On World Press Freedom Day, India confronts a stark reality—its mainstream media landscape has become a battlefield where journalism is under siege. Despite a modest improvement in its press-freedom ranking in 2025—from 159th to 151st out of 180 countries—the world’s largest democracy continues to suffocate independent reporting.
This marginal rise likely stems from the Bharatiya Janata Party‘s (BJP) failure to secure an absolute parliamentary majority in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, rather than any meaningful reform.
The respite appears temporary as Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s government, emboldened by nationalist fervour following the Pahalgam terror attack, has resumed its media crackdown with renewed vigour.
The government’s response to the attack has been characteristic—ban Pakistani YouTube channels, stoke xenophobia and mobilise the estimated 100m-strong BJP’s IT Cell to flood social media with pro-government narratives.
Such censorship echoes the 2020 border clash with China, when numerous media and social platforms, including TikTok, were blocked.
Mr Modi has systematically erected legal barricades against press freedom.
The prime minister, except for his US tours, never faced the press.
The 2023 legislative trifecta—comprising the Telecommunications Act, Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill and Digital Personal Data Protection Act—grants authorities extraordinary powers to control media, censor news and silence critics.
These laws enable officials to ban individuals accused of “terrorism” from publishing—a charge routinely levelled against government opponents.
Media ownership concentration compounds the problem.
Most major outlets are controlled by a handful of oligarchs aligned with the ruling party.
Gautam Adani, Mr Modi’s close associate who heads the vast Adani Enterprises conglomerate, acquired NDTV—once India’s last critical mainstream television channel—in a controversial takeover.
Independent outlets that refuse to parrot government talking points find advertising revenue—their lifeblood—quickly evaporating.
Those seeking refuge in social media face another obstacle: Mr Modi’s cosy relationships with tech titans Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk.
These connections help ensure that big tech-owned social media platforms, like Facebook (owned by Meta), YouTube and X (formerly Twitter), restrict content creators critical of the administration.
Meanwhile, India has become what the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 calls the global hub of misinformation, evident in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh following Sheikh Hasina’s government’s collapse in August 2024.
The climate of intimidation extends beyond traditional journalism. In Maharashtra, the BJP-allied Shiv Sena recently targeted comedian Kunal Kamra for mocking its founder, Eknath Shinde, subjecting both him and his audience to police notices.
In BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, authorities have filed cases against social-media influencers who questioned rising communal hatred after the Pahalgam terror attack.
While Mr Modi touts India as “the mother of democracy,” numerous journalists—particularly those from Kashmir—languish in detention without legal recourse, their conditions arguably worse than those endured by Julian Assange before his release.
Critical reporters face systematic harassment, threats and arbitrary arrests. Proponents of Hindutva—the Hindu far-right nationalist ideology—openly brand critics as “traitors” and “anti-national,” calling for vigilante justice.
The dangers are especially acute for women journalists, who endure coordinated online campaigns of hatred and murder threats, often including doxxing.
Environmental reporters and those covering Kashmir face particular risks, with many subjected to harassment by police and paramilitaries. Some endure “provisional” detention lasting years.
Questioning the government’s security measures, accountability failures, or stance on international issues like Palestine can trigger severe repercussions.
Most television anchors have abandoned journalistic principles to become cheerleaders for human-rights violations and censorship.
On this World Press Freedom Day, the contradiction is striking.
And it seems like Gilbert Keith Chesterston’s words are more relevant in the Indian context than anywhere else.
Mr Chesterston had written, “Journalism largely consists of saying ‘Lord Jones is dead’ to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.”
In India, it’s like telling the people that journalism was once alive to mobilise them to attend its funeral.
As India positions itself as a global leader, its press-freedom ranking places it among the world’s most repressive regimes.
The country’s democratic credentials ring hollow when its fourth estate serves not as a watchdog but as a government mouthpiece.
True democracy requires more than elections—it demands a free press willing to hold power accountable.
True press freedom in India remains elusive, suggesting that the world’s largest democracy exists in name only.
