The Prime Minister Who Would Not Take Questions

From Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington to Helle Lyng in Oslo — the Story of How India’s Democracy Learned to Fear the Press

When journalists ask questions abroad that Indian media no longer dares to ask at home, the crisis is no longer about journalism alone — it is about democracy itself.

By Ramphal Kataria

There was a time when Indian prime ministers argued with journalists, sparred with editors, defended themselves in hostile press conferences, and treated uncomfortable questions as part of democratic life. Today, India has a Prime Minister who has completed twelve years in office without holding a single open, unscripted press conference.

That fact alone should disturb every citizen of a constitutional democracy.

The controversy surrounding Norwegian journalist Helle Lyng during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Norway is therefore not an isolated diplomatic episode. It is a mirror. A mirror reflecting the shrinking space for independent journalism in India, the transformation of media into political spectacle, and the emergence of a political culture where power no longer tolerates scrutiny.

Lyng asked a question so basic that in any healthy democracy it would barely qualify as controversy:

“Why don’t you take questions from the freest press in the world?”

That was it.

Not sedition.
Not conspiracy.
Not defamation.
Just a question.

And yet the question travelled across the world precisely because India’s political climate has made such questions extraordinary.

The Fear of Unscripted Democracy

Modi is perhaps the most media-visible leader in modern Indian history, yet simultaneously the least accessible to independent media questioning.

He appears constantly:

on giant television screens,

in carefully choreographed interviews,

in monologues like Mann Ki Baat,

in podcasts,

in cinematic documentaries,

in election spectacles,

in social media productions.

But the communication is almost always one-directional.

The Prime Minister speaks. The nation listens.

Questions are either pre-selected, softened, redirected, or eliminated altogether.

This explains why Lyng’s question struck a nerve internationally. The issue was not merely that Modi avoided a question. It was that the avoidance has become institutionalized.

India today has perhaps the world’s most media-conscious leadership and simultaneously one of the least press-accessible democratic governments.

The irony becomes sharper when contrasted with earlier prime ministers.

Prime Minister	Press Engagement
Jawaharlal Nehru	Frequent press conferences and editorial interactions
Indira Gandhi	Controlled but still responsive to media
Atal Bihari Vajpayee	Open engagement and spontaneous interaction
Manmohan Singh	Regular national and foreign press conferences
Narendra Modi	Predominantly one-directional communication

India’s Prime Ministers and Press Engagement

 

Even the often-criticised Manmohan Singh faced hostile media questioning repeatedly. Yet he still addressed press conferences and answered uncomfortable questions. His famous remark now feels prophetic:

“History will be kinder to me than the contemporary media.”

The Sabrina Siddiqui Precedent

This was not the first time.

In June 2023, during Modi’s state visit to the United States, Sabrina Siddiqui of The Wall Street Journal asked Modi a direct question on minority rights and freedom of speech in India.

She asked:

“There are many human rights groups who say your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence critics…”

The response to Siddiqui was immediate and vicious.

She was trolled online.
Abused.
Targeted for her Muslim identity.
Accused of being anti-India.

The White House itself publicly condemned the harassment campaign against her.

Now, three years later, the same pattern repeats with Helle Lyng.

A foreign journalist asks a democratic question.
A nationalist outrage machine activates.
The journalist becomes the story instead of the question.

This is how democratic decline normalizes itself.

The Media That Once Questioned Power

Indian journalism was not always like this.

Under Jawaharlal Nehru, the press was often sharply critical. Nehru still addressed journalists frequently and tolerated dissenting editors. He understood that criticism was not an insult to democracy but evidence of it.

Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency and censored the press outright — the darkest chapter in Indian media history. Newspapers resisted, journalists were jailed, and censorship became explicit state policy.

But what makes the current era more dangerous is that censorship is often unofficial.

No formal Emergency exists.

No written censorship order is necessary.

The media largely disciplines itself.

This is more sophisticated than authoritarian censorship because it creates the illusion of freedom while hollowing it out internally.

From Watchdog to Megaphone

Indian television journalism after 2014 underwent a structural transformation.

The media that aggressively questioned the UPA government over:

corruption scandals,

inflation,

governance paralysis,

policy failures,

suddenly became deferential once the BJP came to power.

The same anchors who once screamed nightly against state power began defending it.

The same channels that demanded accountability began manufacturing consent.

Criticism of government policy increasingly became framed as:

anti-national,

urban Naxal,

toolkit politics,

foreign conspiracy,

anti-Hindu propaganda.

The result is what popular political vocabulary now calls “Godi Media” — media sitting in the lap of power.

The phrase survived because millions recognized the truth behind it.

The Business Model of Silence

Indian media’s crisis is not merely ideological. It is structural.

Large sections of Indian media today are no longer journalism institutions. They are corporate-political ecosystems dependent upon:

government advertising,

regulatory protection,

corporate ownership,

political access,

business interests.

This transformed journalism from public accountability into market-managed nationalism.

Television news especially became less about reporting and more about emotional mobilization.

Debates became theatre.
Anchors became prosecutors.
Dissenters became enemies.

The objective shifted from informing citizens to manufacturing political mood.

The Fall of NDTV and the Message It Sent

Perhaps no event symbolized this transformation more than the takeover of NDTV by the Adani Group.

For decades, NDTV represented one of the few mainstream television spaces that maintained relative editorial independence. Its founders, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, faced years of investigative pressure, raids, regulatory scrutiny, and financial stress before the eventual corporate acquisition.

Whether one supports NDTV or not is irrelevant.

The political message was unmistakable:
Independent media can survive only within limits tolerated by power.

The takeover signaled to every newsroom in India that autonomy carries costs.

India’s Declining Press Freedom Ranking

According to the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, India’s ranking has steadily fallen in the last decade.

Norway consistently ranks near the top. India has slipped deep into the lower tiers globally.

The ranking is not merely symbolic.

It reflects:

intimidation of journalists,

raids on media institutions,

concentration of ownership,

online harassment,

sedition and anti-terror laws,

shrinking editorial independence,

violence against reporters.

Government supporters dismiss these rankings as “Western bias.” But dismissing every criticism as foreign conspiracy has become the easiest substitute for introspection.

India’s Press Freedom Ranking Over the Years

(Reporters Without Borders – World Press Freedom Index)

Year	India’s Rank	Political Context
2002	80	Coalition era, expanding private media
2010	122	UPA-II, rise of aggressive TV journalism
2014	140	BJP comes to power
2016	133	Nationalist television consolidation intensifies
2020	142	Increasing raids, sedition cases, internet shutdowns
2023	161	One of India’s lowest rankings globally
2024	159	Slight improvement, concerns remain
2025	151	Continued criticism over media concentration
2026	Around 157	Ongoing concerns regarding press autonomy

Meanwhile, Norway has consistently ranked either first or among the top three countries globally in press freedom.

The government dismisses these rankings as biased. Yet the rankings reflect measurable realities — intimidation of journalists, concentration of ownership, raids on media organisations, internet shutdowns, online harassment, and shrinking editorial independence.

When foreign journalists repeatedly ask India about press freedom, it is because India’s democratic image is visibly eroding.

The irony is painful: journalists abroad increasingly ask the questions that Indian mainstream television abandoned long ago.

Why Norway’s Role Matters

The Oslo episode also raises uncomfortable questions for Norway itself.

If Norway prides itself on being among the world’s freest press environments, why did it permit a joint appearance without open questioning?

Why are democratic governments increasingly accommodating media-managed political events for powerful leaders?

Modern diplomacy increasingly resembles stage management.

Questions are filtered.
Interactions are choreographed.
Journalists are contained.
Optics replace scrutiny.

Ironically, Helle Lyng ended up defending the spirit of democratic journalism more vigorously than many large Indian media houses currently do.

And instead of solidarity, she received trolling, abuse, and suspension of social media accounts.

The Manufactured Nationalism of Media

One of the greatest achievements of the current political-media ecosystem has been equating criticism of government with insult to the nation.

If a journalist questions the Prime Minister:
they insult India.

If international media reports democratic decline:
they target India.

If human rights concerns are raised:
they attack civilization.

This fusion of leader, state, civilization, religion, and nationalism is deeply dangerous because it eliminates democratic distinction between:

nation and government,

patriotism and obedience,

journalism and propaganda.

A democracy survives only when power remains question-able.

The moment questioning itself becomes suspicious, democracy begins mutating into spectacle.

The Silence of Indian Journalism

Perhaps the saddest part of the Helle Lyng episode was not the government’s defensiveness.

Governments everywhere dislike difficult questions.

The tragedy was the silence of much of Indian mainstream media.

Many Indian journalists privately admit what foreign correspondents publicly ask:

access journalism dominates Delhi,

editorial independence is shrinking,

owners influence coverage,

political proximity determines careers.

Yet very few say it openly.

That is why foreign journalists increasingly ask the questions Indian television abandoned long ago.

Manmohan Singh and the Difference Between Criticism and Fear

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh faced relentless media hostility during his tenure.

He was mocked as weak, silent, indecisive, and remote.

Yet he held press conferences.

He answered hostile questions.

He tolerated ridicule.

And he famously said:

“History will be kinder to me than the contemporary media.”

That statement now appears almost prophetic.

Because the issue is no longer whether media criticizes governments too much.

The crisis now is whether media still possesses enough independence to criticize power at all.

Democracy Cannot Function Without Discomfort

A free press is not supposed to make governments comfortable.

Journalism is not public relations.
Questions are not insults.
Accountability is not anti-nationalism.

When journalists fear power, democracy weakens.

When media becomes spectacle, truth becomes negotiable.

When leaders avoid scrutiny, institutions decay silently.

And when foreign correspondents must ask the questions domestic media no longer asks, the crisis has already become international.

Helle Lyng’s question was not merely directed at Narendra Modi.

It was directed at the condition of Indian democracy itself.

And the discomfort it generated may have answered the question more honestly than any official response ever could.