As a reporter, one has to quickly get used to the fact that the government is not a friend. It isn’t an adversary, per se, but it certainly is not predisposed to help the media. If you are one of the few journalists that the government chooses to speak to, you have to remember that the ‘exclusive’ titbits shared with you are still those that the government wants you to know. The real secrets are just that: secrets.
For those not in the government’s favour, dealing with the government is like dealing with a brick wall: you can hammer away trying to get information, but more often than not, it’s you who will be left sore and dejected. Yet, the one thing governments across the country and across time can be relied upon to do is to blow their own trumpets. If they have good news to share, they will make available a deluge of information. This is what makes the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to India an odd one.
Here is the background: India and the U.K. concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) in May 2025. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal visited the U.K. in June. The FTA — the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — was signed in July, which was followed by a warm outpouring of optimism and bonhomie on both sides. Mr. Starmer came to Mumbai in October on his first official visit to India.
What surprised the Indian media was how remarkably tight-lipped the Indian government was over Mr. Starmer’s visit. There were press releases about the meeting of the two Prime Ministers and about Mr. Goyal’s meeting with Mr. Starmer, but these were fluff releases, with more sensation than substance.
Astonishingly, if an Indian reporter wanted anything of substance from the visit, they had to refer to the U.K. government’s website rather than India’s Press Information Bureau (PIB). It was the U.K. government that issued a press release saying that 64 Indian companies had committed to invest a collective £1.3 billion in the U.K. over the next few years as a result of the trip. The release was detailed, naming each of the 64 companies, which sector and region of the U.K they would be investing in, and how many jobs would be created from each investment. The Indian government volunteered no such information, and didn’t even provide it when asked. Announcing how much investment has been brought in would have been good news to publicise, but the government did not do so.
It was also the U.K. government that issued a release about the £350 million deal to sell missiles to the Indian Army and about the fact that Yash Raj Films had agreed to make three new films in Britain over the next few years. The PIB issued no releases.
This episode of unexpected reticence about good news also offers some insight into the delicate tightrope that Indian reporters must walk. One implication of the lack of information about British companies investing in India is that there were none or very few commitments made. The other possibility is that there were commitments made, but that the administration lacked the wherewithal to put together a list and share it. However, if a reporter were to highlight either possibility, they would immediately be branded ‘anti-government’ and lose the little access they have to officials. It is our lot to quietly accept what is offered to us.
The third possibility is that the government has decided to go silent. However, the media blitz it orchestrated over the positive impact of the GST rate cuts showed that the machinery is still working well. From press conferences to press releases, off-the-record notes and social media trends, it spared no tool.
One can only conclude then that the general attitude of the government is that information of substance is not the media’s right; rather, it is a boon to be granted whenever it desires.