India's Leap forward: Experts and thought leaders debate nation's trajectory to 2047

Leading Indian experts and thought leaders gathered in the Indian capital on Monday to deliberate on four key quadrants -- national economy, domestic politics, geopolitics, and global economy that would shape the nation's growth trajectory to 2047.

The discussion was moderated by Pradeep S Mehta, founder of CUTS International, who began the session by asking speakers to emphasise on the procedural aspects of policymaking instead of trying to find short-term solutions to complicated political problems. Speaking on the uncertainties of scenarios, he said, “There is a need to look at dynamic variables in scenario building. We will have to focus on the headwinds and tailwinds of the entire process.”

The conference delved into various aspects of India's future, with technology emerging as a central theme across all scenarios. Kiran Karnik, former president of NASSCOM, said, “Technology has immense potential to promote decentralisation. Civil society organisations will remain important stakeholders and need to be empowered to conduct independent evaluations.”

Prof. M. Ali Khan of Ashoka University lamented about India’s deep-rooted technological illiteracy. He said, “There is a need to equip Indian citizens with tools for the 21st century, with a focus on post-rural and pre-urban contexts.”

Lt Gen Arun Kumar Sahni, Distinguished Fellow of CUTS International brought attention to the lack of research and development in the tech manufacturing process. He said that we can’t develop our own indigenous technology unless that ground is covered.

Acting as a catalyst speaker for the quadrant on domestic politics, Sanjaya Baru used the GST regime as a classic example of how successful politics leads to successful policymaking. He initiated the discussion on domestic politics by complimenting Arun Jaitley’s diplomatic skills in consulting with State ministers before bringing the GST act in, and argued that similar tactics have to be employed to ensure a future-proof policy.

TK Arun, former Editor at the Economic Times and the second catalyst speaker for domestic politics, said that political funding is an area that requires further discussion, and would be important in several scenarios as a cross-cutting area.

“We need to go beyond slogans and targets. There needs to be more thinking on policy and independent ex-post evaluation of government programmes,” said Montek Singh Ahluwalia as he chaired the meet.

India’s potential role as a leader for the Global South was an important area that was brought up several times in the dialogue. Anil Trigunayat, former Ambassador to Libya, Malta and Jordan, said that India has to adopt a neutral stance as it had done in the past, if it wants to be the voice of the Global South. He said, “Defiance has become the norm in geopolitics today. India needs to play a leading role and carry forth all countries which are looking to carve out their respective strategic autonomies.”

Bhaswati Mukherjee, president of the India Habitat Centre, remarked that this neutral stance should stay clear of a non-aligned strategy. She said that strategic partners may become diplomatic problems, which is why India must always be on its toes.

Shishir Priyadarshi, President of Global Relations at the Adani Group, said that the WTO doesn’t see India being the voice of the Global South. He argued, “India doesn’t have the energy security at the scale that the developed world has. We are now focusing on renewable energy, but our reliance on coal also increases simultaneously.”

India is yet to fully grasp the implications of its geopolitical strategies. Pranav Kumar, Vice President of International Trade Policy and Compliance at Reliance Industries Ltd, said, “The role of Indian Industry in understanding the impacts of India’s geopolitical engagements is still at a nascent stage.”

Harinder Sekhon, Distinguished Fellow at CUTS International, said that we need initiatives to upskill India’s youth. “After the 2008 global financial crisis, we have had a significant lack of infrastructure that focuses on upskilling,” she argued.

Manish Tewari, MP, Lok Sabha, underlined that taking all Indians along would be the first prerequisite for India’s quest towards a more prosperous future. He spoke about the need for legislators to be more involved in the nuts and bolts of governance and holding the executive accountable. Tewari said that the time had come for second generation political reforms.

Ujal Bhatia, former Member of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Appellate Body, cautioned that a return to multilateral trade governance may not be likely in the near term, and that India would do well to not walk away from plurilateral trade engagements. He emphasised that India’s future lay in embracing openness. Bhatia also mentioned the need for scenario building exercises to take into account aspects of inclusiveness, particularly in terms of gender dimensions and aspects of technology absorption.

Surjit Bhalla, former Executive Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF), underlined the need for data to inform policymaking at all stages. He said that any scenarios built without being evidence-based and data-driven will continue to suffer from prejudices and biases. Bhalla also said that future scenarios must consider the continued relevance of legacy government programmes and the extent to which they have been successful in putting India on a growth trajectory.

Gurcharan Das, eminent author and commentator, stated that openness has to be India’s best foot forward with the world going forward. He remarked that a consistently high economic growth rate is effectively the best foreign policy India could ever need. Das flagged the need to not just pursue reform, but also to make a better case for reforms among all concerned constituencies.

Arpita Mukherjee, Professor at ICRIER, highlighted the importance of not mixing up aspects of moving out of China for doing business, and not doing business with China at all. Appreciating the distinction between de-risking and decoupling will be important in developing economic scenarios for the future. She also highlighted the need for greater institutional consolidation in the domestic trade policy architecture in order to better represent our interests internationally. Increasing the adoption of technology-backed best practices and promoting regulatory cooperation through broader and deeper FTAs can also help India expand trade and investment flows, Mukherjee said.

Speaking on the intentions of the dialogue, Lakshmi Puri, former Assistant Secretary-General, UN Women, mentioned the need to keep in mind the systemic differences among countries, economic strategies and approaches at each stage of the scenario building exercise. She also pointed to the need for greater discussion on how to deal with the politicisation of key reforms in India.

Rajat Kathuria, Dean at Shiv Nadar University, said that we need a clear focus on where we want to go in terms of our economic aspirations, then fill in the gaps on how we are going to get there. He said that both the Centre and States need to work in a coordinated fashion and craft a cogent plan. Regarding India’s international trade engagements, Kathuria said that India needed to shed its diffidence towards emerging plurilateral trade architectures and be present in the negotiating room.

Ajay Shankar, Distinguished Fellow, TERI, said that we cannot look at the political and economic dimensions of scenario building separately and must adopt a holistic view. He suggested that the aspect of job creation must remain central to all future scenarios – the focus must be on thinking of frameworks which enable private capital to secure the highest returns on investment in areas that create jobs for the economy.

Shankar also mentioned the need to look at evolving trade and climate-related regulations in the developed world as a window of opportunity for Indian manufacturers and exporters, rather than as a threat. Abhishek Kumar, founding partner of Indicc Associates, stressed on the need for the government to do away with the increasingly artificial difference between rural and urban development. He called for scenarios which are based on a cohesive policy on urbanisation, rather than pursuing distinct policy approaches towards urban and rural development.