Two days after 15 people were killed and several were injured in a car explosion near the Red Fort on 10 November 2025, the Union cabinet presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi passed a resolution stating that the terror incident was perpetrated by “anti-national forces”. It made no mention of a foreign country’s involvement or cross-border terrorism.
Operation Sindoor was only halted. It is still not over. And PM Modi had already drawn a red line for terrorists. Addressing the nation, he said that Operation Sindoor was a new normal in India’s fight against terrorism. If there is a terrorist attack on India, a fitting reply would be given, the PM said, adding that India would not differentiate between the perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism.
Three months later, the UN Security Council’s counter-terrorism sanction monitoring team has revealed that Pakistan-based terror outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), was “reported to be linked” to the Red Fort blast.
Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Randhir Jaiswal has suggested that the UN report was based on India’s inputs. “We have seen that they have taken onboard India’s inputs in regard to our concern on cross-border terrorism and also as to how we can strengthen global fight against terrorism,” Jaiswal said in response to a question about the UN report linking the Pakistan-based outfit with the blast.
It came as news to the Indians. They learned about Pakistan’s involvement in the terror attack from a UN report. After the reference to the “anti-national forces” in the cabinet resolution, they didn’t hear any official, authoritative voice about the involvement of the Pakistan-based terror outfit.
As PM Modi categorically declared, India no longer differentiates between the perpetrators of terror—JeM, in this case—and the sponsor—Pakistan. The question is: Why should Indians learn about it from the UN? The government must have had internal discussions about whether Pakistan crossed PM Modi’s red line when the JeM carried out another terror attack, killing 15 people. They must have reasons to give ‘inputs’ about it to the UN, but chose to keep them from the people back home.
No answers from govt
When it comes to national security, people have complete faith in whatever way the government chooses to respond. They may be curious, but don’t ask questions. Remember the Congress’ criticism after PM Modi denied any Chinese incursion at an all-party meeting following the 2020 Galwan Valley clash?
The Opposition couldn’t make an issue out of the PM’s denial that was contrary to the MEA’s stand then, because the people always stand solidly behind the government in times of national security crises. They may, however, have reasons to feel let down if they learn about Pakistan’s role in the Red Fort blast from the UN.
I wouldn’t consider it such a big deal. Let’s not expect the government to always share what it may consider sensitive information with citizens. What is actually disconcerting is the government’s increasingly noticeable tendency to go for ‘information blackout’ in matters not linked to national security.
How would you explain the missive from the prime minister’s office to the Lok Sabha Secretariat that questions related to the PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, and the National Defence Fund are inadmissible, as reported by The Indian Express?
Why on earth would a government want to block information about these funds—that, too, from Members of Parliament? The argument that these bodies are not under the control of the government doesn’t hold water. Anyway, it has to be the Lok Sabha Speaker, not the government, who should decide which issues are admissible.
And have you wondered why the government wouldn’t fill the constitutionally mandated post of the Deputy Speaker? It has been vacant since May 2019. The post conventionally went to the Opposition, but it’s not constitutionally mandated. The question about this vacancy is relevant again, given the growing trust deficit between the Opposition and the Chair in the Lok Sabha. There is no answer coming from the government.
Remember the electoral bonds scheme, something the government said would ensure transparency in political funding? It was actually just the opposite, meant to deny the people any information about the identities of donor companies and the beneficiary parties. The Supreme Court finally struck it down, calling it “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary” and violative of the people’s right to information. The government had fielded top lawyers of the country to shield the scheme. Indians will never know if there was any quid pro quo between the beneficiary parties and the donors who contributed thousands of crores to them before the scheme was struck down.
Also read: Alphabet issues a 100-year bond. Do investors trust Big Tech more than governments now?
Increasing reluctance to share information
Amid a raging controversy over former Army Chief General MM Naravane’s unpublished book, there are several reports about the Centre discussing a proposal to bring a 20-year cool-off period for retired public servants before they can write a book. It would reportedly include not just military officials but other civil servants who held positions of power.
One can understand the sensitivity about possible revelations by former military, intelligence, or security officials. But what’s wrong if a former civil servant, say an ex-finance secretary, decides to share with citizens what went behind the demonetisation decision? Or, for that matter, behind the sovereign gold bond scheme? That aside, how many former civil servants—who know what their political bosses do when in power—will even be around at the age of 80 to write a book? And how many of such political bosses—whose acts of omission and commission might be revealed in books—will be around or relevant enough to be subjected to public accountability? Thankfully, there is no official confirmation or denial of these reports yet. One can hope that it’s just a red herring.
I can go on citing instances of the government’s increasing reluctance to share information with the people. Why, for instance, is the government not fulfilling the commitment it gave in Parliament to grant statehood to Jammu and Kashmir? If there are security concerns, it should at least take the elected government into confidence. I am told by reliable sources that not a word of explanation or reason is proffered to chief minister Omar Abdullah every time he takes up the issue of statehood with the Centre.
Why did Prasar Bharati chairman Navneet Sehgal resign—or was asked to resign—with over a year left of his tenure? What did the Rohini Commission report on the sub-categorisation of the other backward classes (OBCs) recommend, and why has it been gathering dust for two-and-a-half years since its submission to the president? What changed in Manipur that a new chief minister and four ministers were suddenly sworn in, and why have they not been allocated portfolios for the last two weeks?
There are a myriad of other questions with no answers forthcoming. The Right to Information Act has been rendered toothless, anyway. See how vehemently government lawyers have been opposing the disclosure of file notings in various courts, pleading that it discourages civil servants from giving candid opinions and exposes them to frivolous charges. Why would a civil servant fear writing in a file what should obviously be as per the law? But the government wouldn’t want the people to scrutinise its decision-making process.
The Modi government is definitely not the first one with a tendency to be economical with truth. It’s just more guarded—and probably less sophisticated in implementation.
Also read: Why BNP’s win in Bangladesh doesn’t necessarily mark the end of Awami League
Be transparent with trade deal
I didn’t start writing this piece because I saw something amiss about the government telling a UNSC monitoring team about JeM’s involvement in the Red Fort blast—something that hasn’t been shared officially with the people of India yet. My limited objective is to emphasise the point that it’s good for the government to be open with the people when it comes to national interests.
For instance, regardless of what the Opposition says, most people know that the India-US trade deal is in the national interest. The government can’t be seen to be deflecting—like commerce minister Piyush Goyal was when he left it to the MEA to respond to a question on American claims about the purchase of Russian oil.
Another thing the government can’t afford here is whataboutery—when ministers counter the Opposition’s allegations about the trade deal by blaming previous governments for what they allegedly did against farmers. The trade deal is far too important. And obfuscation won’t work when you are dealing with someone like US President Donald Trump, who is not given to diplomatic niceties and who loves to play to the gallery.
It is, however, good to see ministers coming out to defend the trade deal. But the government must also remember how its sweeping, generalised defence of the 2015 land acquisition law and the 2020 farm laws cut no ice. It needs to engage with the people over the long-term benefits of the India-US trade deal. If the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) karyakartas are so efficiently deployed to go door-to-door in every village to promote the Modi government’s welfare programmes and schemes ahead of elections, why can’t the ruling party do the same about the trade deal? The catch here is transparency in the finer details.
As for the citizens’ right to know the full truth, here is some solace: even former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar is in the same boat. It has been almost seven months since he resigned. As per The Vice President’s Pension, Housing and Other Facilities Rules, 1999, the government is obligated to provide him a Type-VIII bungalow immediately. His close associates tell me that the government hasn’t even contacted him about his post-retirement accommodation in the past seven months. He continues to stay at a friend’s farmhouse on Delhi’s outskirts.
Nitin Nabin was allotted a Type-VIII bungalow within days after his appointment as the working president of the BJP. What’s intriguing in the former VP’s case is that the government hasn’t even informed him why it’s not allotting him the bungalow that he is entitled to, according to his associates. There rests my case about a commoner’s right to know.
DK Singh is Political Editor at ThePrint. He tweets @dksingh73. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)