The report archived on the BBC website with the earliest time-stamp, in fact, chooses to call the Mumbai attackers gunmen in most places, and “suspected terrorists” in one — perhaps because the context of the latter is the measures the police said they were taking to contain them. In comparison, the BBC took several days to make the same leap after the London terrorist attacks.

Such decisions are generally made by the London-based editorial corps; those members of the Indian bureau as well as some London-based correspondents who were contacted were unwilling to speak on record. The London-based BBC press office, however, told The Indian Express: “We are not calling them freedom fighters. We are calling them ‘bombers’ or ‘militants’. The fact is terrorist does not have a universal meaning. It translates as freedom fighters in certain languages. We are not alone in not calling them terrorists.”

It also appears that the BBC’s Hindi and Urdu services are much more willing to use the word than the flagship English-language service. CNN, too, took an early editorial call about the use of the word: the attackers are described as “terrorists” in most archived news stories. Of course, all major international bodies have described what happened as “terrorist” attacks: the UN Security Council’s statement called them “reprehensible acts of terrorism”.

When asked at what point the consensus that the act was terrorism and that the actors were terrorists would become so overwhelming that choosing not to call them so would itself act as a “barrier rather than an aid to understanding”, the BBC had no comment. A senior BBC correspondent, however, did say that “debate rages on” within the organization. Another said the organisation delays making the call as long as possible because it is “naturally conservative” in such things.