Dr. Nidhi… I genuinely appreciate the dharmic lens you’ve brought into this conversation. 
You’re absolutely right, our shastras never glorified blunt, reckless truth. They spoke of “niti”… truth aligned with dharma, context and consequence.
A truth that protects life, preserves harmony or serves a larger good is very different from truth used as a weapon.
And I agree radical honesty without wisdom can become ego-expression disguised as virtue.
At the same time, I think what we’re circling around in this thread is slightly different.
Not
“Should we lie to save a life?”
…of course we should.
Not
“Is diplomacy wiser than cruelty?”
… of course it is.
The deeper inquiry was about emotional honesty inside intimate relationships, the subtle editing, the self-silencing, the internal simulations we run to avoid turbulence.
Because sometimes what we call “niti” is dharmic restraint. And sometimes what we call “niti” is fear of discomfort.
The line between wisdom and avoidance can be very thin.
I love that you brought karma into this. From a psychological lens, unspoken truths don’t disappear they somatize, leak out as sarcasm, distance or quiet resentment. So while dharma may justify strategic silence in some contexts, emotional health asks us at what cost to inner integrity?.,.
Maybe the real synthesis is that radical honesty without dharma is destructive. Dharma without inner honesty becomes repression.
The art lies in truth delivered with timing, compassion, and nervous-system regulation and not impulsive exposure, not fearful concealment.
Thank you for adding such depth and scriptural grounding to this.
It enriches the debate beautifully. 