Media as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh

Three nations born from the same subcontinent, three very different stories about who gets to speak freely. Across India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the press has been called the fourth pillar of democracy, standing alongside the legislature, executive, and judiciary as a check on power. Yet the strength of this pillar varies dramatically from one country to the next. Understanding why reveals a lot about the health of democracy in South Asia, and about how fragile press freedom can be even when constitutions promise it.

What “fourth pillar” actually means 🔗

The idea of the press as a “fourth estate” or “fourth pillar” is often traced to the British parliamentarian Lord Macaulay, who recognised the press as a power that sits beside the formal branches of the state. The phrase captures a simple but powerful idea: a democracy needs an independent body that informs citizens, holds power accountable, and gives voice to those who would otherwise go unheard.

The media performs several functions that democracy cannot do without. It acts as a watchdog, exposing corruption and abuse of power. It serves as a platform for debate, allowing diverse viewpoints to compete in public. And it works as an informer, giving citizens the facts they need to vote, organise, and participate meaningfully. When the press does these jobs well, it strengthens the other three pillars. When it is weakened, the entire democratic structure becomes shakier.

India: a press forged in resistance 🔗

India’s relationship with a free press is deeply tied to its struggle against colonial rule. Print journalism in the region began with Hickey’s Bengal Gazette in 1780, which quickly drew the ire of British authorities for criticising the administration. From that moment, the press and the colonial state were locked in a long contest.

Newspapers as weapons of mobilisation 🔗

During the freedom movement, newspapers were among the most powerful tools available to nationalist leaders. Bal Gangadhar Tilak founded Kesari in Marathi and Mahratta in English to awaken political consciousness, while Mahatma Gandhi used publications like Young India to spread his philosophy of non-violent resistance. These publications did more than report events. They created a shared national identity among people separated by language, region, and caste.

The British understood this threat and responded with repressive laws. The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 targeted Indian-language newspapers critical of the Raj, and the Indian Press Act of 1910 tightened restrictions further. Editors found creative ways to resist. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, for example, famously switched to publishing in English overnight to escape the reach of the Vernacular Press Act. This resilience became part of the DNA of Indian journalism.

From watchdog to constitutional guarantee 🔗

After independence, this tradition continued. The Constitution does not mention the press by name, but the Supreme Court has consistently read press freedom into Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order, and morality.

The watchdog role has remained central. Investigative journalism has exposed corruption scandals and human rights abuses, often forcing policy change. The media’s advocacy was a significant force behind the eventual passage of the Right to Information Act, a landmark transparency law. Institutions like the Press Council of India, a statutory body re-established in 1979 after being dissolved during the Emergency, exist to preserve press freedom and maintain journalistic standards.

The challenges India faces today 🔗

India’s media is among the most vibrant and pluralistic in South Asia, but it is not without problems. Critics point to growing corporate concentration of ownership, the rise of paid news, sensationalism, and the spread of misinformation in the digital age. The Information Technology Rules of 2021, which give the government greater oversight of digital news platforms and social media, have raised concerns about potential censorship even as they aim to curb fake news. The tension between regulating digital media and protecting free expression remains unresolved.

Pakistan: a vibrant but constrained press 🔗

Pakistan’s media is energetic and outspoken, with a lively landscape of television channels and newspapers. Yet it operates under significant constraints, particularly when reporting touches on national security or criticises the government and the powerful military establishment.

A long history of control 🔗

The roots of these restrictions run deep. The 1960 Press and Publications Ordinance under military ruler Ayub Khan gave the government sweeping power to ban publications deemed harmful to national ideology or security, and journalists who criticised authorities faced arrest and imprisonment. The military rule of Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s brought another wave of strict censorship. This pattern of state and military control over the press has echoed across the decades.

National security as a red line 🔗

Today, journalists frequently report that the military and security agencies suppress unfavourable coverage. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) has been accused of pressuring cable operators to block independent news channels, and major newspapers have faced disruptions to their distribution. Reporting on issues like the security situation in regions such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, or on the conduct of the armed forces, often crosses an invisible red line that pushes journalists toward self-censorship.

Draconian laws and digital crackdowns 🔗

Legal tools have become central to controlling the press. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016 has been used repeatedly against independent journalists and social media users. Recent amendments to PECA have been condemned by journalist unions as “draconian black laws” designed to silence dissent, with hundreds of journalists rejecting them at a national convention. The digital space has also been squeezed through internet shutdowns and the blocking of SIM cards and identity documents, according to research by the Media Diversity Institute. Pakistan has ranked low on the World Press Freedom Index and is considered one of the more dangerous countries in the world for journalists.

Bangladesh: from liberation tool to legal cage 🔗

Bangladesh offers perhaps the most striking arc of the three. The press was a vital force during the country’s birth, yet in recent years it has been hemmed in by some of the most restrictive media laws in the region.

A press born in struggle 🔗

The media in Bangladesh has a proud heritage rooted in resistance. During the period when the region was East Pakistan, newspapers like the Daily Ittefaq were penalised for criticising the government, and the press played a central role in the Bengali Language Movement and the eventual war of independence in 1971. After independence, the country developed a diverse media landscape, with respected newspapers such as Prothom Alo and The Daily Star and a growing number of television channels.

The Digital Security Act and its chilling effect 🔗

The turning point came in 2018 with the passage of the Digital Security Act (DSA). The country’s Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the press under Article 39, but the DSA cut sharply against this promise. The law authorised prison sentences of up to 14 years for secretly recording government officials and set similar punishments for spreading “negative propaganda” about the 1971 war of independence and the founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It also allowed police to arrest journalists and seize equipment without a court order.

Editors protested loudly, with the editor of The Daily Star calling for the scrapping of nine sections and warning of a chilling effect on media freedom. Their fears proved well founded. A study by the Clooney Foundation for Justice and the Centre for Governance Studies analysed 222 cases involving 396 journalists, documenting how the law was used to punish reporting and criticism. The result was widespread fear and self-censorship across newsrooms.

A moment of testing and change 🔗

The fragility of media freedom was on full display during the 2024 student protests that ultimately toppled the government. Domestic outlets, long conditioned to caution, struggled at first, while foreign organisations and news agencies played an important role in documenting events during internet shutdowns, as detailed by the Reuters Institute. The episode showed both the dangers of a captured press and the courage that journalists can muster in critical moments. With political change underway, observers continue to call for structural reform of the legal framework that has long constrained Bangladeshi journalism.

Comparing the three pillars 🔗

Looking across the three countries, a clear pattern emerges. All three inherited a press shaped by anti-colonial struggle, and all three constitutions promise freedom of expression. The difference lies in how that promise survives contact with state power.

India has the most pluralistic and constitutionally protected press of the three, though it faces real pressures from ownership concentration, misinformation, and new digital regulations. Pakistan has an energetic media that is repeatedly hemmed in by the military, security concerns, and laws like PECA. Bangladesh has swung from a press that helped build the nation to one constrained by sweeping digital security legislation, now at a moment of potential reform. In each case, the effectiveness of the fourth pillar depends not just on what the constitution says, but on press freedom in practice, the economic independence of media houses, and the professional standards of journalists themselves.

Why this matters for democracy 🔗

The state of the media in these three nations is not just a question for journalists. A weak or captured press means corruption goes unexposed, citizens make decisions on incomplete information, and the powerful escape accountability. A strong, independent press does the opposite. It strengthens every other democratic institution by keeping the public informed and the government honest. The variation across India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is, in a real sense, a measure of how genuinely democratic each system is willing to be.

What do you think? Should national security concerns ever justify restrictions on press freedom, and if so, where should the line be drawn? And as journalism moves increasingly online, do laws written to combat cybercrime inevitably end up threatening the freedom of the press?

References

1. https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR2001432.pdf
2. https://www.nextias.com/ca/editorial-analysis/18-11-2024/role-of-press-in-freedom-struggle-and-contemporary-significance
3. https://uppcsmagazine.com/bal-gangadhar-tilak-and-his-contribution-to-the-freedom-of-the-press/
4. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/freedom-of-press-in-india/
5. https://www.ijllr.com/post/constitutional-role-of-the-media-the-fourth-pillar-of-democracy
6. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=153422&ModuleId=3&reg=3&lang=1
7. https://thediplomat.com/2023/06/pakistans-long-history-of-throttling-press-freedom/
8. https://rsf.org/en/threats-press-freedom-pakistan-hastily-adopted-laws-ahead-elections
9. https://www.media-diversity.org/freedoms-under-fire-pakistans-shrinking-media-space-and-recent-internet-censorship/
10. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/bangladesh-editors-protest-chilling-digital-security-law-181015122440417.html
11. https://cfj.org/news/new-analysis-of-bangladeshs-digital-security-act-reveals-lessons-for-the-future-of-press-freedom/
12. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/self-censorship-documenting-repression-news-medias-role-protests-toppling-bangladeshs-pm
13. https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/409468/why-media-freedom-in-bangladesh-demands-structural