We remember India’s freedom struggle through marches, protests and revolutionaries. But there was another battlefield: the newspaper.
Gandhi, Ambedkar, Tilak, Nehru, Azad, and many others understood that you could not win freedom without first winning the freedom to think. Through their newspapers, they challenged the British version of India, exposed colonial excesses, and gave Indians the language of swaraj.
Political independence, in other words, began with sovereignty of thought.
That idea is worth revisiting now. Because the question today is not simply whether India is politically independent, but whether Indians remain free to know, question, and think for themselves.
What happens when the press becomes dependent on those it is meant to scrutinise?
And why does an independent press matter to an independent India?
Let me explain.
Every week I come to you with why independent media is important. And why the work we do deserves your support. But this week, I think this entire episode will make that argument for me. The independence of the country, not just on paper but in spirit depends on the independence of its press.
So we are running a special offer. Take a subscription for 6 months for just 1947 rupees. You know what that is. If you are already a subscriber, it is a great time to gift one to your friends, colleagues or family.
Avail 1947 offer: https://pages.razorpay.com/tnm-1947
Like Pooja's LME? Support the show:
https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme
Like our journalism? Become a subscriber:
https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription
Follow our WhatsApp channel:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbDIedz2phHLQZTyNj1W
The British understood that controlling information was a way of controlling political imagination.
From the late 18th century until Independence, colonial governments repeatedly restricted the press, particularly publications in Indian languages.
The Vernacular Press Act of 1878
The Press Act of 1910
The Press Emergency Act of 1931
All laws used to curb nationalist journalism.
But the colonial state could not easily control a population beginning to form its own political judgments.
The nationalist press was therefore part of a larger struggle for **sovereignty of thought**: the ability of Indians to decide for themselves what was happening in their country, and what kind of country they wanted to build.
Tilak used Kesari to popularise the idea of swaraj and mobilise opposition to colonial rule, even facing prosecution for his writings.
Gandhi used his newspapers to explain political campaigns, argue for non-cooperation and civil disobedience. He communicated directly with readers.
Ambedkar’s Mooknayak, Bahishkrit Bharat, and later publications challenged the exclusion of Dalits from public debate
Maulana Azad’s Al-Hilal helped build political consciousness among Indian Muslims.
And this was not limited to prominent national leaders. In Karnataka, freedom fighter HS Doreswamy was involved with the underground publication Pouravani
Pouravani was printed using a portable press and distributed clandestinely before being banned by the Mysore government.
So the nationalist press was also about a wider network of regional and vernacular publications, underground newspapers, and people willing to take risks.
The press was helping create the political public that would eventually demand Independence.
But 1947 changed journalism’s job.
Before Independence, the principal question was how to challenge colonial power. After Independence, the question became, “can journalism scrutinise Indian power?”
The Constitution does not have a separate fundamental right called “freedom of the press”. Press freedom is understood as part of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Journalist Seema Chishti puts the connection more directly – the press is free because citizens are free. And so, when the press is throttled, it is not only journalists who lose freedom. Ordinary citizens lose their ability to know, question, and participate in public life.
And independent India’s history shows why that freedom matters.
In 1957, Feroze Gandhi’s questions in Parliament helped bring the Mundhra financial scandal into public view.
In 1980, Indian Express journalist Arun Sinha’s reporting exposed the Bhagalpur blindings, in which police blinded prisoners and undertrials.
In 1992, Times of India journalist Sucheta Dalal’s reporting helped expose irregularities surrounding stockbroker Harshad Mehta.
The press was now scrutinising Indian power.
During the Emergency from 1975 to 1977, the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi imposed censorship on newspapers.
The Indian Express became particularly associated with resistance to censorship.
The Emergency demonstrated why press freedom is not simply a professional privilege for journalists.
If the government can determine what information citizens are allowed to receive, citizens cannot effectively evaluate the government's actions.
But today’s media environment is much more complicated than a censor sitting in a newsroom.
And that’s where the question of press freedom becomes more difficult.
Because what does independence actually mean in 2026?
India has a vast media industry, but a large number of outlets does not necessarily mean a large number of genuinely independent voices.
The Adani Group’s takeover of NDTV in 2022 is a useful example.
NDTV had long been seen as one of the major Indian television networks with a reputation for critical journalism. After the Adani Group acquired a controlling stake, several senior journalists and executives, including Ravish Kumar, Sreenivasan Jain and Nidhi Razdan, left the organisation.
Reporters Without Borders described the takeover as a threat to media pluralism.
Stories are ignored. Entire news events go unreported. But pressure doesn't always have to come as a direct order from an owner.
It can travel down a hierarchy — from proprietor to editor and from editor to newsroom — until journalists begin to anticipate what will be expected of them. And that is where self-censorship can begin.
And it isn't only political pressure. Journalism is an expensive business. Investigations take months, reporters need salaries, newsrooms face legal bills, and digital infrastructure costs money.
So who pays for journalism? Advertising can create dependence on advertisers.
Government advertising can create dependence on the state, while corporate ownership can create potential conflicts of interest.
Subscriptions provide greater independence, but there’s of course criticism that it makes journalism inaccessible to people who cannot pay.
So editorial independence is also an economic question, which becomes even more important when journalism attracts the attention of powerful institutions.
Because even if a newsroom is willing to publish an uncomfortable story, can it afford to fight the legal battle that might follow?
Reporters Without Borders has documented at least ten legal cases involving the Adani Group and journalists or media organisations since 2017. It says at least 15 journalists have been affected, and that some cases involved temporary gag orders.
It’s not necessary that these cases end in a conviction. But often the legal process itself can become the punishment. because of the years of litigation, financial costs, and psychological pressure.
And that can change what journalists are willing to investigate.
India had taken a step forward when the colonial sedition provision, Section 124A of the IPC, was put in abeyance by the Supreme Court in 2022.
But the Union government then replaced it with Section 152 of the BNS, saying that criticism of the government remains protected, while acts threatening India’s sovereignty and integrity would be criminalised.
But Section 152 uses broad terms such as “subversive activities”, “separatist feelings”, and acts that “endanger” sovereignty or unity.
Journalists including Siddharth Varadarajan, Karan Thapar, and Abhisar Sharma have faced FIRs under the provision over their reporting or commentary. The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest in some of these cases, but the law exists.
If a story could mean an FIR, arrest, years of investigation, and legal costs, the law can have a chilling effect even before a court decides whether an offence was committed.
The biggest change in the media landscape now is that the newspaper is no longer the main gatekeeper.
News now reaches people through television and news websites, but also through YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and X. And increasingly, the people delivering that news aren't only journalists.
The 2026 Reuters Institute Digital News Report found that 58% of its surveyed Indian respondents rely on YouTube for news, while 47% said they share news through social media, messaging or email.
The numbers speak for themselves. Journalists now share space with creators, influencers, political commentators, and ordinary users who can all reach large audiences.
That has democratised information in some ways. A journalist can reach millions without owning a TV channel. Communities ignored by mainstream media can tell their own stories. Independent creators can challenge established narratives.
This is what the government tried to strike in 2023 with their Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill which was meant to put anyone on the internet putting out news regularly under a strictly regulated regulatory framework. Anyone means anyone. The bill that gave the government many censorship powers was finally never passed because of outrage, but there is a danger of it coming back in another form.
And the biggest issue now? People are losing trust. The Reuters Institute report found that overall trust had fallen to 39%, while 52% said they sometimes or often avoid the news.
Of course, journalism has also contributed to its own credibility crisis through sensationalism, communal framing, partisan coverage, and by prioritising spectacle over substance.
A genuinely independent newsroom should be able to scrutinise the government, investigate the opposition, question corporations, expose institutional abuse and report uncomfortable facts even when they upset its own audience.
The Emergency showed the consequences when that function is severely restricted.
The present challenge is not simply whether a government can censor a newspaper. It is also whether the economic and institutional structure of the media allows journalists to pursue stories that many would prefer not to see published.
Media independence should not be treated as an issue concerning journalists alone.
An independent country needs citizens who can question their government. Citizens need information to do that. And such information cannot be reliably produced if the institutions responsible for gathering it are themselves dependent on the powerful.
That history leaves behind a simple democratic principle: political independence is difficult to sustain without independence of thought.
India achieved the first in 1947. The second remains a responsibility of every generation.
Avail 1947 offer: https://pages.razorpay.com/tnm-1947
Like Pooja's LME? Support the show:
https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme
Like our journalism? Become a subscriber:
https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription
Follow our WhatsApp channel:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbDIedz2phHLQZTyNj1W
Produced by Megha Mukundan, script by Pooja Prasanna & Lakshmi Priya, Edit by Nikhil Sekhar, Camera by Ajay R