The U-turn sarkar: TVK's trail of withdrawn orders exposes governance written in pencil

CHENNAI: Six days. That is how long Government Order Ms No 57 survived — the TVK government's attempt, on September 21, to exempt the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act under Section 24(4) of the 2005 law. Issued quietly, defended briefly, revoked under fire on September 27. It was not an exception. In the government's first few months in office, the order has become the template: issue first, think later, withdraw when the backlash arrives. The department at the centre of the RTI row is not a peripheral office. The Public (Law and Order) Department handles inquiry reports on police firings, custodial deaths and police torture — exactly the files citizens and journalists reach for when the state's violence needs explaining. Classifying it as an intelligence and security organisation would have locked those files away from public view for years. Law and Energy Minister C. T. R. Nirmal Kumar defended the order when it surfaced, arguing that sensitive information — including details of communal clashes — needed protection, and adding that the government would reconsider if the public was unhappy. The public was unhappy. Within six days the government stood down, announcing that GO Ms No 57 stood revoked. The opposition's verdict has been sharper than the government's explanation. Critics called the order an attempt to shield the state's coercive machinery from scrutiny — and warned that the revocation was forced by pressure, not prompted by principle. A reversal bought by backlash, they argue, is not transparency; it is transparency held hostage until someone pays. Nor does the RTI episode stand alone. In recent weeks the government has also withdrawn a directive concerning student participation in political protests and cancelled an appointment to the Chief Minister's office, according to reporting by Chennaionline. Each reversal has been explained as responsiveness — a government willing to listen. But a pattern this consistent invites a harsher reading: orders drafted without deliberation, issued without consultation, and abandoned the moment they meet resistance. Supporters of the government offer the kinder interpretation — that a new administration is learning on the job, correcting course quickly rather than defending indefensible positions. The bypoll-eve context, though, gives the critique its edge. With Dharapuram and Madurantakam voting on October 6 and counting on October 9, voters are being asked to judge not promises but a record: an administration that has, in its opening months, become most fluent in the language of withdrawal. A government order is the smallest unit of governance — a commitment written down. When commitments are withdrawn faster than they can be implemented, what is left is not flexibility. It is drift. And drift, as Tamil Nadu is learning, has its own cost: every U-turn spends the one resource a new government cannot print — trust.