IN Delhi, India’s capital, the G20 summit has captured significant global attention. This event brought together world leaders to discuss international economic strategies, presenting varied viewpoints on India’s economic trajectory and its socio-economic challenges.
At the outset, one cannot help but notice the central government’s unwavering ambition to position India as one of the fastest-growing economies worldwide. And as the G20 summit in Delhi approached, this aspiration became particularly evident.
However, this economic narrative has not been universally embraced. Ashoka Mody, a distinguished economist and visiting professor at Princeton University, has critically assessed this portrayal, pointing out perceived inconsistencies in India’s proclaimed growth figures.
To dive deeper, the reported growth rate for India, standing at 7.8% for the April-June quarter of 2023-24, has come under scrutiny from Mody.
He postulates that if growth metrics were derived in accordance with international best practices, the actual figure would hover around 4.5%, according to the methodology deployed by the National Statistical Office (NSO).
While countries such as Australia, Germany, and the UK generally amalgamate income and expenditure data to determine a cohesive GDP rate, Mody asserts that the NSO deviates from this norm. Instead, he suggests, they inflate the expenditure rate by setting the income figure as the predominant metric.
In a counter-narrative, V Anantha Nageswaran, India’s Chief Economic Adviser, ardently defended the country’s data collection and reporting systems. He highlighted instances when India candidly reported economic declines without causing international consternation.
Yet, he fell short of directly addressing Mody’s concerns, especially those touching upon India’s employment landscape and the escalating economic disparities.
Through Mody’s lens, India presents a dichotomy where its affluent elite exhibits a growing penchant for luxury imports, even as vast sections of its populace grapple with fundamental necessities.
This juxtaposition is further accentuated when one considers the uneven income surges across industries and a manufacturing sector that’s still recovering post-pandemic.
The G20 summit, while symbolising India’s ambitions on the global stage, also casts a shadow over its urban underclass.
As the city readied itself for this event, over 300,000 of Delhi’s most vulnerable were reportedly uprooted, echoing past strategies reminiscent of the 2010 Commonwealth Games when the pressing demand for urban aesthetics led to the demolition of informal settlements and shanty towns, triggering widespread unemployment and homelessness.
Furthermore, Delhi’s immense informal sector braced for an economic standstill during the summit, disproportionately impacting its daily wage earners.
However, an underlying question emerges: what can developing nations like India genuinely anticipate from the G20, given its broader context and affiliations? A plethora of concerns, ranging from climate change’s impact on economic stability to the longstanding debts of developing nations, demand immediate attention.
There’s also a pressing need to address the dichotomy between developed and developing nations concerning the ‘net zero’ climate objective. The West, championing the 2050 timeline, contrasts with countries like India, which advocate for a more elastic timeline.
Moreover, the pandemic amplifies the urgency to address the discrepancy in financial support provided by developed nations to counter climate change.
There’s also the ever-present debate on technology sharing, further intensified by the West’s reluctance to relinquish intellectual property rights for Covid-19-related medical solutions.
Furthermore, the G20’s historical stance towards developing nations’ external debt remains a matter of contention. Past measures seem to favour financial markets over the indebted nations themselves, causing many to question the G20’s efficacy and genuine intent.
In navigating the complexities of India’s role in the G20, where the nation grapples with significant economic and geopolitical challenges, one cannot overlook the country’s internal dynamics.
The government’s persecution of the marginalised, particularly the poor, paints a sombre picture of the nation’s socio-economic realities. This internal strife not only underscores the discrepancies between India’s international ambitions and its domestic challenges but also casts a shadow over another pressing concern: media freedom.
As we move from discussing the international to the domestic, it’s pivotal to understand how the silencing of critical voices in the media is interlinked with broader socio-political issues. The media, tasked with highlighting these very discrepancies and championing the cause of the downtrodden, finds itself in a precarious position in contemporary India.
In assessing the current situation of media freedom in India, a nuanced approach is required to understand the multifaceted pressures facing journalists.
Historically, India’s media landscape has been robust, with a rich tapestry of publications and outlets that have played crucial roles in shaping democratic discourse. However, recent trends indicate a discernible shift.
Firstly, there’s the strategic weaponisation of legal mechanisms. Over the past few years, there has been an uptick in the use of defamation cases, sedition charges, and stringent acts like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against journalists.
This isn’t just about silencing or punishing them; it’s a tactic that serves as a warning to others who might think of treading similar paths. The threat of long and draining legal battles, coupled with a potential prison sentence, can have a chilling effect on journalism, deterring in-depth investigations and critical reporting.
Another facet of this pressure is economic.
Media outlets, especially smaller ones, operate in a precarious financial environment. Advertisers, especially those with significant commercial interests, may be wary of associating with publications that are critical of the government or which expose corporate malfeasance. This economic vulnerability can lead to self-censorship, as outlets refrain from publishing potentially controversial stories to protect their revenue streams.
Digital platforms, which once promised a more democratic space for discourse, are now witnessing heightened surveillance. The Information Technology (IT) Rules 2021, for example, provide the government with considerable leverage over digital news platforms.
Coupled with the frequent internet shutdowns, especially in areas experiencing civil unrest, it’s clear that the digital space is under threat as a free and open forum for expression.
There’s also the issue of orchestrated disinformation campaigns. With India having one of the world’s largest user bases for platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, it’s no surprise that these platforms have been weaponised to spread fake news and propaganda.
But when credible media outlets counter such narratives with fact-based reporting, they’re often targeted with coordinated trolling campaigns, further muddying the waters of public discourse.
Lastly, it’s essential to mention the overt physical threats journalists face, especially those reporting from conflict zones or on sensitive issues, from sporadic violence to targeted killings, the environment has become increasingly hostile.
The impunity with which these crimes occur further exacerbates the issue.
