For many years, intellectuals, journalists, and policymakers in growing international locations have rightly criticized racism, discrimination, and human-rights violations in Western democracies. Such criticism is each professional and essential. Democracies should continuously confront their failures, whether or not associated to minorities, migrants, surveillance, or abuses of state energy.
But an uncomfortable double customary typically emerges when the identical scrutiny is directed inward. In lots of growing democracies, criticism of Western governments is well known as progressive and brave, whereas criticism of home nationalism, spiritual majoritarianism, or state repression is dismissed as “anti-national,” “foreign-influenced,” or “anti-development.” This contradiction finally weakens democratic tradition itself.
India presents one of many clearest examples of this rising paradox.
Bashy Quraysh
Secretary Common – European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion – Strasbourg
Thierry Valle
Coordination of Associations and People for Freedom of Conscience. France
Press freedom and the politics of intolerance
On the one hand, India initiatives itself internationally because the “world’s largest democracy,” an rising international energy, and a defender of pluralism. Then again, worldwide human-rights organizations, press-freedom teams, and civil-liberties observers have more and more expressed concern about shrinking house for dissent, intimidation of journalists, stress on tutorial establishments, and rising hostility towards minorities underneath the federal government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Social gathering (BJP).
Prime Minister Modi’s Might 2026 go to to Europe attracted important worldwide consideration, not just for commerce and diplomatic engagements but additionally for renewed scrutiny concerning press freedom and minority rights in India. Throughout his go to to the Netherlands, Modi praised increasing financial partnerships and highlighted know-how and innovation as key areas of cooperation. Nevertheless, remarks by Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten regarding press freedom and the rights of minorities in India had been firmly rejected by Indian officers, who described such criticism as reflecting a “lack of awareness” of India’s range and historic complexity.
The tensions grew to become much more seen throughout media interactions involving Dutch journalists and Indian diplomats, revealing rising friction between Western journalistic expectations and the Modi authorities’s tightly managed public-relations strategy.
From the Netherlands, Modi travelled to Sweden and Norway for additional financial and diplomatic conferences. It was the primary go to by an Indian Prime Minister to Scandinavia in additional than 4 a long time. On Might 19, through the third India-Nordic Summit in Oslo, a Norwegian journalist from the newspaper The every day newspaperHelle Lyng, publicly requested: “Prime Minister Modi, why don’t you’re taking some questions from the freest press on this planet?”
Modi ignored the query and walked away.
The controversy continued throughout subsequent press briefings held by India’s Ministry of Exterior Affairs in Norway. Worldwide journalists questioned Indian diplomats about restrictions on press freedom and the remedy of minorities. Indian officers responded by defending the nation’s pluralism, democratic establishments, and social range.
However, Modi’s refusal to have interaction with the press throughout his European go to triggered intense worldwide scrutiny and home political criticism. The episode reignited broader debates about democratic accountability, transparency, and media freedom in modern India.
The deterioration of press freedom in India has grow to be significantly alarming. Journalists more and more face on-line harassment, sedition costs, police raids, intimidation, and bodily violence. Freedom Home experiences that journalists threat “harassment, demise threats, and bodily violence,” whereas assaults in opposition to them are “hardly ever punished.”
In response to Freedom Home, India is at the moment categorised as “Partly Free,” with issues targeted on civil liberties, media independence, and the remedy of minorities. The group additional notes that “assaults on press freedom have escalated dramatically underneath the Modi authorities.” India at the moment ranks 157th out of 180 international locations within the 2026 World Press Freedom Index revealed by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF). RSF warns that “with an increase in violence in opposition to journalists, extremely concentrated media possession, and retailers with more and more overt political alignment, press freedom is in disaster on this planet’s largest democracy.”
India’s digital surroundings has additionally come underneath criticism. Freedom Home’s 2025 “Freedom on the Internet” report states that web freedom in India “remained underneath pressure,” citing censorship, arrests associated to on-line commentary, and repeated web shutdowns.
These issues can not merely be dismissed as “Western propaganda.” Related anxieties are more and more voiced inside India itself by unbiased journalists, lecturers, retired judges, civil-society organizations, and opposition politicians.
The central situation isn’t whether or not India stays an electoral democracy—it clearly does. The true query is whether or not democratic establishments can stay wholesome when criticism itself turns into politically suspect.
Democratic erosion hardly ever happens in a single day. It’s normally gradual. It begins when governments equate dissent with disloyalty, when journalists are portrayed as enemies, when universities are pressured into ideological conformity, and when majoritarian nationalism turns into normalized in public discourse.
Democracy should start with self-reflection
In democratic societies, criticism of governments, establishments, and social injustice isn’t merely professional; it’s important. Internationally, intellectuals, journalists, and activists recurrently communicate out in opposition to racism, discrimination, and violations of human rights in Western democracies. Such criticism can play a constructive position by pushing societies towards larger accountability and equality.
Nevertheless, an equally vital query have to be requested: are growing democracies equally prepared to look at their very own shortcomings?
Supporters of the Indian authorities argue that India stays a vibrant democracy with common elections, an unbiased judiciary, and an lively media surroundings. Critics, nonetheless, contend that democratic establishments are step by step being weakened by political stress and rising spiritual nationalism related to the ruling BJP authorities.
No matter political opinion, one precept ought to stay common: a democracy should stay open to scrutiny. Journalists needs to be free to ask troublesome questions with out intimidation, and governments ought to reply with transparency relatively than hostility. Freedom of the press isn’t a privilege granted by the state; it’s a cornerstone of democratic legitimacy.
It’s subsequently vital for international locations within the growing world to look inward earlier than presenting themselves solely as ethical critics of Western democracies. No nation is free from injustice or discrimination. Western international locations proceed to battle with racism, inequality, and political extremism. On the similar time, non-Western democracies should additionally acknowledge their very own inner challenges as an alternative of dismissing criticism as international interference or anti-national sentiment.
The hazard isn’t solely political, however ethical
When spiritual nationalism turns into intently intertwined with state energy, minorities inevitably start to really feel much less safe. In India, Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and dissenting intellectuals have more and more expressed concern over hate speech, vigilante violence, and social polarization. Even when governments don’t immediately endorse each act of extremism, silence and selective enforcement can create an environment of impunity.
This pattern isn’t distinctive to India. Internationally—from the US to Hungary, from Turkey to India—democratic establishments are more and more challenged by populism, polarization, and ideological nationalism. Even Western democracies themselves are experiencing declines in press freedom and rising political division.
That’s exactly why growing international locations ought to keep away from ethical exceptionalism. No democracy is past criticism, and no authorities ought to demand immunity from scrutiny just because it was elected.
Sadly, many governments at this time rejoice democracy solely when elections are gained, whereas turning into more and more uncomfortable with democracy’s different important pillars: a free press, an unbiased judiciary, tutorial freedom, minority rights, and the safety of dissent.
Elections alone don’t assure democratic freedom.
A very assured democracy doesn’t concern journalists asking troublesome questions. It doesn’t deal with human-rights criticism as a conspiracy. Nor does it demand mental conformity within the identify of patriotism.
The European Union and its relationship with the growing world
The worldwide group, significantly the European Union, should additionally rethink its relationship with rising powers. Financial partnerships shouldn’t be guided solely by commerce, markets, and strategic pursuits. Human rights, press freedom, judicial independence, and minority protections ought to stay central components of diplomatic engagement and commerce negotiations.
On the similar time, such ideas have to be utilized constantly relatively than selectively. Western governments lose credibility once they condemn abuses in adversarial states whereas ignoring related violations in economically or strategically beneficial allies. Human rights lose ethical authority once they grow to be devices of geopolitical comfort relatively than common ideas. True democratic maturity is demonstrated not by rejecting criticism, however by partaking with it truthfully.
Democracy and financial partnerships
European democracies should additionally acknowledge that financial engagement carries ethical tasks. Commerce agreements and strategic partnerships with rising powers similar to India shouldn’t be handled as purely industrial transactions indifferent from democratic values.
Because the European Union expands cooperation with growing economies in areas similar to know-how, defence, vitality, and digital infrastructure, it ought to constantly emphasize the safety of elementary freedoms. Respect for press freedom, judicial independence, minority rights, and freedom of expression ought to type a part of diplomatic dialogue and long-term partnership frameworks.
This doesn’t imply imposing Western political fashions on different societies, nor interfering in nationwide sovereignty. Somewhat, it means affirming that democratic ideas and human dignity are common values that can’t be separated from worldwide cooperation.
European governments ceaselessly describe their international coverage as “values-based diplomacy.” Such ideas should subsequently be mirrored not solely in speeches, but additionally in commerce negotiations, funding agreements, and strategic alliances. Financial pursuits mustn’t come on the expense of silence on democratic backsliding or human-rights issues. Constructive engagement requires honesty. Real partnerships are strengthened—not weakened—when democratic accountability and elementary freedoms stay a part of the dialog.
Nationwide pleasure versus true accountability
Democracy is strongest when it accepts criticism with out concern. Nations that aspire to international management should show not solely financial progress and political affect, but additionally a dedication to openness, tolerance, and the safety of elementary freedoms.
Solely by way of self-reflection can democracies genuinely strengthen themselves.
Finally, the way forward for democracy—whether or not in India, Europe, or elsewhere—relies on the willingness of societies to criticize themselves truthfully. Nationwide pleasure ought to by no means grow to be an excuse for silence. Patriotism ought to imply strengthening democratic establishments, not shielding governments from accountability.
A nation grows stronger not when criticism is suppressed, however when criticism is heard.
One hopes that growing international locations similar to India—with its huge inhabitants, monumental potential, and lengthy historical past of pluralism—will acknowledge that its standing among the many world’s most revered nations will probably be outlined not merely by elections held each few years, however by its inclusiveness, safety of minority rights, and dedication to freedom of expression for journalists and for all 1.4 billion of its residents.
