Editorial

In a tense press briefing in Oslo on May 19, 2026, MEA Secretary (West) Sibi George sharply responded to Norwegian journalists questioning India’s human rights record and press freedom. When pressed on why the world should “trust India” and whether Prime Minister Modi would face critical questions from the domestic media, George directed complainants to the courts, highlighted the Constitution, India’s democratic scale, and its global contributions. The robust pushback has gone viral in India, applauded as assertive diplomacy.

The diplomat’s confidence reflects genuine strengths. India remains the world’s largest democracy with regular elections, an independent (though strained) judiciary, and a vibrant Constitution. It has lifted millions out of poverty, maintained relative stability amid staggering diversity, and emerged as a key global partner in technology, energy, and multilateral forums. Civilisational depth and electoral vibrancy are not empty claims.

Yet a defensive posture that dismisses legitimate scrutiny does India no favours. In practical terms, press freedom in India is under significant pressure. Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 World Press Freedom Index ranks India 157th out of 180 countries — a drop from 151st the previous year — placing it in the “very serious” category. Concerns include rising violence and harassment of journalists, concentrated media ownership, overt political alignment in large sections of the press, self-censorship driven by fear of raids, defamation suits, and advertising withdrawals, and selective application of laws such as UAPA and IT Rules.

While hundreds of news channels and digital platforms exist, critical reporting on government policies, especially in conflict zones like Manipur or on sensitive communal issues, often invites backlash. Internet shutdowns, content takedowns, and attacks — both physical and online — remain documented problems. The Supreme Court occasionally intervenes, but structural vulnerabilities persist. Acknowledging these realities is not Western condescension; it is required for honest self-assessment. Norwegian journalists’ tone carried a hint of superiority common in small, wealthy European nations that rarely confront India’s governance complexities. Many Western countries face their own crises of integration, populism, and selective outrage. Lectures on trust ring hollow when partnerships are built on interests, not moral perfection.

However, India’s global aspirations demand credibility at home. A thriving democracy needs a genuinely free press as a watchdog, not a cheerleader. Sibi George’s “go to court” line offers a legalistic answer, but courts alone cannot substitute for open public discourse and fearless journalism. True national strength lies in reforming weaknesses rather than denying them. India should address journalist safety, reduce political interference in media, and widen space for independent voices. Only then will external scepticism lose its sting and domestic trust deepen. Defensive diplomacy may win applause domestically, but sustainable global respect requires both delivery and transparency.

On May 20, 2026, over 12.4 lakh chemists and druggists across India, under the banner of the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD), observed a 24-hour nationwide shutdown. Their core grievances centre on the unregulated expansion of e-pharmacies, deep discounting practices by large platforms, and the continuation of COVID-era relaxations (notably G.S.R. 220(E) and G.S.R. 817(E)) that they argue have created a regulatory grey zone. While hospital and emergency pharmacies remain functional, routine medicine purchases faced disruption, forcing many citizens to stock up in advance.

The chemists’ concerns are legitimate and merit serious attention. Traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies have long served as the backbone of India’s drug distribution network, especially in rural and semi-urban areas where they often double as first-contact healthcare providers. Unverified online sales raise genuine risks: repeated use of old prescriptions, potential dispensing of habit-forming drugs and antibiotics without proper oversight, and the alarming prospect of AI-generated fake prescriptions fuelling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Patient safety cannot be compromised in the pursuit of convenience or profit. Neighbourhood chemists also face existential threats from predatory pricing that undercuts the regulated 16% retail margin, potentially leading to widespread closures and job losses affecting crores of dependents.

Yet the strike also highlights a deeper tension in India’s evolving healthcare landscape. E-pharmacies have democratised access, particularly for patients in remote locations, the elderly, and those with mobility issues. Doorstep delivery during the pandemic proved lifesaving for many. In a country with uneven doctor-patient ratios and vast geographical challenges, technology-enabled solutions can bridge critical gaps in medicine availability and affordability. Blanket opposition to digital models risks ignoring consumer benefits and the inevitability of modernisation.

The real failure lies with successive governments for allowing this conflict to fester. Draft e-pharmacy rules proposed in 2018 have remained in limbo for years. A clear, enforceable regulatory framework — mandating robust prescription verification, traceability, licensed pharmacists, data privacy, and quality controls — is long overdue. Such rules should create a level playing field: strict compliance standards for all players, whether online or offline, while curbing predatory practices. Collaboration models, where e-platforms partner with local chemists rather than displace them, could offer a pragmatic middle path.

This one-day shutdown served as a wake-up call rather than a solution. Prolonged confrontations hurt patients the most — the very people both sides claim to serve. The government must act decisively: notify updated rules, strengthen enforcement by CDSCO and state drug controllers, and facilitate dialogue between traditional retailers and digital players. India needs neither unchecked disruption of local pharmacies nor a digitally stifled sector. What it requires is smart, evidence-based regulation that prioritises patient safety, expands access, and protects legitimate livelihoods. Only then can the pharmacy sector evolve without recurring disruptions that ultimately burden ordinary citizens.

• SAS Kirmani