Secrecy as state policy: why the Modi government fears disclosure

 A troubling impression is gaining ground across the country: the NDA government at the Centre is deliberately withholding vital information from citizens on matters that directly affect livelihoods, national security, and public trust. The unfolding controversy over the India–US trade deal has brought this concern into sharp focus.

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal assured farmers that their interests were fully protected. Yet the United States soon disclosed the deal’s terms, revealing free market access for certain American cereals in India. This contradiction is not technical; it goes to the heart of credibility. When disclosures emerge from Washington instead of New Delhi, anger among farmers is inevitable. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s charge of a “stab in the back” resonates because the facts lend it weight.

The pattern extends beyond trade. Russia has openly accused the U.S. of pressuring India to curb Russian oil purchases—an issue the Modi government never acknowledged while finalising the agreement. What trade-offs were made remains unclear because the government chose silence over transparency.

Parliamentary accountability has fared no better. When the Leader of the Opposition raised serious questions based on former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane’s book, touching on China and national security, the government avoided answering them. Instead, debate was shut down through disruption and allegations. The Prime Minister himself declined to respond, effectively evading scrutiny.

Most damaging is the systematic weakening of the RTI regime. Queries on PM CARES have been stonewalled through legal contortions, information commissioners delayed, and disclosure resisted. Even basic details, such as the Prime Minister’s educational qualifications, have been treated as state secrets.

Democracy rests on informed consent. When a government repeatedly withholds information that may politically inconvenience it, the problem is not opposition rhetoric but institutional decay. Dictatorships survive on secrecy; democracies survive on sunlight.