Nuclearization as National Security: A Comparative Analysis of Framing and Frame Building in Indian and Pakistani Newspaper

Global politics is a complex game, particularly when conflict dominates the relationship between countries. South Asia is no different as both India and Pakistan have fought four wars since achieving independence from the British in 1947. Both countries have acquired nuclear capability but the tense nature of the bilateral relationship has given rise to fears of a potential nuclear war in the region. There were hopes of a thaw in relationship after the new governments assumed power following the general elections in Pakistan (2013) and in India (2014). However, these hopes were quickly dashed following an escalation in cross-border firing incidents along the line of control (LoC) in the Kashmir valley. The status of Kashmir valley has become a flashpoint of bilateral conflict between India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan occupy parts of the valley and blame each other for illegal occupation and infiltration to justify the use of aggressive tactics. India and Pakistan have a collective population of close to 1.5 billion (almost twenty percent of the global population). Both countries rank consistently low on human development and press freedom indices, but the respective governments in India and Pakistan continue to divert large chunks of their annual budgets for defense-related expenditures instead of providing better health, education, and infrastructure facilities to their citizen. In such a scenario, the media's role in framing this conflict becomes critical. It merits attention to explore whether the media is part of the problem or part of the solution.;Therefore, this dissertation applies Galtung's (2002) peace journalism model to the coverage of Kashmir conflict during 2016. The news coverage of the Uri attack on September 18, 2016 in the Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 16 Indian soldiers and the Bhimber attack in the Pakistani-administered Kashmir that killed seven Pakistan soldiers was chosen for the content analysis to explore how the English-language newspapers in India and Pakistan (three top-circulating newspapers in each country) framed the bilateral conflict. The findings showed that the coverage in both India and Pakistan had a similar pattern. It was primarily episodic, was using mainly conflict frames and lacking focus on solutions of the conflict, was relying on official sources to further the national security narrative prevalent in each country, and was showing a clear tendency to promote war journalism at the cost of marginalizing the human cost of war.;The second part of the analysis in this dissertation was based on interviews with journalists (15 each from India and Pakistan) to explore the processes attached to frame-building. The journalists were asked questions about the framing of stories related to bilateral conflict and which factors were likely to affect this coverage. They were also asked about the presence of pressure groups, censorship, organizational policy, alternatives available, and suggestions for improvement in the standards of coverage. The responses indicated that news television had gained a place of prominence in each country and was driving the content of print and social media as well. It was revealed that the private media ownership structure in both India and Pakistan, backed by big media houses, was aggravating the situation. The media owners in India were found to be hand in glove with the religious right-wing that had seen a rise in Indian mainstream politics after 2014 elections while the media owners in Pakistan had a nexus with the powerful military establishment in their country. The journalists revealed during the interviews that these media owners were getting good ratings on television by focusing on bilateral conflict, which meant good business, while they were able to use that clout in the ruling establishments for tax breaks and other benefits as well. The journalists generally did not express much hope in the track-II dialogues or social media as an alternative forum unless the overall environment between both countries improved. It was surprising that the interviewed journalists showed little concern about what impact such coverage could likely have on the public perception. (Abstract shortened by ProQuest.).