Close up image of dome of largest legislative building in India – Vidhan Soudha , Bangalore with nice blue sky background. Translation of text mentioned is Government work is God’s work.

In early January of 2025, freelance journalist Mukesh Chandrakar was found murderered in Bijapur, a district within Chhattisgarh, India. His body was found in a septic tank shortly after he was on assignment to invesitage alleged corruption around local road construction projects. This topic was highly prevalent among elite and powerful actors in India and the murder of Chandrakar was suspected to be linked to this connection. Press freedom organziations, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, were outraged and alleged that his death was a result of the ongoing dangers journalists face in India. The country has been under Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and through his leadership, the media has been continuously censored, with the country becoming even more hostile towards independent journalism. As partisanship also increases within the country and as oppositional views are seen as threats, media censorship is more often celebrated than fought against. In India, these partisan identities have allowed for the empowerment of authoritarian tendencies, which ultimately poses a great threat to democracy. In this essay, I will argue that India’s rise in media censorship and affective polarization has allowed for more democratic erosion, more specifically through the reduction of public resistance to media crackdowns.

Democracies rely on several things, with freedom of the press being one of them. Journalism allows for watch dogs and credible information for the public, holding leaders and corporations accountable. Typically, independent media are able to keep checks on power, in even partially free states. A 2011 study conducted by the American Economic Review found that in countries such as Russia, limited access to independent media led to a large decline in votes for ruling parties, while opposition candidates saw a boost. Moreover, voter turnout decreased, indiciating that citizens were becoming more skeptical of journalistic reporting. This study ultimately reveals that independent media has the potential to shift party control, especially when the media is censored by the government. In relation to Modi’s rule, this explains why he is adamant on suppressing the media. Several Indian news platforms have faced legal challenges, funding loss, and tax raids over the past few decades. According to a 2024 report from the Freedom House, India’s press environment was labeled as “partly free” due to the rise in media suppression across the country. Additionally, the Committee to Protect Journalists stated that journalists that cover sensitive topics, such as corruption like Chandrakar examined, face threats including harrassment and arrest. His murder is an example of what can happen to a journalist who works in a country where the rule of law is eroding and the press is seen in a villanous light.

It can be argued that these sorts of events in which journalism is suppressed could cause national outrage. However, in India, the public response has been moreso muted, especially among those of the ruling party. This is due to affective polarization, which goes beyond the scope of policy disgreements. Poltical opponents are seen as enemies and this becomes especially dangerous when societal differences fall into a single moral dimension. This can dividxe the public into opposing sides, with an “us versus them” mentality. In these cases, politics becomes more than competition, it becomes one’s identity. In turn, there are several consequences, such as democratic norms being unvalued if they are seen as a tool to help the “opposing” side. Additionally, polarized countries are less likely to punish leaders who do not act in a democratic manner, and this is mainly due to the public seeing the actions of these leaders as necessary to protect a group’s safety. In the case of India, BJP supporters dismiss journalism as “anti-national” or even as propaganda, despite the fact that some of the content covers corruption in the country. The press is repressed not top-down or only through the governement, but also through the public. Citizens of these countries are more willing to accept illberal method and this can relate to the fragility of informal democratic norms, such as institutional forbearance. These norms quickly erode in countries with high polarization.

Polarization is not only able to justify repression, it is sustained through it. As voices are continuously silenced in countries like India, people turn to partisan sources in order to reinforce their existing beliefs. With an increasingly fragmented media landscape, the public has less of a chance to be exposed to opposing views. Additionally, in semi-authoritarian environments, the media has a disproportionate influence over the public, especially with undecided voters. With government control over the media, political landscapes are effectively changed to leaders’ advantages. In terms of India, as censorship continues to rise, the media becomes homogenized or one-sided. At the same time, the cost of dissent increases and in India, journalists are now avoiding sensitive topics. This then results in a feedback loop, with polarization leading to censorship, then censorship leading to more polarization.

Overall, India’s press is not just a result of state officials and policies—it is also enabled through a polarized country that allows for illberal behavior. Chandrakar’s death is a reminder of what is at stake in India: democracy cannot be sustainable without a truth-seeking institution. The truth is not able to survive in a political environemnt in whcih the press is silenced, ignored, and attacked. In order to maintain democracy in India, citizens need to commit to a free press, accountability, and pluralism, especially when democratic norms are at stake.