In mid-February, a crowd blocking the road outside the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) headquarters in London made me almost miss an appointment across the city but sparked a keen interest in something I (and the rest of the world) had forgotten about — 2002’s India.

The BBC released a two-part series called “India: The Modi Question” on Jan. 17 and 24, covering the 2002 riots against Muslims in Gujarat — one of the worst outbreaks of religious violence in India to date. In the aftermath, Narendra Modi’s Gujarat government was accused of complicity by not only tacit approval but perhaps in some cases, also directing the police to stand down; as Home Minister Amit Shah put it (loosely translated), people were “being taught a lesson.” Due to the severity of the allegations against Modi, he was later banned from entering the U.S. and the U.K..

However, in 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court of India based on a lack of evidence. After he was elected as prime minister in 2014, his U.S. visa ban was also lifted.

The documentary takes an in-depth look at then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots. It reveals a previously unpublished report from the British Foreign Office that held him “directly responsible” for what had “all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing.”

The Indian government quickly responded by banning the documentary series in the country, as is customary in many countries, but more on that later. The spokesperson for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs responded to the questions raised against the banning by media outlets with claims of it being a “propaganda piece.” He further claimed that the documentary “was designed to push a particular discredited narrative” showcasing not only “bias” but a “colonial mindset.” Kanchan Gupta, an adviser to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, also called it “propaganda and anti-India garbage, disguised as documentary.” Similarly, many other BJP politicians accused the BBC of having an anti-Modi agenda in revisiting past allegations that courts have dismissed. Indian students who set up screenings of the documentary were arrested and met with violence from right-wing groups and accusations of treason.

Such news makes you wonder…how much authority should a government have over the content the people of its country consume? India is ranked 150 on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index for 2022, meaning it is one of the most dangerous places in the world for a journalist, let alone an anti-establishment journalist who wants to talk about something the government has outrightly banned. With almost all autocracies and war-torn countries below India in the ranking, how democratic is the largest democracy in the world? What does democracy even mean today under such a context?

Having lived in Pakistan for most of my life, I can not help but compare the two neighboring countries. Such oppressive control over the media and censorship is not unique to India but is a common tactic used by many governments around the world. Perhaps that is the one thing that unites the two rival governments. The banning of the documentary is a reflection of a larger trend of governments in South Asia: using propaganda and disinformation to undermine the public’s right to access accurate information, form their own opinions, and hold those in power accountable.

When the state restricts certain forms of media, it can create a ripple effect that trickles down to ground-level attitudes toward free speech, meaning it can change how individuals think about the topic culturally. A study by the University of Oxford in 2017 found that individuals who live in countries with restrictive internet policies are more likely to self-censor online. This is regardless of their personal opinions on freedom of speech. Similarly, the Pew Research Center in 2015 found that in such countries, individuals eventually become more likely to support state censorship of the internet. It becomes a cycle that is almost impossible to overcome.

In Pakistan, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of limited free speech, and that too, with the threat of state-led persecution. Not only can it be incredibly frustrating not to be able to speak openly — of course, this doesn’t include offensive conversations about a group or the like — but it also becomes the norm. The norm where people self-censor themselves to avoid backlash. In countries as ethnically, racially, and politically diverse as India, such should not be the norm; what is the point of such diversity if it does not grow the common person’s perspective and knowledge?

If I reduce it down to a personal level, I have grown much more from conversations where I learned something new, a new perspective toward an issue I hadn’t thought of before, than I did when someone said all the “right things,” and we agreed on everything. The latter may seem more comfortable, but the former is what will help one truly take advantage of diversity in the world.

What people — and governments — need to realize is that regardless of someone’s opinion, it is only appropriate and fair to give them a chance to voice it. Not only would this support freedom of speech in the community, but also educate us about the other perspective — the other side of the story. A documentary critiquing the sitting Prime Minister is not propaganda, it is meant to enlighten the population. Whether or not they choose to support Modi after is completely up to them; the purpose of such forms of media is not to tell people what to think but how to think, taking into account every perspective, every side of a story.