The Shrinking Middle: India’s Vanishing Neutral Space

There was a time when occupying the middle ground in public life was not seen as evasive or opportunistic. It was considered mature. One could disagree with a government policy without being labelled anti-national; one could appreciate a leadership decision without being branded partisan. Today, that middle space appears to be contracting rapidly.

Increasingly, public discourse in India is framed in binary terms: pro-Modi or anti-Modi. There seems to be little patience for positions that do not fit neatly into either category. The demand is for clarity of allegiance, not complexity of thought. In such a climate, neutrality is not just unfashionable-it is suspect.

From my own experience in journalism over the decades, I can say this shift is not theoretical-it is lived.

There was a time when one could evaluate a government decision on merit and move on. Today, even calibrated commentary attracts instant categorisation. If I praise a particular administrative step taken by Himanta Biswa Sarma, say, a governance reform or a decisive intervention, I risk being labelled “embedded media.” 

If I criticise the same government on another issue-policy gaps, tone, institutional concerns-I am quickly dismissed as a “Congressi dalal.”The space for issue-based assessment is shrinking. The demand is not for analysis but for allegiance.

In earlier newsroom cultures, disagreement was professional. Editors debated lines, reporters questioned power, and governments were scrutinised without the assumption of ideological enmity. One could critique policy and still be invited for a briefing the next day. One could appreciate governance and still ask difficult questions. The system was imperfect, but it allowed gradation.
Today, gradation is suspect.

No Neutral Space

The public mood often insists on total alignment. If you are not fully endorsing, you are opposing. If you are not opposing, you are endorsing. The idea that a journalist might support one policy and oppose another-on evidence, on principle-appears inconvenient to both camps.

As someone who has reported through multiple political cycles, I find the current moment particularly stark. The polarisation is sharper, the reactions faster, the labelling harsher. Social media amplifies every remark, strips it of context, and feeds it into partisan circuits.

What troubles me most is not criticism itself-criticism is healthy-but the collapse of trust in professional independence. The assumption now is that every position must have a hidden sponsor, every nuance a concealed agenda.

This does not merely narrow media space; it narrows civic imagination. When society refuses to accept that one can think independently, policy by policy, issue by issue, the middle becomes inhospitable.

The Binary Society

Polarisation is not unique to India. Across democracies, political identity has become a primary marker of social belonging. But in India’s current moment, the divide is particularly sharp. Political preference has begun to shape friendships, professional relationships, cultural consumption, and even family conversations.

One group sees the present leadership as transformational, strong on national security, decisive in governance, and assertive on the global stage. The other views the same period through the lens of institutional strain, civil liberties concerns, and social fragmentation. Both narratives are passionately defended.

Between them lies a shrinking corridor: citizens who evaluate issues case by case, who support some policies and critique others, who refuse to reduce their civic identity to a single political position. That corridor is growing narrower.

Suspicion As Default

The cost of neutrality today is mistrust from both ends. If you refuse to endorse the government unequivocally, you are seen as covertly aligned with its critics. If you acknowledge policy achievements or electoral legitimacy, you are viewed as complicit in power.

The neutral individual often faces a peculiar form of scrutiny: “Why are you silent?” “Why are you not taking a stand?” “Whose side are you really on?” The expectation is not thoughtful engagement but visible alignment.

In such an atmosphere, nuance becomes vulnerable. Complexity is mistaken for confusion; caution for cowardice.

The Emotional Economy Of Polarisation

Polarisation is sustained by emotion. Anger, pride, fear, and loyalty are powerful mobilisers. Certainty is comforting; ambiguity is unsettling. When political identity becomes deeply intertwined with personal identity, disagreement feels existential rather than procedural.

This emotional intensity shapes public conversations. Positions are amplified when they are sharp and unyielding. Moderation rarely trends. The language of debate shifts from persuasion to denunciation.

As a result, those in the middle often retreat-not necessarily because they lack conviction, but because they are fatigued by confrontation. The neutral space does not disappear overnight; it erodes gradually through withdrawal.

The Disappearing Shared Ground

A healthy democracy depends on shared civic ground. Citizens may disagree on ideology, but they agree on process-on the legitimacy of elections, the authority of institutions, and the value of dialogue. When polarisation deepens, even these shared foundations can become contested terrain.

The more society fragments into echo chambers, the harder it becomes to sustain conversations across divides. Each side consumes information, arguments, and narratives that reinforce its worldview. The other side is not merely wrong; it is distrusted.

In such an environment, the neutral voice struggles not because it lacks substance, but because it lacks a clearly defined constituency. It is quieter, less organised, and less emotionally mobilised. It does not chant; it deliberates.

Is The Middle Truly Empty?

It would be inaccurate to say that the neutral space does not exist. Many Indians occupy it. They are professionals, students, entrepreneurs, civil servants, homemakers, and citizens who engage with politics but resist absolutism. They believe that governance can be assessed policy by policy. They accept that leadership can be strong and still imperfect.

However, this group is less visible in a climate that rewards volume over reflection. Silence is mistaken for absence. Caution is interpreted as complicity.

The shrinking of the middle is therefore partly perceptual and partly structural. The loudest voices set the tone of the debate. The quieter ones adapt or withdraw.

The Democratic Risk

When society is rigidly divided into two camps, public discourse hardens. Every issue becomes binary. Every disagreement becomes a loyalty test. The space for compromise narrows, and governance itself can become framed as a permanent ideological contest.

The danger is not disagreement; disagreement is intrinsic to democracy. The danger is the delegitimisation of those who refuse to conform to polarised identities. When neutrality is treated as betrayal, the civic centre weakens.

Reclaiming Complexity

Reclaiming the middle does not mean diluting conviction. It means restoring the legitimacy of complexity. It means recognising that citizens can admire leadership and still demand accountability; they can critique policy without rejecting the nation; they can resist labels without lacking principles.

A plural society requires room for layered identities and evolving opinions. The middle path is rarely glamorous. It is often misunderstood. But it serves an essential function: it keeps open the possibility of dialogue.

The middle is essential. Democracies are not sustained by applause or outrage alone. They are sustained by scrutiny that is fair, by praise that is earned, and by criticism that is principled.

From where I stand, after decades in this profession, the middle has not disappeared, but it is under pressure. Whether we defend it or surrender it will shape not only journalism, but the quality of public life itself.

The shrinking middle is not yet extinct, but it is under strain. Whether it continues to contract or regains confidence will shape not only political debate, but the tone of society and its media going forward.