THE law minister’s veiled warning to the media to “exercise caution” and not cross “red lines” while talking about the Middle East conflict is reflective of how the government has come to view its relationship with the fourth estate. The remarks were prompted by the “unease” of some “friendly countries” regarding what some Pakistanis had said on air and on social media, according to the law minister. He also pointed to Article 19 of the Constitution, which he interpreted as restricting public commentary on Pakistan’s relations with foreign states. But is that really the Constitution’s intent? It must be pointed out that media scrutiny of whether a nation’s foreign policies actually serve its interests is precisely what independent journalism is supposed to do. It does, therefore, seem quite unreasonable to assert that the Constitution expects the press to abdicate its watchdog role and “leave it to the state to decide” on matters of foreign policy.

There is also the question of what happens if tomorrow this government, or a new one, completely reverses course on Pakistan’s foreign relations. Will journalists and commentators then be expected to pivot their coverage and opinion accordingly? Would that not turn the media into a mere instrument of the state? Also, it is unsettling to hear that ‘friendly states’ get a veto over what local media can say. The media should, without a doubt, be cognisant of national security sensitivities. But cognisance is not the same as compliance. The media’s job is to hold foreign policy to account, not mirror it unquestioningly. The law minister seems to have conflated responsible journalism with loyal journalism; the two are not the same thing and, in a democracy, can never be. It is commendable that Pakistan is attempting to build bridges, and has understood that this is a sensitive task. However, the government seems to be interpreting the Constitution too expansively here. It should let the press exercise its mandate.

Published in Dawn, March 13th, 2026