental responsibility of journalists in times of crisis. Apart from these responsibilities, however, there was a complete absence of sensitivity in some recent flash-flood reporting. What was seen at ground zero raised serious questions about the credibility and ethical conduct of some journalists and reporters.
Many Nepalese feel that the outsized coverage of India’s efforts has overshadowed the efforts of the Nepal Army, the Armed Police Force and local residents who tried their best to help under extremely difficult circumstances. Post-disaster videos on social media show that the Nepal Army, Armed Police Force and local residents jointly conducted rescue operations in vulnerable areas, risking their lives. However, many Indian news channels did not adequately broadcast their efforts and appeared to take them very casually.
Over the years, Nepal-India relations have reached a low point. When we examine the reasons behind the strained relations between the two immediate neighbours, we find that some sections of the Indian media have contributed to the problem. Very often, some Indian media outlets claim that Buddha was born in India, hurting Nepalese sentiments. On the other hand, some programmes portray Lipulekh and Kalapani as integral parts of India.
It is crystal clear that media outlets have a huge responsibility in creating a conducive environment between two nations. It is also an established fact that the media can play the role of a facilitator by offering space to de-escalate tensions and foster closer ties and relations. But the biggest irony is that some Indian media outlets disseminate information that only hurts the feelings of Nepalese people, thereby triggering anti-India sentiments among them.
We firmly believe that the Indian media should engage in introspection and self-reflection, learn from its setbacks, mistakes and failures of the past, and undertake course correction hereafter.
Login to add a comment