How the Pahalgam Terror Attack Survivor Received Online Hate
By: Sia Jyoti
Sources: open‑source X (Twitter) posts gathered between 15–18 May 2025. Hyperlinks supplied where posts remain available.
Summary
Open‑source monitoring after the Pahalgam attack shows a rapid surge of hostile social‑media content targeting survivor Himanshi Narwal. Hindutva‑aligned accounts allegedly accused her of conspiring with terrorists and used misogynistic slurs when she reportedly spoke out against the Hindu‑Muslim division. Claims linking Narwal to the assailants remain unsubstantiated; no corroborating evidence was located. Engagement data suggest that inflammatory posts were algorithmically rewarded, outperforming neutral updates about the incident.
Narrative observed
Following the 22nd April terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian‑administered Jammu & Kashmir, a photo of survivor Himanshi Narwal beside her deceased husband, Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, circulated widely. Accounts supportive of Hindutva politics allegedly framed Narwal as “anti‑national,” “jihadist,” and “traitor” because she reportedly called for Hindu‑Muslim unity, stating "People going against Muslims or Kashmiris - we don't want this. We want peace and only peace,". Two users: X user, X user, argued that a background check is essential for Himanshi and that ‘her Muslim boyfriends may have tipped off the terrorists in some way.’ Similarly, the suspended account @rohithverse described her as “a woke leftist who should be criticised rightly.” In an archived post (screen‑capture link), @rohithverse allegedly argued that “Hindu women shouldn’t be educated… once they get educated, they go against their family.”
Figure X: Screenshot of a now-deleted post on X, retrieved from a Google search result. The post is no longer accessible via the original link, but is preserved here to document its content and relevance to the circulation of misogynistic and religiously motivated rhetoric in online extremist spaces.
Other users repeated unverified claims that Narwal had “Muslim boyfriends” at Jawaharlal Nehru University and had therefore “tipped off the terrorists,” while another user asserted that “college girls are pure evil.” Engagement metrics indicate that many hostile tweets gained thousands of impressions within hours, suggesting algorithmic amplification. No primary source reviewed offered credible evidence linking Himanshi Narwal to the attack.
Terminology & framing
Language used by hostile accounts combines:
1. Gendered slurs (“whore,” “evil college girl”).
2. Communal accusations (“jihadist,” “Muslim sympathiser”).
3. Nationalist loyalty tests (“traitor”, “anti‑Hindu”).
The rhetoric positions female autonomy, particularly higher education, as allegedly incompatible with Hindu nationalist ideals, reflecting a long‑standing “gendered nationalism” frame observed in South‑Asian extremist discourse.
Analysis
The online reaction illustrates how gendered and communal narratives converge in Indian extremist spaces. By recasting Narwal’s non‑sectarian stance as treachery, actors reinforce a patriarchal nationalist logic in which women serve as markers of group purity: educated or empathetic women are allegedly suspect, thereby justifying harassment. Social‑media design appears to exacerbate this dynamic; outrage‑based engagement loops elevate unverified claims, making them more visible than factual reporting. Such amplification risks translating digital misogyny into offline intimidation, underlining the security relevance of monitoring platform incentives alongside content. Lastly, relevant tweets and Instagram reels with misogynistic or Islamophobic content consistently displayed high ratios of reposts or likes to comments, a pattern often associated with recommendation‑system boosts. Content critical of Narwal’s call for inter‑communal peace was more widely shared than neutral reporting on the attack, likely due to controversial posts being boosted, and not necessarily due to any objective value or truth provided by them.
