By Rajiv Shah
A global civil rights group, Civicus has taken strong exception to how critical commentaries during the “recent conflict” with Pakistan were censored in India, with journalists getting “targeted”. I have no quarrel with the Civicus view, as the facts mentioned in it are all true.
However, what surprised me was that the global NGO was conspicuously silent on how the military-controlled Pakistan government is known to have propped up terrorists — which is actually the first trigger — while continuing to target mediapersons critical of the regime.A global civil rights group, Civicus has taken strong exception to how critical commentaries during the “recent conflict” with Pakistan were censored in India, with journalists getting “targeted”. I have no quarrel with the Civicus view, as the facts mentioned in it are all true.
After receiving the Civicus email, I decided to check whether it had a commentary on Pakistan as well. I did find a comprehensive commentary under the heading "Government criminalises activists, increases online controls and cracks down on protests by the opposition and ethnic groups", but there is no update on how the authorities behaved during the conflict -- even as rating India’s civic space as ‘repressed’ — the same as Pakistan’s.
Let me first recount what Civicus has to say about India in the context of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. It starts off by offering background on how, in recent years, the government has “misused the draconian anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other laws to keep activists behind bars and fabricate cases against activists and journalists for undertaking their work.”
It states, “The authorities have blocked access to foreign funding for NGOs and human rights defenders, using the restrictive Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). Travel restrictions have been imposed on academics, journalists and human rights defenders by suspending their work visas, denying them entry to the country and cancelling their Overseas Citizen of India status.”
Civicus quotes the Geneva-based United Nations-linked Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions’ (GANHRI) Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) report from March 2025, which recommended downgrading India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from category ‘A’ to category ‘B’. “Among the concerns was the failure to address shrinking civic space and increased instances of targeting human rights defenders, journalists and perceived critics,” it notes.
This is followed by how, in the aftermath of the dastardly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, followed by Operation Sindoor, “India blocked social media accounts and YouTube channels, while journalists and others were criminalised.”
Thus, on 29 April 2025, the Indian government ordered the blocking of the YouTube channel 4PM News Network, citing national security and public order following its coverage of the anti-war movement. “The channel remains offline at the time of writing. The Editors Guild of India said that it was ‘deeply concerned’ by the government’s directive ‘without any disclosure of the specific reasons or evidence, and without following principles of natural justice’,” said Civicus.
Then, Civicus noted how, in the same month, “police in Uttar Pradesh launched criminal investigations into political commentators and satirists Neha Singh Rathore and academic Madri Kakoti, for allegedly ‘inciting unrest and threatening national unity’ through their online posts about the attack.”
It further stated, “The government also ordered the blocking of accounts of some international news organisations, as well as 16 YouTube news channels linked to Pakistan,” adding, “In May 2025, the authorities ordered the blocking of over 8,000 social media accounts on Twitter (X), including the Kashmir-based news outlets Free Press Kashmir, The Kashmiriyat, and Maktoob Media, which focuses on human rights and minorities.”
Civicus continued, “The Ministry of Electronics and IT also temporarily blocked the Indian news website The Wire on 9 May 2025, apparently in retaliation for an article it published about India’s fighter jet procurement. The Wire reported that its site went dark without notice after posting a CNN-sourced story about Rafale jets, and though it was later unblocked, the outlet is now pursuing legal action against the government for this blatant infringement of press freedom.”
Giving more details, Civicus said that in May 2025, the Nagpur police arrested Rejaz M. Sheeba Sydeek, a Kerala-based journalist, for posting a social media message criticising Operation Sindoor. On 16 May 2025, he was charged under various laws, including the UAPA. Similarly, journalist Hilal Mir, a Srinagar-based senior journalist who has worked with leading Indian and international news organisations, was placed under preventive detention from 7 to 13 May 2025 for allegedly “spreading anti-national content and promoting secessionist ideology online.”
Then, said Civicus, there were academic arrests. In May 2025, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor and head of the political science department at Ashoka University, was arrested for stating in a social media post that while there was praise for one of the armed forces spokespersons for media briefings on Operation Sindoor, there was silence around “victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing,” and the ruling party BJP’s “hate mongering.”
Citing more examples of how civic space is narrowing in India, Civicus said that on 29 April 2025, eight students were arrested in Kochi while holding a peaceful demonstration in solidarity with victims of the Kashmir conflict and those killed in the Indo-Pakistani strikes. And on 10 May 2025, police blocked an anti-war rally in Thrissur organised by the People’s Anti-War Front. Eleven activists were arrested and taken into preventive custody.
Then, Civicus noted that as of 1 June 2025, at least 81 individuals in Assam had been arrested and labelled “anti-national” for allegedly expressing sympathy toward Pakistan in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack.
“This sweeping action — justified by the state government as a measure against ‘pro-terror sentiment’ — has drawn sharp condemnation from civil rights groups, journalists, and political commentators. Many have pointed out the dangerous precedent it sets for criminalising expression and dissent in an already fragile rights environment,” claimed Civicus.
In sharp contrast to its commentary on India, the Civicus commentary on Pakistan, while also rating the country as “repressed”, gives no details of how the media curbs took place in Pakistan during the conflict. While it does say, based on 2024 facts, that Pakistan has seen “criminalisation of human rights defenders and journalists, crackdown on human rights movements and protests,” it offers no specifics in the context of the Indian retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack.
The commentary does state that in January 2025, the Pakistan government further tightened its control on online speech through amendments to the draconian Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) passed in the National Assembly. However, it gives no information on how these changes have been used to curb media freedom.
Ironically, even a quick internet search shows that the Punjab Union of Journalists condemned a series of politically motivated arrests and harassment of journalists linked with opposition narratives amidst the conflict with India. Ahmad Noorani’s home was raided, Waheed Murad was arrested, and PECA cases were filed against Zahid Sharif Rana and Junaid Sagar Qureshi.
On 25 May, ARY News faced a temporary suspension. Senior journalist Ammad Yousaf and executives were arrested under sedition charges linked to the network’s programming critical of the current government.
Also, the PECA law is being used to criminalise “false” or “anti-state” content. Its vague wording allows targeting of dissenting voices; sedition and anti-terror laws are being invoked against journalists reporting on sensitive topics or airing criticism of the government. Journalists have faced home and office raids, confiscation of devices, and threats to family members.
Comments