By Satyabrat Borah
The Indian Space Research Organisation occupies a rare and powerful place in the Indian public imagination. For decades it has been seen as a symbol of national aspiration, scientific excellence, and quiet determination. From launching satellites on modest budgets to reaching the Moon and Mars, ISRO has built a reputation that goes beyond technical achievement. It represents the idea that India can compete with the best in the world through intellect, patience, and collective effort. This deep reservoir of public trust, however, is not indestructible. Like a shell that looks strong from the outside but can crack under pressure, institutional credibility can become brittle if it is not reinforced by openness. In an age where information travels fast and citizens expect accountability, transparency is no longer a luxury for public institutions. It is a necessity. For ISRO, choosing transparency is not about weakening national pride or exposing sensitive details. It is about strengthening public confidence and ensuring that admiration is rooted in understanding rather than blind faith.
ISRO was born in a very different India. In its early years, secrecy was often justified by limited resources, geopolitical pressures, and the need to protect strategic capabilities. The space programme was closely linked to national security and international diplomacy. Communication with the public was minimal, and this was largely accepted. The results spoke for themselves. Successful launches, reliable satellites, and steady progress created a narrative of competence. Over time, this narrative hardened into an almost mythic image. ISRO scientists were portrayed as humble heroes working silently for the nation. Failures were rare in public discourse, and when they occurred, they were often explained briefly and then moved past. This approach worked when information ecosystems were slow and hierarchical. It is far less effective today.
Modern India is more connected, more questioning, and more aware of global standards of governance. Citizens do not just celebrate achievements. They ask how decisions are made, how money is spent, and how mistakes are handled. Social media amplifies both praise and criticism. A single unclear statement or delayed explanation can trigger speculation that spreads faster than facts. In such an environment, opacity does not protect an institution. It exposes it to mistrust. When information is withheld, people fill the gaps with assumptions. For an organisation like ISRO, whose work is funded by public money and celebrated as a national endeavour, this can be dangerous.
Transparency does not mean revealing every technical detail or compromising national security. It means communicating clearly, honestly, and consistently with the public. It means acknowledging failures as openly as successes. Space exploration is inherently risky. Even the most advanced agencies in the world experience setbacks. NASA, ESA, and other international agencies regularly hold detailed press briefings after failures. They explain what went wrong, what is being investigated, and what steps will be taken to prevent a repeat. These explanations do not weaken public support. In fact, they often strengthen it by showing that the institution is
serious about learning and accountability. When ISRO limits its communication to brief statements or delayed reports, it risks appearing defensive, even when it has nothing to hide.
The issue of transparency becomes especially important when things go wrong. Every launch failure or mission anomaly attracts intense public attention. In recent years, there have been moments when information from ISRO has been slow, fragmented, or overly technical. This creates space for confusion. Media outlets speculate. Experts outside the organisation offer conflicting interpretations. Ordinary citizens are left unsure about what actually happened. In such moments, the silence or guarded tone of the institution can feel like indifference or avoidance. This perception may be unfair, but perception matters. Public confidence is shaped not only by outcomes but also by how institutions behave under stress.
There is also a deeper democratic principle at stake. ISRO is funded by taxpayers. Its priorities, budgets, and strategic choices affect national development. Satellites influence communication, weather forecasting, disaster management, navigation, and defence. Citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how these systems are planned and managed. Transparency allows
informed debate about whether resources are being allocated wisely. It encourages public engagement with science and technology. It helps young students see space research not as a distant miracle but as a human process involving trial, error, and perseverance. By opening up its processes, ISRO can inspire a more mature form of scientific curiosity.
Some argue that too much transparency can invite unnecessary criticism and politicisation. They fear that open discussions of failure will be exploited by opponents or misunderstood by the public. This concern is not entirely baseless, especially in a polarised media environment. However, secrecy does not prevent politicisation. It often fuels it. When information is scarce, every rumour becomes more powerful. Clear and timely communication, on the other hand, sets the terms of the discussion. It allows the institution to explain context and complexity before others distort it. Trust is built not by pretending to be flawless but by demonstrating integrity.
Another important aspect of transparency is internal accountability. When an organisation commits to explaining its decisions and outcomes publicly, it also encourages stronger internal review mechanisms. Engineers, managers, and administrators know that their work will be scrutinised not just by internal committees but by the wider scientific community and the public. This can promote a culture of responsibility and continuous improvement. It reduces the risk of complacency that can sometimes accompany long periods of success. For ISRO, which has achieved remarkable feats over decades, this self critical edge is essential to remain innovative and resilient.
The relationship between ISRO and the media also deserves attention. Media coverage of space missions in India often swings between uncritical celebration and harsh blame. These extremes are partly the result of limited access to accurate information. When journalists are given only minimal briefings, they struggle to explain complex technical issues to the public. This leads to oversimplification and sensationalism. By investing in better communication, including regular background briefings, detailed mission updates, and accessible explanations,
ISRO can help improve the quality of public discourse. Science communication is a skill, and it requires institutional support. Many global space agencies employ dedicated teams trained to bridge the gap between scientists and the public. ISRO can benefit from strengthening this dimension of its work.
Transparency also has an international dimension. India positions itself as a responsible and capable space power. It collaborates with other countries, launches foreign satellites, and participates in global discussions on space governance. Openness about its processes and challenges enhances its credibility as a partner. It signals confidence rather than vulnerability. In a world where space is becoming more crowded and contested, trust between agencies matters. Transparent practices can help reduce misunderstandings and build cooperative norms.
There is a cultural aspect to this discussion as well. Indian society has traditionally placed great respect on authority and expertise. Institutions like ISRO have benefited from this respect. However, younger generations are growing up in a culture that values questioning and participation. They admire achievement but also demand explanations. They are more likely to engage with science if they see it as inclusive and honest. By embracing transparency, ISRO can align itself with this evolving social mindset. It can become not just an elite institution but a shared national project in a deeper sense.
It is important to recognise that transparency is not an all or nothing choice. It is a spectrum. ISRO already shares a significant amount of information, including mission announcements, launch schedules, and some technical details. The challenge lies in consistency and depth.
When communication appears selective or reactive, it undermines trust. A more proactive approach would involve setting clear norms about what information will be shared, when, and in what form. This predictability itself builds confidence. People may accept bad news more easily if they trust that they are being told the truth promptly.
Instead of brief statements that a mission did not achieve its objectives, ISRO could commit to publishing detailed post mission reports within a reasonable time frame. These reports can explain the technical causes, the investigative process, and the corrective measures planned. They can be written in layers, with a technical section for experts and a simplified summary for the general public. This approach respects both the complexity of the work and the intelligence of the audience.
Choosing transparency also protects ISRO in the long run. Institutions that rely heavily on reverence can suffer severe damage when that reverence is suddenly questioned. A single scandal or major failure, if handled poorly, can shatter years of goodwill. By contrast, institutions that cultivate a culture of openness tend to be more resilient. Their supporters understand that setbacks are part of the journey. Trust becomes more stable because it is based on realism rather than idealisation. For ISRO, whose missions will only become more ambitious and risky in the future, this resilience is crucial.
Some may worry that public scrutiny will slow down decision making or burden scientists with additional responsibilities. This is a valid concern, but it can be managed. Transparency does not mean that every decision must be debated publicly before action. It means that after decisions are made and outcomes observed, there is an honest accounting. Clear communication structures can ensure that scientists are supported rather than distracted. Over time, as transparency becomes routine, it can even streamline processes by reducing misunderstandings and crises.
The phrase brittle shell captures the paradox facing ISRO. From the outside, its image appears solid and unassailable. Yet this very image can become fragile if it is not grounded in openness. A shell that is too hard can crack suddenly, while one that has some flexibility can absorb shocks. Transparency provides that flexibility. It allows an institution to bend without breaking, to acknowledge imperfections without losing respect.
The question is not whether ISRO deserves public trust. Its achievements have earned admiration. The question is how that trust can be sustained in a changing world. Trust today is not given unconditionally. It is built through dialogue, honesty, and accountability. By choosing transparency, ISRO would not be undermining its legacy. It would be honouring it. It would be saying that the organisation is confident enough in its mission and its people to invite the public into the story, not just at moments of triumph, but also at moments of doubt.
India’s space journey is a collective one. It is funded by citizens, celebrated by citizens, and meant to serve citizens. Transparency strengthens this bond. It turns spectators into stakeholders. It encourages informed pride rather than unquestioning awe. In the long run, this is the kind of confidence that lasts. A shell reinforced from within by openness is far less likely to crack. For ISRO, choosing transparency is not just a good communication strategy. It is an investment in the future of public trust and the democratic spirit of science itself.
