A figure of ₹910.4 crore spent on print-media advertising between 2020–21 and 2024–25 has triggered a fresh debate over the Indian government’s relationship with the media.
The spending figure was reported from information shared by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in Parliament. The Central Bureau of Communication (CBC), which handles government communication across print, television, outdoor and digital platforms, is the government’s principal advertising and outreach mechanism.
The number is certainly large.
But the bigger question isn’t simply “Why did the government spend ₹910 crore?”
The more important question is:
How was that money spent—and how do we know that public advertising is serving citizens rather than protecting the government’s image?
₹910.4 Crore: What Does the Number Actually Represent?
The reported ₹910.4 crore covers government spending on print-media advertisements over five financial years, from 2020–21 through 2024–25.
It should therefore not be described as money personally spent by Prime Minister Narendra Modi or as money spent exclusively on political advertising.
Government advertising can cover a wide range of legitimate purposes, including:
Public-health campaigns
Government schemes
Employment and recruitment notices
Welfare programmes
Public-service announcements
Tender and statutory notices
Emergency communications
Awareness campaigns
Information about government policies and initiatives
The CBC’s own description says it provides communication services to ministries, departments, PSUs and autonomous bodies, using print, audio-visual, outdoor and new-media platforms to inform citizens about government programmes.
So calling the entire ₹910.4 crore “PR expenditure” would go beyond what the figure itself establishes.
But that doesn’t mean the spending should escape scrutiny.
The Interesting Part: Who Received the Money?
According to the parliamentary data reported in connection with the figure, The Times of India was the largest recipient over the five-year period, receiving approximately ₹78.22 crore.
It was followed by:
Dainik Jagran — ₹59.14 crore
Hindustan Times — ₹47.80 crore
Other major newspaper groups also received substantial government advertising.
This immediately raises an important democratic question:
Does government advertising merely follow readership—or can advertising allocations influence the financial incentives of news organisations?There is no basis to conclude from the spending figures alone that a newspaper changed its editorial position because it received government advertisements.
That would require evidence.
But the broader conflict-of-interest question is legitimate.
Government Advertising Is Not Automatically “Media Control”
This distinction is essential.
A newspaper receiving government advertising does not prove that the government controls its journalism.
Likewise, a government placing advertisements in a newspaper doesn’t automatically mean it is purchasing favourable coverage.
Government departments have legitimate reasons to reach large audiences.
The problem begins when advertising decisions become:
reward for favourable coverage,
or
punishment for critical reporting.
If either happens, it becomes a serious threat to media independence.
That is why transparent allocation criteria matter.
The Government Already Has an Advertising Infrastructure
The system isn’t simply ministers calling newspaper editors and saying, “Please print this.”
The Central Bureau of Communication operates formal processes for empanelment and advertising.
Its official portal lists procedures concerning print-media empanelment, rate contracts, publication verification and advertising policies.
The CBC was created in 2017 through the integration of the former DAVP, Directorate of Field Publicity and Song & Drama Division and now operates a nationwide communication network.
That means the debate should focus on how the system is being used, not pretend that government advertising itself is inherently improper.
But Here’s Where the Controversy Begins
Government communication has changed dramatically in the digital era.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s 2024–25 annual report describes increased use of:
Instagram Reels
Hindi and regional-language content
Meme-based graphics
Digital platforms
Video campaigns
The NaViGate Bharat video repository
The report says NaViGate Bharat had more than 2,900 videos covering government development and citizen-welfare initiatives.
So why is the government still spending hundreds of crores on newspapers?
The answer may be simple: print media still reaches millions of people, particularly beyond India’s largest cities.
But it also creates an obvious question:
In an increasingly digital India, is every rupee spent on traditional advertising still delivering the best public value?
And Then Comes the “PR Government” Allegation
Critics argue that the Modi government has built an unusually sophisticated political communication ecosystem.
There are:
Slogans.
Campaigns.
Government achievements.
Videos.
Reels.
Infographics.
Newspaper advertisements.
Billboards.
Social-media campaigns.
Supporters would call this modern governance communication.
Critics call it government-funded image management.
The truth is likely more complicated.
A government has to communicate.
But communication can gradually become promotion.
And promotion can gradually become political branding.
That’s the line that needs guarding.
The Taxpayer's Question Is Simple
Nobody should object to the government telling citizens:
“This vaccination programme is available.”
“This scheme can help you.”
“This disaster warning is important.”
“This recruitment notice has been issued.”
That’s public communication.
But taxpayers are entitled to ask:
How much of government advertising is genuinely necessary information—and how much is simply celebrating the government itself?
*If an advertisement primarily tells citizens that the government has done something wonderful, rather than telling them how they can access a service, the distinction becomes increasingly blurred.
₹910 Crore Sounds Massive—But Context Matters
₹910.4 crore over five years works out to roughly ₹182 crore per year on average.
That doesn’t make the expenditure trivial.
But it does put the headline figure into perspective.
Nor does the figure represent the government’s entire advertising and communication expenditure across every medium.
The government also uses television, radio, outdoor advertising, digital platforms, exhibitions and other communication channels.
So the ₹910.4 crore figure should not be presented as:
“The government spent ₹910 crore on propaganda.”
The evidence supports a narrower statement:
The government spent ₹910.4 crore on print-media advertising over five years.
What proportion was public-service communication versus promotional messaging is the question that deserves further investigation.
The Sarcasm Writes Itself
Imagine the taxpayer’s morning newspaper:
Page 1: Government scheme advertisement.
Page 2: Government achievement advertisement.
Page 3: Government campaign.
Page 4: Government anniversary message.
Page 5: Government says the government is doing great.
Taxpayer:
“At least the newspaper is being delivered. My road still isn’t.” Of course, that’s satire—not evidence.
But it captures the public frustration behind the controversy.
Does Spending on Advertising Mean “Zero Ground Work”?
Absolutely not.
That conclusion cannot be drawn from the ₹910.4-crore figure.
Government expenditure on advertising tells us how much was spent on advertising.
It doesn’t tell us whether roads were built, hospitals improved, jobs were created or welfare programmes succeeded.
Those questions require completely different datasets.
If someone wants to establish that the government has delivered “zero ground work,” they would need evidence from infrastructure, employment, health, education, poverty, public-service delivery and other sectors.
An advertising bill cannot be used as a report card for an entire government.
But Government PR Deserves Scrutiny Too
There is a legitimate democratic principle here:
Public money should primarily serve the public—not political vanity. Government advertising should ideally be:
Informative
Necessary
Fact-based
Clearly identified as government communication
Proportionate
Distributed through transparent criteria
Independent of editorial favour or criticism
And citizens should be able to see where the money goes.
What Should Be Made Public?
A genuinely transparent system could publish an annual advertising dashboard showing:
1. Total expenditure
Broken down by print, television, radio, digital and outdoor media.
2. Publication-wise payments
So taxpayers can see who received how much.
3. Campaign-wise expenditure
How much was spent on health, welfare, recruitment, schemes and other campaigns.
4. Objective of each campaign
Was it public information or promotional communication?
5. Audience and circulation data
Why was a particular publication selected?
6. Procurement and rate information
Were advertisements purchased at approved rates?
7. Political neutrality safeguards
Were government advertisements free from partisan political messaging?
That would turn a political controversy into an accountability exercise.
The Media’s Side of the Story Matters Too
There is another uncomfortable question.
If newspapers depend heavily on government advertising, particularly when the traditional print industry is facing economic pressure, does that create an unhealthy financial dependency?
Again, dependency is not proof of editorial compromise.
Journalistic independence ultimately depends on editorial standards, ownership structures, newsroom culture, multiple revenue sources and professional ethics.
But transparency can reduce suspicion.
The Real Battle Is Not Print vs Digital
Nor is it BJP vs Opposition.
The deeper issue is:
Who controls the narrative when the government is also one of the largest advertisers? A healthy democracy needs government communication.
It also needs a media capable of asking the government uncomfortable questions.
Those two things can coexist.
But only if there are clear boundaries.
Final Take**
The reported ₹910.4 crore spent on print-media advertising between 2020–21 and 2024–25 is a legitimate subject for public scrutiny.
But the figure alone does not prove “100% PR-based governance,” government control of the media, or that the Modi government has delivered “zero ground work.”
Those are political conclusions that require separate evidence.
What the number does justify is a very reasonable democratic demand:
Show us where every rupee went. Tell citizens which campaigns were run.
Explain why particular newspapers received particular amounts.
Publish the criteria.
Separate public-service information from political self-promotion.
And make sure government advertising never becomes an invisible bargaining chip between those who govern and those who report on the government.
Because taxpayers shouldn’t have to wonder whether they are funding a public-information system—or an extremely expensive national press-release department.
The government has every right to communicate its work. The media has every right to question it. And citizens have every right to ask who paid for the advertisement.
