20 Mar 2026 | Europe and Central Asia, News, United Kingdom
Could there be a more urgent need for an independent source of news and information with international reach and a historic track record of support for political dissidents and exiles from authoritarian regimes? If the BBC World Service didn’t exist, this would be a very good time to invent it.
So it is excellent news that Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an increase in funding of £33m over the next three years.
The settlement was said to be a priority for outgoing Director-General, Tim Davie, but MPs and campaign groups had warned of uncertainty as the deadline of the end of the financial year approached.
At the end of February, Index coordinated a letter from nine free expression and journalism organisations calling on Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper to make the funding available and ensure a sustainable funding model for the future. Now the BBC is calling on the government to take back full responsibility for funding the service, as it did until 2014.
The news of the funding settlement comes less than two months after the BBC announced the launch of an emergency radio programme for Iran in response to the internet blackout. In a move reminiscent of the work of Radio Free Europe and the World Service during the Cold War, BBC News Persian has been made available on mediumwave and shortwave to provide a half-hour programme broadcast every evening to Iran.
Funding for the programme had been found from existing sources. But when Fiona Crack, Interim Global Director of BBC News announced the launch of the service in January, before the start of the current conflict, she made it clear that the cash could only be guaranteed until the end of March.
In making the announcement, the foreign secretary paid tribute to the work of the World Service in Iran: “In a world of rising disinformation, the BBC World Service provides hundreds of millions with journalism they can trust and rely on. We are seeing in real time how the BBC Persian service is playing a crucial role in ensuring impartial, accurate news is reaching the Iranian people.”
The BBC has developed a strong recent tradition of emergency radio news services launched in response to conflicts and disasters. In February, the BBC launched a news service for Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Emergency radio broadcasts were setup for Gaza and Sudan in 2023 and in Syria after the fall of Assad. In In April 2025, a BBC News Burmese satellite channel provided news in the aftermath of Myanmar earthquake.
A report from the Public Accounts Committee warned of the wider consequences of cuts to the World Service. Speaking earlier this month. Conservative chair of the PAC, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: ” It risks opening the door to propaganda from hostile states filling the void it leaves behind. At a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, the UK cannot afford to lose such a crucial soft power instrument.”
Those who have worked at the World Service understand the importance of this element of the BBC’s output and the unique culture it engenders. Writing in The Times this week, columnist Libby Purves remembered her time as a young producer at the World Service HQ at Bush House in the 1970s. She told the story of taking an Angolan friend to lunch who explained how much the World Service had meant during her country’s civil war, “but when I pointed out one of its newsreaders eating lasagne at the next table she dared not be introduced lest emotion overwhelm her”.
I had a similar experience with a Ghanian friend in the early 90s, who insisted on having our photo taken together outside Bush House when he discovered I worked at the World Service. I was in a very lowly position in the organisation, but told me I should feel privileged. And he was right.
I was working at BBC English at the time, which specialised in teaching English as a foreign language, and represented the very essence of soft power. At the time, Managing Director John Tusa had a vision for the World Service in the post-Cold War era, which included a “Marshall Plan for the Mind” to promote British commercial and cultural interests in the post-Communist world.
As the son of a Czech exile Tusa understood how vital the World Service was. Born in Zlín, in former Czechoslovakia, he and his family fled to Britain in 1939 to escape the Nazis.
We need that vision now.
18 Mar 2026 | Americas, Iran, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News, United States
What actually happened when the Minab school in Iran was bombed matters.
For a few moments last week I thought the Italian novelist Elena Ferrante had died. She hadn’t. It was fake news, spread on X. Before her death was debunked, thousands had engaged with the “news”. Stories like this (and there have been plenty of other faux celebrity deaths) do so well because of our inherent cognitive bias. We see them, we get very emotional – Ferrante is a beloved author – and in that moment we short-circuit critical thinking and head straight to a response – outrage, upset, even schadenfreude.
It’s a similar story with Iran. Israel, the USA, the Iranian regime – all elicit strong emotions, which partly explains why the responses to what happened at the Minab school bombing have been so tense and contradictory. Major public figures, from politicians to comedians, have amplified their version of what they think happened. It’s prompted the New York Times and others to try and decipher, in this incredibly challenging media landscape, just what exactly did take place. Because facts matter.
Few would publicly disagree with this principle and yet cognitive bias today is extending to how people approach fact-checkers. For some they’re censorious liberals, intent on silencing right-wing voices. For others they’re essential soldiers fighting for democracy, and indeed free speech, in the age of Russian troll machines.
Index has always sought to identify issues with handling mis- and disinformation – false flags and stories that change as new evidence emerges. Ultimately we believe that with advances to artificial intelligence and ample examples of online deception, we need a lot more people investigating, highlighting and contextualising where our information comes from.
The Trump administration isn’t with us. Since Donald Trump’s return to power, not only respected journalists and media outlets, but mis- and disinformation researchers have been in his firing line. These researchers have battled federal funding cuts, a surge in abuse, even death threats. In December five people were denied visas to the USA, accused of being part of the “global censorship-industrial complex”. More could fall prey. Plans are afoot for non-citizens working in the space to have their visas revoked or denied and face detention and deportation.
The researchers are fighting back. This week the Knight First Amendment Institute and Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR), challenging the constitutionality of the new immigration policy. The claimants argue that it violates their First Amendment rights and is intended to chill independent research about social media and other internet platforms.
“This policy is meant to censor researchers into silence and keep the public in the dark, and that’s exactly what it’s doing,” said Brandi Geurkink, executive director at CITR.
We agree. A viral post suggesting Ferrante is dead doesn’t matter hugely. Information on how the war is being conducted in Iran does. Experts who can spot the red flags and contextualise the information we receive aren’t free-speech enemies and branding them as such is a less than subtle way to silence them.
13 Mar 2026 | Europe and Central Asia, News, United Kingdom
Earlier this week the UK government approved a request from the Metropolitan Police to ban the al-Quds Day march. The Met requested the ban due to safety concerns. They also said the march’s organisers were “supportive of the Iranian regime”. We have issue here, not with any of these suggestions, but rather with the idea that they are grounds enough for an outright ban, which can easily then be used against others later.
Al-Quds Day – named after the Arabic word for Jerusalem – was first held in Iran shortly after the 1979 Revolution. It was created by the then leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to show Iran’s solidarity with Palestinians and to emphasise Jerusalem’s importance to Muslims. Events for the day, which is now held worldwide, typically on the last Friday of Ramadan, are often accompanied by venomous anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment. The London march – which has taken place for many years now – is organised by the UK al-Quds Committee, which comprises several organisations, with the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) playing a central role.
The organisers insist the event is peaceful. In the past, however, the Met say there have been “arrests for supporting terrorist organisations and antisemitic hate crimes”.
Whether the march would be more violent than other protests is impossible to say. What is certainly true, however, is the connection to Iran. Some of those involved do not hide their admiration for the Iranian regime. The IHRC recently described Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the former leader of Iran killed in an Israeli/US airstrike two weeks ago, as a leader who “resisted oppression and stood on the right side of history”. This about someone who presided over the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of protesting Iranian citizens this year alone.
Yet it is not illegal in this country to express support for the Iranian government. It may be deeply distasteful, but distasteful and illegal are not the same thing.
Levels of violence are also difficult to predict and all protests inevitably carry risks. At the march organised by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson in September 2025, 26 police officers were injured while policing a demonstration that brought 150,000 people onto the streets of central London. Twenty-four people were arrested. It was likely clear in advance that there would be some violence, but the march still went ahead. Ultimately, we have laws in place to criminalise violence and to legislate against incitement and hate speech. These laws aren’t suspended during protests and they should be used and are used.
This is the first time a march has been banned in London since 2012, and a static protest will take place instead. The Metropolitan Police have been keen to emphasise that the decision was not taken lightly: the Commissioner Mark Rowley says that he recognises the importance of the right to protest and freedom of speech. We can only hope this ban is as unique as he and the government say.
Unfortunately, the broader atmosphere provides little reassurance. Successive laws in the UK have chipped away at the right to protest. And now we have more and more instances of the “heckler’s veto”, a situation in which any group can shut down an event simply by citing a threat of disorder. A film about the far right was cancelled at the Southbank Centre in 2024, for example, because of fears of violence from extremists; Maccabi football fans were banned from an Aston Villa game citing safety (it later transpired the evidence was manipulated). It’s a slippery slope here, where banning one event on safety grounds creates a precedent to ban more.
It’s useful to look to history here for other examples. Perhaps no better is Skokie. In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America – a group of self-styled Nazis – planned a march through Skokie, a town near Chicago. Skokie was home to around 40,500 Jews, many of them Holocaust survivors. When the town denied the group a permit, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in. One of their lawyers, a Jewish man named David Goldberger, chose to represent the Nazis on free speech grounds. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in ACLU’s favour. The march was permitted.
In the end, it was a pathetic affair. The Nazis moved their demonstration from Skokie to Chicago. Around 20 members turned up for a rally that lasted barely 10 minutes. They were met by roughly 2,000 counter-protesters. With hindsight, most agree it was the right decision to allow the march. The Nazis were allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights, but they failed to persuade anyone of their message. Nor were they granted the underdog status they might have exploited to attract sympathy and support. At the time though, ACLU’s position was deeply unpopular. Many were outraged that the principle of free speech was being evoked in the name of Nazism. ACLU lost members. It was not an easy case to fight.
Today we find ourselves in a similar predicament. Across the political spectrum and across the world, people are marching – some for causes that align closely with universal human rights and others that do not. In some instances, the causes being championed are in fact in direct opposition to freedom of expression.
More worrying still, illiberal causes are increasingly being cloaked in the language of human rights and social justice. Some protest movements borrow the vocabulary of tolerance while aligning themselves with groups or regimes that have little regard for it. A report released this month even exposed several UK charities as having links to the Iranian regime. Some protests don’t even hide the language of hate and instead seek to justify it in the name of an otherwise worthy cause.
We must be clear-eyed about the nature of certain protests. But we can still argue that they should be allowed to go ahead. As with Skokie, it is often better to allow people their moment in the open – where their views can be scrutinised and challenged, and policed when they do cross a legal threshold – than pre-emptively stopping them altogether.
11 Mar 2026 | Asia and Pacific, News, Pakistan
All over the world, International Women Day is celebrated to recognise the achievements and rights of women. But unfortunately, in Pakistan, that recognition means nothing. The reason: on that same International Women’s Day, in Islamabad, the federal capital of Pakistan, 44 women taking part in the annual Aurat March (a non-violent demonstration by women’s rights activists demanding social and economic rights) were detained by the police.
The were held simply because they were planning to celebrate and put on a rally in the capital to recognise the achievements and challenges of women in Pakistan.
The Aurat March activists were picked up by the police under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was imposed in the federal capital
Pakistan is a deeply patriarchal society where women lag behind in everything, which is why women face discrimination, violence, and sexual harassment on a daily basis. Perhaps unsurprisingly Pakistan was ranked bottom amongst 148 countries such as Sudan, Chad, Iran, and Guinea in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report 2025, with only 56.7% gender parity. This is even worse than in 2022, when it ranked 145th out of 146 countries, above only Afghanistan.
The Aurat March organisers stated on X that they “were peacefully exercising their right to protest.”
Three women journalists who had gone to cover the protests, including investigative reporter Saddia Mazhar (pictured), were also arrested. Reports suggest the women marchers, before being arrested, were dragged, beaten up, and had their arms twisted by the police.
Shahbana Zafar, the wife of Harris Khaliq, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), and others went to the Women Police and Child Station to meet the arrested marchers and they too were detained
After their release, the Aurat March organisers held a press conference at the National Press Club. They stated that the theme of Aurat March Islamabad was a feminist constitution, among other things.
As a result of the arrests, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s message on International Women’s Day drew strong criticism from female social media users.
His message on X read: “On International Women’s Day, I wish to reiterate my government’s commitment to ensuring a safe, equal and enabling environment for women. The government is taking steps to empower women, protect their rights and provide them opportunities to excel in every field.”
