Modi’s Norway press avoidance sparks renewed press freedom debate in India

A tense exchange between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a Norwegian journalist has highlighted his administration’s pattern of avoiding direct media engagement on contentious issues, drawing fresh scrutiny of press freedom in the world’s most populous democracy.

Helle Lyng Svendsen of the Norwegian daily Dagsavisen asked Modi why he would not take questions from reporters. Later the same day she posed a similar query to a senior Indian diplomat about the country’s human rights record. Modi walked away without replying; the diplomat deflected by citing unrelated aspects of India’s past and then became visibly irritated.

Modi was in Norway on a two-day visit as part of a tour of northern Europe. On Monday he met Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, and on Tuesday he attended the third India-Nordic Summit before flying to Italy to meet Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Wednesday.

Modi has not held a single news conference in India during his 12 years in office. On foreign trips he has only rarely taken questions, including two occasions in Washington D.C. in 2023.

The incidents in Norway have revived criticism from media organisations, which point to India’s declining ranking in global press freedom indices.

So why has Modi’s encounter with a Norwegian journalist sparked such reaction, and what is the state of media freedom in India?

On Monday Modi wrote on X that he was addressing a “press meet” with Norway’s prime minister, but he did not take any questions from reporters.

When Svendsen asked, “Prime Minister Modi, why don’t you take some questions from the freest press in the world?” he simply walked out of the conference room. It is not known whether the Indian leader heard the question.

Svendsen followed Modi out and asked, “Do you deserve the trust of our … [government]?” but received no response.

She later criticised the Indian prime minister on social media.

“In Norway, when foreign leaders visit, the press usually will get to ask questions. Not many, but a few. That was not the case today with Modi, and will not be tomorrow either,” she wrote on X.

She told Al Jazeera on Tuesday: “We were, of course, expecting him not to answer questions, as that is what the PM does. However, it is our duty to try. I am a privileged journalist as I am reporting from one of the safest countries in the world. If I do not dare to ask questions, who will? I know the situation is alarming for my journalist colleagues in India.”

Store initially addressed questions from Norwegian media but not Indian journalists; he later spoke with Indian reporters as well.

Later on Monday, at a separate news conference, Svendsen questioned Indian Ministry of External Affairs Secretary (West) Sibi George about human rights in India and asked why Norway should trust India amid alleged rights violations. Human rights organisations have said religious minorities in particular have faced increasing attacks—physical, psychological and economic—in recent years, with hate crimes and hate speech rising annually. Critics have cited laws on interreligious marriages, religious conversions, and a controversial citizenship law that discriminates against Muslim asylum seekers from neighbouring countries as examples of measures they say undermine India’s secular constitution.

George responded by discussing India’s past—how chess was invented in the country, and how the concept of zero originated there. He spoke of millions of vaccines and medicines India shared with other Global South nations during the COVID-19 pandemic. “So we are proud of that civilisation. Yoga … originated in India,” he said.

At one point Svendsen interrupted him and asked why he was not answering her human rights question.

George, visibly angry, responded: “India is a civilisational country.”

He defended India’s human rights record: “We hear a lot of people asking why this, why that, but let me tell you this. We are one sixth of the total population of the world, but not one sixth of the problems of the world,” he said.

“We have a constitution which guarantees the fundamental rights of the people. We have equal rights for the women of our country, which is very important,” he added.

Svendsen later wrote on X: “Journalism is sometimes confrontational. We seek answers. If any interview subject, especially with power, do not answer what I asked, I will try to interrupt and get a more focused response. That is my job & duty. I want answers and not just talking points.”

The encounter triggered a flurry of comments, social media memes and articles, including in Indian media—some supporting George but many criticising him either for dodging the question or for failing to defend the government adequately.

This is not the first time Modi has faced criticism for avoiding journalists since taking office in 2014.

He has not held a single news conference at home during his 12-year term. He has given interviews, usually to media organisations perceived as close to the government. In at least some cases his office has insisted that media organisations share questions in advance; on occasion it has demanded written responses only, eliminating the possibility of follow-up questions.

In 2023, at a joint news conference in Washington D.C. with then-U.S. President Joe Biden, Wall Street Journal reporter Sabrina Siddiqui tried to ask Modi about the treatment of religious minorities and press freedom in India. Modi replied that democracy is “in India’s DNA” and that the country does not discriminate on the basis of caste, creed or religion. After the question, Siddiqui—a Muslim Pakistani-American journalist—faced intense online harassment and trolling from supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Some targeted her religious faith and questioned her background.

Svendsen told Al Jazeera she too had been subjected to online harassment after the two conferences: “There is a lot of trolling and alarming comments. Some constructive criticism as well, which I welcome.”

“Us Norwegians are direct, so I understand that it might be surprising to some. But most of all, so many supporting people appreciating my question to Modi. It is also impactful that my reporting is being discussed in the political sphere in India,” she said.

Beyond social media commentary from journalists and critics, Indian opposition Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi’s refusal to take questions in Norway, writing on social media, “when there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear”.

“What happens to India’s image when the world sees a compromised PM panic and run from a few questions?” Gandhi wrote on X on Monday.

Kunal Majumder, Asia Pacific programme coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, told Al Jazeera it is a matter of concern for press freedom advocates when leaders of major democracies do not regularly hold open news conferences with unscripted questions.

“In Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s case, such occasions have been notably rare during his time in office,” he said.

He noted that Modi has described himself as among the most criticised politicians in India, and that scrutiny is inevitable in any democracy.

“That is precisely what makes open engagement with the press so important: it enables leaders to respond directly to criticism, clarify their positions, and strengthen public trust in democratic institutions. Encouraging that kind of dialogue—rather than stepping away from it—is, in our view, one of the clearest demonstrations of democratic confidence a leader can offer,” Majumder added.

The visibly angry response of George, the Indian diplomat, to Svendsen’s human rights questions also sparked online debate.

Some X users criticised George’s answers as “whataboutery”.

Veteran Indian journalist Rajdeep Sardesai recalled a time when asking tough, inconvenient questions to leaders and diplomats was the norm.

“Now it’s become so RARE that when a not so tough question is posed by a Norwegian journalist at a press briefing, it becomes a big story and leads to the bona fides and ‘agenda’ of the reporter being questioned!” he wrote on X.

Some journalists criticised Svendsen for walking out of the conference for a period.

“As a journalist you have every right to ask sharp & critical questions; however, you have no right to dictate how you are replied to. Walking out is not journalism but shows an angry activism. The MeA [Ministry of External Affairs] won this round,” Swati Chaturvedi, a print and broadcast journalist in India, wrote on X.

Svendsen later replied: “We had been talking for a while and he did not address human rights violation although I asked multiple times to be more specific.”

Majumder said the space for journalists in India to ask difficult questions of those in power—particularly on human rights, minority rights and democratic accountability—has visibly narrowed over the past decade.

“An important point to underline at the outset is that this is not a concern about any single government or political tradition. The pattern we observe cuts across India’s political spectrum, with ruling parties of differing ideologies in different states resorting to similar forms of pressure on independent media,” he said.

India ranks 157th out of 180 countries in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, a drop of six places from its 2025 ranking of 151.

Majumder said a growing climate of fear and self-censorship exists within Indian journalism because of government actions toward the media.

“The pressures journalists encounter today extend well beyond direct restrictions on publication. They include sustained online harassment, the initiation of legal proceedings, scrutiny by tax and financial-enforcement authorities, and the invocation of laws originally framed for very different purposes,” he said.

He said the government frequently uses agencies such as the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate against media organisations perceived as critical, and applies statutes with exceptionally broad scope and stringent bail provisions—such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act—in cases involving journalists. He added that the CPJ views these developments with “serious concern”.

He added that while the number of imprisoned journalists in India has declined to two, CPJ is increasingly seeing the use of regulatory and legal frameworks to censor and pressure the media in less visible but deeply consequential ways.

“This includes vague takedown orders, content-blocking directives and the blocking of social media accounts belonging to news outlets and prominent journalists,” he said.

On Tuesday, Al Jazeera correspondent Osama Bin Javaid received a takedown order from X for posting a meme on April 13 linked to India and Pakistan. In an email, X told him police in the Indian state of Uttarakhand had claimed the post violated Indian law.

“In such an atmosphere, raising questions about human rights or minority protections carries an added layer of political sensitivity, and the professional risks for journalists who do so become correspondingly higher,” Majumder added.