Human Rights Reporting in India and Indonesia: Challenges for Two Asian Democracies

Surakarta / New Delhi — Two of Asia’s largest democracies, India and Indonesia, are once again in the spotlight over their human rights landscape. While both nations uphold democracy in their constitutions, the practice of human rights reporting reveals a more complex reality — one shaped by political pressure, freedom of the press, and the growing influence of digital surveillance.

India: A Vast Democracy with Complex Challenges

India is often described as the world’s largest democracy, marked by immense cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity. Its Constitution, enacted in 1950, guarantees fundamental freedoms including the right to expression. Yet in practice, the press faces recurring obstacles when covering sensitive issues.

Journalists reporting on caste-based discrimination, religious conflict, or national security matters often encounter scrutiny and intimidation. Nowhere is this more evident than in Jammu & Kashmir, where media access remains restricted, reporters are questioned by authorities, and some face legal charges. As a result, human rights reporting in India frequently operates under the tension between journalistic ideals and political realities.

Nevertheless, India retains a highly active press and vocal civil society. Local human rights organizations, academics, and legal communities often collaborate with the media to spotlight violations, keeping public debate alive despite increasing pressures.

Indonesia: Reform Era Gains and Papua as a Flashpoint

Since the Reformasi era of 1998, Indonesia has opened greater space for democracy and freedom of the press. The Press Law and the establishment of Komnas HAM (the National Human Rights Commission) have supported more transparent human rights reporting. Yet significant challenges remain.

Papua continues to be Indonesia’s most sensitive human rights issue. Reports of violence, security force abuses, and limited access for independent journalists raise questions about accountability and transparency. Additionally, the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law has been criticized for curbing free expression, with journalists and activists at risk of prosecution for their digital activities.

On the other hand, Indonesia has shown progress in reporting on labor rights, freedom of religion, and the protection of vulnerable groups. Local and national media, often working alongside human rights organizations, increasingly highlight social justice concerns, reflecting the evolving role of journalism in democratic society.

Similarities and Differences

Both India and Indonesia face similar obstacles: broad legal frameworks used to restrict dissent, limited access in conflict-prone regions, and rising digital threats to press freedom. The difference lies in focus: India struggles with deep-rooted caste and communal tensions, while Indonesia’s most pressing challenge centers on Papua and digital-era regulations.

In both cases, the press serves as a frontline actor — documenting abuses, amplifying marginalized voices, and demanding accountability, even under significant risk.

Conclusion

Human rights reporting in India and Indonesia illustrates the complexities of democracy in Asia. Journalists and civil society organizations remain key to ensuring transparency, exposing violations, and pressing for reforms. The challenges are undeniable: political pressure, restrictive laws, and the risks of digital surveillance. Yet as long as independent voices continue to report, both nations have an opportunity to strengthen democratic values and place human rights at the heart of national development.

────────────

A news by © Happy Annisa Nurhapsari (2025)