Himal Southasian Editor Roman Gautam Says Structural Constraints on South Asian Media Undermined the Prospects for Regional Amity

Himal Southasian Editor Roman Gautam has argued that despite many journalists’ best intentions to foster regional cooperation, structural constraints within which South Asian media operates have significantly undermined prospects for regional amity. While acknowledging continued journalistic intent across the region, some which have managed to prevail, he identified financial dependence, political subordination, and the growing gap between intent and outcome as central challenges facing regional media.

Mr. Gautam made these observations when he addressed the RCSS Strategic Dialogue - 3 on the theme “Where does the media stand in connecting (or dividing) Southasia?”, on 2 February 2026 at the Board Room of the RCSS in Colombo. Moderated by the Executive Director of the RCSS Amb. (Retd.) Ravinatha Aryasinha, it brought together serving and retired senior public servants, diplomats, academics, and civil society representatives, and journalists, with additional participation via Zoom of members of the recently formed ‘RCSS Alumni Network’ spread across the globe. ED Aryasinha highlighted the longstanding common vision shared between Himal Southasian founded in 1987 and the RCSS founded in 1992, at a time there were real possibilities for South Asian regionalism and collaboration. He noted that despite the turbulence over the years, both Himal Southasian and the RCSS retained its ‘South Asian Regional Spirit’ enabling scholars and writers in South Asian, and also focussing on South Asia to collaborate on issues of shared concern, retaining a foundation of trust and cross-border engagement.

Gautam opened his remarks by acknowledging the historical role of journalists in South Asian regionalism, noting that journalists have always been involved in informing regional populations about each other and, particularly during the heyday of track-two diplomacy, actively working toward reconciliation across borders. However, he questioned whether fostering state-to-state connections should be the journalists’ role and responsibility, even through track-two channels. More critically, despite continued intent among many journalists across initiatives in the region, a realistic assessment shows severe limitations in fostering genuine regional spirit. The answer, he emphasized, lies in examining the structures within which journalists work today, rather than questioning their motivations or commitment.

He presented cases from recent upheavals in Nepal and Bangladesh to illustrate how media coverage served domestic political interests at the cost of regional goodwill. In each case, stray opinions voiced by a few participants were seized upon and fed to audiences in sensational fashion, with no effort to canvass broader opinion or extensively research issues. Selective coverage that pandered to domestic political interests ignored ground realities and broader contexts. Gautam traced these patterns as pandering to structural realities: reliance on government advertising, corporate capture creating vulnerabilities to state pressure, and ideological alignment. The need for financial survival prompted media to subscribe to official narratives, as failure to abide by the official line could spell financial ruin. Gautam who characterized social media as enabling understanding but also extremism, suggested regional platforms could help bring journalists together, and acknowledged the dire situation faced by persecuted journalists, with no real support mechanisms.

Gautam also discussed SAARC’s past contributions and constraints. Though designed to promote regional collaboration, the organisation’s impact has been limited by political friction, especially between India and Pakistan. However, he noted that programs such as RCSS’s workshops and fellowships prove that non-governmental actors, particularly journalists, can facilitate mutual understanding across borders, even if on a smaller scale. He underscored that such modest initiatives are crucial for building dialogue and knowledge-sharing traditions in South Asia.

During the discussion, participants explored social media’s impact, SAARC revitalization, generational shifts in media consumption, press freedom, disinformation and journalist persecution. Participants debated whose ‘South Asia’ is being discussed, with Gautam emphasizing it as a common cause built on synergies rather than belonging to any single conception. The power-based nature of the current global order was highlighted, with observations that even brave journalists find themselves let down by institutions, and that both external and internal factors limit media’s role in regionalism.

A principal question raised was whether this critique referred to the totality of media or to specific divisive elements. Gautam clarified that all media is not a monolithic and that independent journalists continue working outside these structures across the region, some successfully. He highlighted the efforts being made by Himal Southasian and others to preserve that space. However, an overall point made was that as a result of these structural constraints and negative media practices, South Asian regionalism has suffered badly. He acknowledged that as matters stand currently, there is a very real information gap about South Asian realities among South Asian publics. This was a huge problem that needs to be managed reflectively, and the region’s more enlightened media could play a constructive role in taking up this challenge.

Participants also explored the transformative impact of social media on regional dynamics. Gautam characterized social media as “an ungainly beast” that has enabled widespread understanding of regional issues, but also provides platforms for extremist elements. Questions were raised about whether SAARC revitalization could help foster regionalism. Gautam responded that while SAARC faced severe structural issues, if revitalized with proper intent, it could help particularly by bringing journalists together, and focusing on what unites rather than divides. On generational shifts in media consumption, with new generations bypassing traditional news for viral content, Gautam suggested bringing traditional journalism standards to new platforms while acknowledging the enormous algorithmic power of social media companies that promote sensationalist content. Questions about traditional journalism’s future prompted him to argue that there remains room for good journalism, though industry structures are being reconfigured. He stressed that reach does not mean quality, and that consequential work need not be mass popular.

On regulation, he acknowledged challenges around defining disinformation and trusting governments with factchecking, suggesting the real challenge is regulating platforms whose decisions have impacts without public input. The persecution of journalists was raised as a key concern. Gautam’s response was that while journalists are not alone, there is no real support due to lack of will and resources. He described the current situation as very dire, but suggested the regional mechanisms for journalists could help build actual solidarity.