What’s The Difference Between Militant And Terrorist And Why It Matters In Kashmir

The BBC cannot pick and use who it calls terrorists, the Central government said on April 28, 2025 while objecting the broadcaster’s news coverage of the Pahalgam terror attack wherein the terrorists who infiltrated the Valley on April 22 were referred to as ‘militants.’ 

“A formal letter has been sent to the BBC on the terming of terrorists as militants. The External Publicity Division of the MEA will be monitoring the reporting of the BBC,” an official reportedly told the media. In his appearance after the attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the Pahalgam incident as a heinous act of terrorism. On April 28, during his Mann Ki Baat broadcast, the PM vowed justice for all victims of the ambush.

While a BBC spokesperson has said the news organisation was attempting to provide unbiased coverage of the attack, this is not the first time an Indian government has taken objections over the broadcaster’s coverage of terror attacks within the country. In 2008, the Congress government, too, had objected to the BBC’s coverage of the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai. There, as well, the news coverage had called Pakistani terrorists as militants. 

These objections to the terminology used has sparked a debate over the distinction between militants and terrorists.

It is correct that both militants and terrorists are non-state actors, fighting against the State establishment. The key difference lies in the degree of support each gets from the local population— militants often have some degree of support from the local population, whereas terrorists does not. The tactics and motives of the both types of attackers also differ. Given the differences, the two terms are not interchangeable.

The Indian government recognises the security challenges in Kashmir as an externally abetted proxy war perpetuated by Pakistan-sponsored militant and terrorist groups. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)’s task is combating the militancy/insurgency within J&K. The Ministry of Defence that is responsible for the security and protection of India’s external borders with Pakistan and China, and for preventing illegal infiltrations.

The official terminologies used to describe the non-state violent actors have evolved over the three and half decade of Kashmir conflict. 

At the start of armed insurgency in Kashmir in 1989, the terms insurgent and militants were used to identify and apprehend the armed actors in the conflict. Local Kashmiris who picked up arms against the Indian state were termed insurgents, while foreign infiltrators of Pakistani and other nationalities were called foreign militants. 

The escalation in the armed conflict by the mid-90s, with foreign militants infiltrating in large numbers and overtaking the insurgency aimed at imposing Islamic Sharia laws, indiscriminately killing civilians, and kidnapping foreign tourists. The violence is considered the main reason for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley, and marked the beginning of Islamist terrorism.

The Central government declared there was no insurgency in Kashmir as locals did not support Pakistan’s nefarious designs to destabilise the security. Pakistan had by and large sponsored the terrorists who committed the violence directed at the security and military establishment, it said.

Militant is common parlance for the armed forces and security establishment who use it to describe radicalised locals who were recruited into, or joined armed groups. A more generic and neutral term, militant is used for those non-state actors using violent methods in support of a political or social cause, irrespective of whether those violent methods seek to create a climate of terror or fear in the general population or among adversaries for achieving desired political objectives.

The term homegrown militancy, which became popular around 2012-2016, referred to young Kashmiri teens and adults joining Pakistan-sponsored armed groups to fight against Indian armed forces.    

The Indian Army Doctrine defines insurgency and terrorism as the following: Insurgency is an “organised armed struggle by a section of the local population against the State, usually with foreign support.”

Terrorism is a form of irregular warfare that makes unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence against people or property to terrorise, coerce or intimidate governments or societies. Such attacks are most often aimed at achieving political, religious, or ideological objectives. Terrorism thrives on a fear psychosis and is achieved through arson, sabotage, hijacking, hoaxes, maiming, bombing, seizure, kidnapping, assassination, taking hostages, raids, ambushes, and the threat to use or use of WMD. 

As per The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, a terrorist refers to “Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, [economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.”