Last week’s youth revolt against a ban on social media in Nepal was a clarion call for freeing the media for the sake of democracy and its institutions.

South Asian media, whether print, electronic or digital, are under increasing stress. In every country in the region, the powers-that-be and their thuggish appendages try to dominate the information space with the sole aim of directing narratives to serve narrow partisan ends. The constitutional right to free expression is curbed, or, in some cases, manifestly crushed, to get the rest to submit meekly.

Nepal

The two-day violent agitation in Nepal which overthrew Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli on Tuesday was caused by an accumulation of various grievances. But the trigger for the widespread destruction and arson was Oli’s sudden and blanket ban on social media, the lifeline of “Gen Z” as present-day youth are called.

The ban crippled the only truly accessible and democratic medium of expression in a hierarchical, unequal and oppressive society dominated by a small coterie of moneyed influentials. Small wonder every state institution dominated by the elite, from parliament downwards, was set on fire by irate youth.

According to a report by Media Action Nepal (MAN), between May 2024 and May 2025, Nepal witnessed a deeply troubling erosion of media freedom, marked by intensifying legal, extra-legal and violent attacks against journalists and media houses. There were 32 assaults on press freedom affecting 40 journalists and media houses. Six journalists were arrested on excessive charges. Journalists’ equipment was confiscated both by the government and mobs.

There were cases of access blockage and censorship. However, the most common form of violation was intimidation. There were 22 incidents of intimidation involving 24 journalists and media houses. Physical attacks on journalists were not isolated but coordinated by the politically connected. There were legislative threats too in the form of the Media Council Bill and the Social Media Bill (SMB), which stifled criticism. On top of it all was the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of repression, whether they were state functionaries or political affiliates.

Bangladesh

The “July–August 2024 revolution” in Bangladesh, which overthrew the regime of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and installed a non-partisan interim government led by Nobel Laureate Prof. Muhammad Yunus, was expected to free the media from oppression. But media in Bangladesh continued to be oppressed. Criticism of the interim regime is viewed as counter-revolutionary and is liable to state and mob action.

On 7 July 2025, the Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) of Bangladesh released a report titled Human Rights Situation in Bangladesh January–June 2025, in which it noted that, in six months, 257 journalists had been subjected to torture and harassment in 152 attacks, leaving at least 111 injured.

Further, 20 journalists were assaulted and 34 were threatened. Earlier, on 14 February 2025, Célia Mercier, head of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) South Asia Desk, observed: “The succession of multiple serious attacks against journalists in the past few days indicates a worrying surge in violence against the media. While the interim government’s takeover in August 2024 raised hopes for improvement, journalists’ safety remains unprotected.”

Bangladeshi journalists are also facing arbitrary criminal charges. As reported on 3 May 2025, at least 266 journalists were implicated in various cases related to the events of July and August 2024. And the commonest charge against any member or supporter of Hasina’s party, the Awami League, is murder. The number accused of murder is legion.

Beyond the killing, assault, intimidation and filing of cases, in October 2024 about 85 senior journalists were placed under investigation by the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit (BFIU), at the behest of Muhammad Yunus’ caretaker government. The media houses impacted by the BFIU include: Bangladesh Pratidin, Kaler Kantha, Samakal, Amader Somoy, Dainik Bangla, TV Today, Daily Sun, Ittefaq, Ekushey Sangbad, Ekattor TV, among others.

Pakistan

Pakistan has long been perilous for journalists, where freedom of expression remains an elusive dream. Over the past two years, dozens of journalists have faced forced exile or intimidation by state authorities. Journalist Arshad Sharif was killed in a case of “mistaken identity” in Kenya in 2023. That case is still pending in the country’s Supreme Court.

The recent introduction of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 (PECA 2025) introduces strict government control over digital platforms, criminalises misinformation, and expands state surveillance. The legislation created the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, a powerful entity tasked with regulating social media platforms and content.

The government claims that the law aims to protect citizens from online harassment and hate speech, but critics contend that it is overly broad and will suppress dissenting voices in the country.

In 2024 alone, according to RSF, 11 journalists were killed in Pakistan, making it the most dangerous country for journalism in South Asia, followed by Bangladesh.

Maldives

In the Maldives, a petition signed by 151 journalists from 41 news outlets, including freelancers, was submitted to both the People’s Majlis and the President’s Office last week urging the withdrawal of the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill (MMBR bill), which critics say would severely undermine press freedom.

The draft bill, currently under review by the parliament committee on independent institutions, would replace the Maldives Broadcasting Commission and the Maldives Media Council with a new Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission. The seven-member body would include three presidential appointees and four members elected by established media outlets. The president would also appoint the chair.

Critics say the measure risks placing the media under direct government control. Under the proposed legislation, the commission would have sweeping powers, including the authority to suspend media registrations during investigations, block news websites, halt broadcasts, and impose fines for non-compliance with commission rules.

Local media organisations, including the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) and the Maldives Media Council (MMC), have strongly criticised the legislation. The MMC said the bill “opens the door for unfair action against the media” and would roll back constitutional protections, including the right of journalists not to reveal their sources under Article 28. The MJA warned that vague terms in the bill are “ripe for abuse” and that punitive measures would effectively criminalise journalism.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said the legislation “lacks legitimacy” and bypasses necessary consultation with the media industry, undermining democracy and press freedom. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and 20 other civil society organisations have urged President Mohamed Muizzu to withdraw the bill immediately, citing its threat to media independence and the public’s right to know.

The opposition leader and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson, Fayyaz Ismail, said that the bill “is another poorly concealed attempt to dismantle media freedom.” He warned that it would grant the commission “unchecked authority to block, ban, and fine independent media sources and to stifle all forms of dissent.”

India

On 16 May 2025, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) presented a damning analysis of the state of press freedom in India. The organisation urged the immediate release of media professionals detained for doing their job and for the abusive legal proceedings against them to be dropped.

It called for an end to impunity for crimes committed against journalists, noting that two to three journalists have died each year over the past decade.

RSF called for an end to media raids and the arrests of journalists, often carried out under the guise of anti-terrorism laws or tax regulations. This judicial harassment has reached a critical level for independent news media, and authorities regularly implement legislation that falls outside the proper legal framework applicable to the press.

It condemned the increasingly severe restrictions on access to reliable information in Kashmir and several northeastern states, and the challenges to accessing sources and data, which journalists need to be able to report properly.

Sri Lanka

On 5 May 2025, RSF ranked Sri Lanka as 139th out of 180 countries in its 2025 World Press Freedom Index, a modest improvement from its 2024 ranking of 150th.

Yet, journalism continues to face significant challenges. RSF highlights that press freedom issues in Sri Lanka are closely tied to the legacy of armed conflict. While Sri Lankan law does not explicitly restrict freedom of expression, there are no guarantees for the protection of journalists.

The 1973 law establishing the Press Council allows the president to appoint most of its members. Additionally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act has been used to silence dissenting voices, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is often employed to suppress journalists, particularly those investigating conditions of the Tamil minority in the North and East.

In January 2024, the Sri Lankan parliament passed an internet regulation law creating the Online Safety Commission, whose members are appointed by the president. Under the guise of defending “national security,” this commission can censor content and the accounts of dissident voices on social media and suspend the confidentiality of their sources.

Although no journalist has been killed in Sri Lanka since 2015, previous killings have gone completely unpunished.