akrishnarao

Category: Uncategorized

  • Beyond Slogans: The Structural Gaps Threatening India’s 2047 Aspiration

    As Parliament remains caught in political confrontation over issues ranging from the Indo-US trade deal to federal fiscal transfers, the Standing Committee on Finance has quietly presented a detailed roadmap for achieving the ambitious goal of Viksit Bharat 2047. In its Twenty-Ninth Report (2025–26), the Committee delivers a sobering assessment: India’s reform story is no longer constrained by policy imagination but by the depth and quality of implementation. The timing of this intervention is significant. With state elections scheduled in 2027 and general elections in 2029, the current budget cycle may represent a narrowing window for politically difficult structural decisions before electoral considerations begin to shape fiscal policy more decisively.

    The Committee identifies three interlinked structural risks that could undermine India’s long-term growth trajectory. First is the persistent implementation lag—administrative capacity at various levels of government continues to trail policy ambition. Reforms are announced with clarity, yet execution remains uneven across states and sectors. Second, India’s growth model remains heavily credit-driven. While lending has expanded, equity capital, technological upgrading, and productivity-enhancing reforms have not kept pace. Third, federal capacity gaps threaten to dilute national reform gains, as state-level disparities in regulatory quality and institutional strength create uneven investment climates.

    To achieve high-income status by 2047, India would need to sustain annual growth of around 8 percent for at least a decade. That objective requires raising the investment rate from roughly 31 percent to nearly 35 percent of GDP. Yet private capital formation has slowed considerably, with its share in total fixed investment declining from over 40 percent in 2015–16 to about 33 percent in 2023–24. Government infrastructure spending has remained robust, but manufacturing capital expenditure continues to lag. The Committee’s message is clear: fiscal stability is not the principal constraint; the revival of private investment is. That revival depends on deeper financial sector reforms, faster judicial enforcement, regulatory harmonization across states, and a more predictable business environment.

    Food inflation volatility poses another macroeconomic risk. The Committee stresses that stabilizing prices requires stronger agricultural supply chains, expanded cold storage networks, and deeper digital market linkages for farmers. Without supply-side strengthening, inflation shocks could erode real incomes and dampen domestic demand. At the same time, accelerating investment could widen the current account deficit, underscoring the need for domestic demand-led growth and deregulation that enhances export competitiveness without compromising macroeconomic stability.

    Progress on disinvestment has also been slower than anticipated. The Committee calls for concrete timelines and incentive-based frameworks to encourage reform of state-level public sector undertakings. Credibility in execution, rather than repeated announcements, will shape investor confidence. Similarly, in the MSME sector, inadequate risk capital remains a structural constraint. The Self-Reliant India (SRI) Fund has attempted to provide equity-like financing, but uptake has been limited by legal structures, small ticket sizes, and information asymmetries. Expanding credit alone, the Committee warns, will not yield productivity gains unless firms adopt technology upgrades and integrate into larger supply chains.

    Labour market reforms occupy a central place in the roadmap. The Committee advocates establishing a centralized Labour Market Information System to bridge mismatches between job supply and demand. It recommends benchmarking India’s labour force participation rate against advanced economies and upgrading Industrial Training Institutes in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. With artificial intelligence reshaping global employment patterns, curricula must become modular, industry-co-designed, and multilingual to address widening digital divides. The emphasis is on agility and employability rather than scale alone.

    Innovation remains another area of concern. India’s R&D expenditure, at just 0.65 percent of GDP, is far below the global average of 2.7 percent. The Committee cautions that increased funding by itself will not deliver results unless accompanied by stronger intellectual property enforcement, faster patent processing, dedicated commercial courts, and deeper industry–academia linkages. Translating research into commercially viable innovation requires institutional reform as much as financial commitment.

    India’s digital public infrastructure has transformed governance delivery, yet the Committee notes that digitalization must move beyond registration metrics toward measurable income and productivity outcomes. The proposal for an indigenous government-owned AI server reflects concerns over data sovereignty and strategic autonomy, but its true test will lie in whether it enhances productivity across sectors rather than remaining a symbolic asset.

    In an era marked by global fragmentation and shifting supply chains, India’s growth advantage rests on macroeconomic stability and the strength of its domestic demand base. However, the Committee’s overarching message is that the next phase of economic transformation will depend less on new policy articulation and more on execution discipline, institutional strengthening, and sustained private-sector dynamism. As political debates continue to dominate the parliamentary landscape, the roadmap offers a quieter but enduring reminder: achieving Viksit Bharat 2047 will hinge not on reform announcements, but on reform credibility and productivity-led growth.

  • Privilege, Politics and Policy: The Debate After Rahul Gandhi’s Speech

    The political storm following Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s speech in the Lok Sabha has shifted from economic policy to parliamentary privilege. The Bharatiya Janata Party is reportedly considering a privilege motion against him over remarks linking senior leaders to the so-called “Epstein Files.” Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has firmly rejected the allegations as “baseless,” clarifying that his limited interactions with Jeffrey Epstein were in the context of an International Peace Institute delegation and unrelated to any criminal matters.

    Whether Gandhi’s remarks constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege is ultimately a matter for the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, who must interpret them within established rules and precedents. Parliament provides wide latitude for political speech, but it also imposes responsibility. That determination should be made institutionally and without partisan escalation.

    Yet focusing exclusively on the privilege question risks overlooking the larger policy issues raised in the speech — issues that warrant substantive engagement rather than procedural confrontation.

    The Strategic Context

    In his address, Rahul Gandhi framed the Union Budget and the India–U.S. trade understanding within a broader geopolitical narrative. He argued that the global order is entering a phase of instability marked by conflict, technological rivalry, and the weaponisation of energy and finance. In such an environment, he contended, India must negotiate from a position of strength.

    At the core of his argument was the assertion that India possesses three strategic assets: its population and digital data, its agricultural base, and its energy sovereignty. According to him, recent trade negotiations risk diluting these strengths.

    These are consequential claims. They deserve careful examination.

    One area of concern raised relates to digital trade rules. Has India altered its position on data localisation? Are cross-border data flows being liberalised in ways that constrain regulatory autonomy? Do trade commitments affect India’s ability to impose digital taxes or regulate major technology firms?

    Given the centrality of data to artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty, clarity on these points is essential. Trade agreements in the digital domain often contain complex provisions that are not easily understood without detailed disclosure.

    A transparent explanation of the Government’s commitments would help dispel uncertainty.

    Agriculture and Market Access

    Gandhi also warned that the trade framework could expose Indian farmers to competition from highly mechanised American agriculture. India’s agricultural economy is dominated by small and marginal farmers whose cost structures differ significantly from those of large-scale U.S. farms.

    The key question is whether tariff reductions or market access commitments contain adequate safeguards. If protections remain intact, the Government should clearly articulate them. If phased adjustments are planned, their timeline and compensatory measures should be made public.

    Food security is not merely an economic issue; it is a matter of national resilience.

    Energy Sovereignty

    Energy security formed the third pillar of Gandhi’s critique. In an era when sanctions, supply disruptions and geopolitical tensions influence energy markets, any perception that India’s sourcing flexibility is constrained can generate concern.

    Here again, clarity matters. If India retains full sovereign discretion over its energy imports, an unequivocal statement to that effect would strengthen confidence.

    Trade Balance and Industrial Impact

    Concerns were also expressed about tariff asymmetry and potential sectoral impacts, particularly in textiles. Trade agreements often produce winners and losers across industries. The role of government is to ensure that transitions are managed, vulnerabilities are addressed, and competitiveness is strengthened.

    A detailed presentation of expected gains and sector-specific protections would elevate the discussion beyond rhetoric.

    Democratic Accountability Over Escalation

    The controversy over alleged personal references and the potential privilege motion should not overshadow the importance of answering substantive policy questions. Democratic accountability requires both responsible speech from the Opposition and transparent explanation from the Government.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi enjoys a strong domestic mandate and significant international stature. Supporters argue that his government would not compromise India’s interests in any negotiation. That confidence can only be reinforced through openness.

    Parliamentary debate is not an act of defamation; it is a mechanism of scrutiny. Equally, allegations must be supported by evidence. The health of democratic institutions depends on maintaining this balance.

    If a privilege motion is moved, it should proceed strictly within parliamentary rules. But beyond procedural action, what the moment calls for is clarity — on the nature of India’s trade commitments, on safeguards for farmers and industry, and on the preservation of data and energy sovereignty.

    In times of global uncertainty, trust in national leadership is strengthened not by silencing dissent, but by addressing it transparently.

    The Government has an opportunity to do precisely that.

  • In Search of Lost Standards

  • In Search of Lost Standards

    “Lok Sabha’s first Speaker G.V. Mavalankar, the second Speaker Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, and the first Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Vice President Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan had a profound influence on the functioning of parliamentary institutions. They conducted themselves with dignity and impartiality while framing rules, procedures, conventions, and practices. Even though the Jana Sangh had no representation in the Rajya Sabha, I used to watch the proceedings from the visitors’ gallery. It was because of them that I had the opportunity to learn about Question Hour, adjournment motions, bills and resolutions, standing committees, calling attention notices, members’ privileges, and many other aspects. Eminent leaders sitting on the opposition benches spoke with as much eloquence as those on the treasury benches. The Speaker acted as an honest guardian of the rights of the opposition. It was because of these noble traditions that Indian democracy withstood many tests and maintained its international reputation.”

    These words were written by none other than Lal Krishna Advani, one of the founders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, in his autobiography My Country–My Life, describing the parliamentary standards of earlier times.

    Standards endure only when individuals uphold them. If individuals sacrifice standards for personal interests, no standards remain worth citing as examples. If declining social standards enter Parliament, the current functioning of legislatures is proof of what happens. “Guide us. If we go astray, correct us if necessary. Advise us. Scrutinize our conduct,” India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru requested the first Lok Sabha Speaker G.V. Mavalankar. Mavalankar acted accordingly. Whenever serious differences arose, the Prime Minister and the Speaker would consult and resolve them. On one occasion, there was an argument between Nehru and Mavalankar in the House. Nehru wanted to make a second statement the same day, but Mavalankar clarified that it was against the rules. Nehru accepted and withdrew.

    Mavalankar strongly opposed the frequent promulgation of ordinances. He insisted they should be issued only in rare emergencies and that laws must be made in Parliament. He even wrote to the Prime Minister on this matter. If any legal doubt arose, he personally consulted the Attorney General, asserting that the Speaker must function like a judge. Nehru accorded him equal respect. When officials complained to Nehru that parliamentary committees were subjecting their decisions to excessive scrutiny, Nehru replied that it was not within his domain and advised them to approach the Speaker. Many rules framed by Mavalankar remain in force even today. The first Lok Sabha Secretary-General Shakdher described him as a Speaker who maintained balance between the ruling and opposition parties, conducted the House efficiently, and safeguarded public interest. It is noteworthy that Mavalankar, who insisted that Parliament must remain independent of government control, was elected from Gujarat.

    After Mavalankar’s death, Ananthasayanam Ayyangar followed the same path. Born into a Vaishnava Brahmin family in Tiruchanur near Tirupati, he conducted the Lok Sabha impartially. He once stated: “Under a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, citizens’ lives and freedoms have no protection. If the dictator is benevolent, people may live well. But even in a democracy, there is a danger that dominant groups may behave dictatorially and suppress those in smaller numbers. The only person who can firmly control such tendencies and protect minority interests in the House is the Speaker.” He remarked that there were no greater orators than Hiren Mukherjee (CPI) in English and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Jana Sangh) in Hindi. Even without formal recognition of an Opposition Leader due to inadequate numbers, Ayyangar gave full respect and opportunity to opposition members. In the second Lok Sabha, both ruling and opposition members unanimously proposed his re-election as Speaker — a testimony to the standards he upheld. In 1972, when a Dalit Christian candidate contested from Tirupati, Ayyangar campaigned to support him at Congress’s request, responding to critics by saying, “Secularism is embedded within Vishishtadvaita.” This was later revealed by former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.

    After Mavalankar, Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh admitted no-confidence motions against Nehru’s government, declaring that Parliament held supremacy over the government. His successor Neelam Sanjiva Reddy allowed a discussion on a no-confidence motion on the very day the President addressed both Houses. During his tenure, the first parliamentary committee on the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was formed.

    Gradually, parliamentary standards began to decline from 4th Lok Sabha. During the Emergency, parliamentary proceedings were censored in unprecedented ways, yet the presiding officers remained silent. Indira Gandhi forced G.S. Dhillon to resign as Speaker and appointed him Shipping Minister the same day. After the Emergency, Speakers such as K.S. Hegde, Balram Jakhar, Rabi Ray, Shivraj Patil, P.A. Sangma, Balayogi, Manohar Joshi, and Somnath Chatterjee each tried in their own way to uphold the dignity of the office. Balayogi, the first Dalit and first Speaker from a regional party, maintained such neutrality that during his tenure the Vajpayee government fell by just one vote. Later, during the tenures of women Speakers Meira Kumar and Sumitra Mahajan, frequent disruptions occurred. The Telangana movement made Meira Kumar’s tenure extremely difficult, while increasing confrontation between ruling and opposition parties during Narendra Modi’s premiership placed Sumitra Mahajan in a challenging position. Since then, tensions have intensified, and Speaker Om Birla too has found himself in a helpless situation over the past six years, with parliamentary standards steadily declining.

    Recently, opposition parties moved a no-confidence motion against Om Birla for not allowing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to speak — a sign of the deteriorating condition of Indian democracy. If a discussion had been allowed on former Army General Naravane’s book on the India–China conflict, and if the government had responded, people would have had the opportunity to assess the facts. Instead, opposition parties stalled Parliament. Sessions ended without full discussions on the President’s Address or the Budget, and without the Prime Minister speaking in the Lok Sabha. Furthermore, the Speaker himself claimed he had information that women MPs were planning to attack Modi — an unusual development. In reality, both government and opposition are responsible for failing to show flexibility and for using Parliament as a political arena. In an atmosphere where mutual respect is absent, no one expects the Speaker to remain impartial. As a result, the office of the Speaker too appears to be losing its dignity.

    “The Speaker represents the entire House. He reflects its dignity and freedom. Since the House represents the nation, the Speaker becomes a symbol of freedom in the country. It is therefore a position of great honor. Only individuals of the highest competence and impartiality should occupy it,” said Nehru. But it is impossible to compare those days with the present. Those in power then sought to set standards themselves and serve as role models for future generations. At a time when the country aspires toward a ‘Viksit Bharat’ (Developed India), leaders must internally deliberate on preserving parliamentary democratic standards within a defined timeframe.

  • Rethinking Tax Devolution in Uneven India

  • Rethinking Tax Devolution in Uneven India

    India’s fiscal federalism is facing a moment of quiet but consequential strain. Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s remarks on tax devolution have once again brought to the surface a long-simmering grievance among better-performing states: that they contribute disproportionately to the Union’s tax kitty but receive a shrinking share in return. The data broadly supports this sentiment. A small group of economically advanced states account for the bulk of direct tax and GST collections, while a significant share of tax devolution flows to poorer, high-population states. However, for the country to prosper, all its regions have to prosper, Naidu said in an interview on Sunday with PTI Videos, adding that the states are allies, not enemies.

    Yet, framing this issue simply as “performers versus non-performers” risks obscuring a deeper structural problem. The real question is not whether redistribution is justified—it is—but whether India’s current system of fiscal transfers is equipped to handle the vastly different development trajectories its states have chosen.

    Finance Commissions are constitutionally mandated to address horizontal imbalances among states. Inevitably, this means that poorer states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh receive a larger share of devolved taxes.Poorer states like UP, Bihar and MP received 36% of the tax  meant for sharing with the states. Against this, these three states contributed only 5% of the total direct tax and Central GST collected by the Centre during that period. This is neither accidental nor malicious; it reflects the principle that citizens should have access to comparable public services regardless of where they live. From this perspective, redistribution is not a penalty on success but a cornerstone of national unity.

    However, this logic begins to fray when redistribution appears perpetual and weakly linked to outcomes. Southern and western states that invested early in education, health, and population control now find themselves disadvantaged by formulae that give significant weight to population size and income distance. Their success in managing fertility and building human capital—once seen as national assets—now translates into lower relative shares. This creates a perverse incentive structure and a growing political resentment.

    Complicating matters further is the Centre’s increasing reliance on cesses and surcharges, which lie outside the divisible pool. While the official share of states stands at 41 per cent of Union taxes, the effective share is considerably lower. States are being asked to shoulder expanding responsibilities—especially in health, education, and infrastructure—without commensurate fiscal space. It is unsurprising, then, that demands are growing to raise the states’ share to 50 per cent.

    Yet, linking devolution directly to tax contribution alone would be equally problematic. Tax collections reflect not just effort but historical advantages, agglomeration effects, and the location of corporate headquarters. A purely contribution-based system would risk locking poorer states into a low-development trap, undermining both equity and long-term national growth.

    The way forward lies in recognising that India is attempting to achieve too many objectives with a single instrument. Tax devolution is being asked to equalise, incentivise, and reward all at once—and predictably, it satisfies none fully.

    A more mature framework would separate these goals. A core equalisation transfer should continue to ensure minimum fiscal capacity for all states. Alongside this, a distinct performance-oriented component could reward states for expanding the national economic pie—through growth, tax effort, infrastructure creation, demographic management, and human capital outcomes. Such a structure would acknowledge both need and contribution without pitting one against the other.

    Equally important is addressing sectoral imbalances. States like Kerala, which prioritised social development, now face infrastructure constraints. Others, like Gujarat, built strong physical infrastructure but lag in social indicators. Poorer states struggle on both fronts. A dedicated, outcome-linked national infrastructure fund—outside routine tax devolution—could help bridge these gaps without distorting the principles of redistribution.

    India’s diversity in development paths is a strength, not a flaw. But managing that diversity requires fiscal institutions that are transparent, differentiated, and forward-looking. Unless redistribution is paired with clear incentives and a fair sharing of resources, political “heartburn” will only intensify.

    The choice before India is not between rewarding success and supporting the vulnerable. It is about designing a federal compact that does both—openly, credibly, and sustainably.

  • India’s Uneasy Balancing Act in the Trump Era

    A close reading of the India–US agreement makes it evident that New Delhi is unwilling to treat US President Donald Trump as an adversary. Keen to prevent any further deterioration in bilateral relations, India appears to have adopted a cautious and conciliatory approach. The United States has already imposed tariffs of up to 50% on Indian exports, severely impacting textiles, jewellery, engineering goods and chemicals. India’s trade deficit is widening, and a series of unilateral statements by Trump have pushed Prime Minister Narendra Modi into a defensive posture at home, where he faces questions he is increasingly unable to answer. This appears to have prompted efforts to placate the US President.

    Two months ago, US Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, told reporters aboard Air Force One that Indian Ambassador Vinay Kwatra had met him, conveyed that India had reduced oil imports from Russia, and urged him to persuade Trump to lower tariffs. Trump, standing beside him, warned that unless India completely stopped purchasing Russian oil, matters could worsen. “India wants to make me happy. Modi is a good man. He knows I’m not happy — and making me happy is very important. If India doesn’t help on the Russian oil issue, tariffs could be increased,” Trump said. The warning came shortly after the US attack on Venezuela, highlighting the pressure India was facing.

    Why should a US President certify India’s Prime Minister? Why should India align its policies to suit Washington’s preferences? Why should Modi seek to “please” Trump? These are questions India appears unwilling — or unprepared — to raise. Despite being larger than the European Union in scale, India does not seem ready to assert that it fears no one and can independently determine its foreign policy and internal security priorities. The ideals of non-alignment and strategic autonomy appear absent from current decision-making.

    At an RSS event marking its centenary year on Saturday, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat underscored that while economic interdependence among nations is a reality, it must be voluntary and not driven by coercion. He cautioned against decisions imposed through trade wars and tariff pressure, arguing that international trade should be guided by a country’s free will. Agreements, he said, should not be entered into out of helplessness. He clarified that Swadeshi does not mean isolation or a blanket ban on imports.

    Against this backdrop, attention has turned to what Bhagwat may say about the recently announced draft India–US agreement. Many observers suspect the deal was not concluded on equal terms. Notably, even before the draft was officially announced, Trump unilaterally disclosed its details in a Truth Social post, stating that India would stop buying Russian oil and instead source oil from Venezuela. Prime Minister Modi promptly endorsed the announcement and expressed satisfaction, later being felicitated at an NDA meeting.

    Subsequently, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins outlined the agreement’s details. Only thereafter did Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal address the issue, stating that Modi had leveraged his personal friendship with Trump to secure a favourable deal. Critics argue this framing overlooks the fact that agreements are concluded between nations, not individuals. It is India’s 1.4-billion-strong market that gives it negotiating strength — not personal rapport. After all, the India–US civil nuclear agreement was not a personal arrangement between Manmohan Singh and George W. Bush.

    Even with Trump reducing tariffs to 18%, questions remain about the deal’s benefits. Prior to July 2025, Indian exports to the US faced an average tariff of just 3%. The new rate represents a sixfold increase in less than a year. Meanwhile, India has reduced tariffs on American products such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles and several alcoholic beverages. Though US goods earlier faced tariffs averaging around 15% in India, these duties will now be eliminated.

    Goyal claimed the agreement would open the $30 trillion US market to Indian exporters, benefiting MSMEs, farmers and fishermen, and generating millions of jobs for women and youth. However, he avoided questions on the reported halt to Russian oil imports. External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal maintained that India accords the highest priority to the energy security of its 1.4 billion citizens.

    Under the agreement, American products will enter India at zero tariffs, while the US will impose an 18% duty on Indian textiles, garments, leather, footwear, plastic and rubber goods, organic chemicals and select machinery. Generic pharmaceuticals, gems and jewellery, diamonds and aircraft parts will be exempt. India has committed to purchasing $500 billion worth of US goods, but the agreement does not specify reciprocal US purchases from India.

    The Congress party criticised the deal, alleging it was unequal and that India had opened its agricultural market to the US at zero tariffs. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera described it as “Narender Surrender,” claiming it would enable dumping of American goods in India. Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said the agreement appeared heavily tilted in Washington’s favour, while former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh warned that India’s imports from the US could triple, erasing its long-standing trade surplus.

    Whether the government’s claims or the opposition’s criticism prove accurate remains to be seen.

    Meanwhile, there is little indication of any softening in the US stance on visa issues affecting Indians. Trump has significantly tightened visa norms, causing hardship for Indian professionals reliant on H-1B visas and for Indian students. Visa renewals now take years, and it remains unclear whether the Prime Minister’s much-touted personal rapport with Trump will yield any relief.

    The economic and political consequences of the India–US agreement, many argue, are likely to be far-reaching.

  • Air Pollution Outside, Political Pollution Within: India’s Twin Crises

    Air pollution has engulfed India’s national capital. What were once winter mornings marked by dew on leaves are now defined by thick smog. At daybreak, a chemical sting in the eyes and persistent coughing have become routine. Although the Air Quality Index (AQI), which exceeded 300 during November and December, may have declined to around 260 by the end of January, daily life in Delhi remains severely affected.

    Beyond the toxic air outside Parliament, the atmosphere within appears no less suffocating. In both Houses, heated confrontations between the ruling party and the opposition have created a climate of near-constant disruption. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not attend the Lok Sabha to respond to the debate on the motion thanking the President for her address, but he did speak in the Rajya Sabha, launching familiar attacks on the Congress. As he has often done, Modi traced the party’s alleged failures back to the Indira Gandhi era, accused the opposition of seeking his political demise, and charged it with disrespecting Dalits and Sikhs. The speech bore a closer resemblance to an election rally than a parliamentary response. Few leaders in India match Modi’s effectiveness as a political orator—a point even his critics concede.

    The government has attempted to sidestep discussion of a book written by former Army Chief General Manoj Naravane, but the opposition appears determined to keep the issue alive. The debate on the President’s address ended amid disorder, and there are signs that the upcoming Budget discussion may face similar disruptions. Meanwhile, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has said an India–US trade agreement could be finalized within days. Whether India has made significant concessions will only become clear once the details are released. Politically, the agreement represents another test for Modi, even as his opponents watch closely for potential revelations from the so-called Epstein files.

    At the World Economic Forum, IMF Chief Economist Gita Gopinath underscored a more fundamental challenge. She said air pollution poses a far greater threat to India’s economy than US tariffs on Indian goods. Gopinath noted that air pollution causes an estimated 1.7 million deaths annually and discourages foreign investment. She warned that the resulting health costs, premature deaths, and productivity losses could reduce India’s GDP by as much as 9.5 percent. India’s Commerce Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, who was present at the forum, offered no public response.

    These concerns are echoed within India’s own policy establishment. The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) has described air pollution as a failure of government policy and an ongoing public health emergency. Economist Lekha Chakraborty has pointed to rising cases of severe respiratory illness in public hospitals, increasing health expenditures, and declining labor force participation—all of which weigh on economic growth. Air pollution, she argues, is not an unavoidable risk but a solvable problem. Yet it continues to reflect governance shortcomings. Despite India’s claims of leadership in environmental economic federalism, implementation remains weak.

    China’s experience offers a contrast. Both India and China enacted environmental laws around 2000, but China followed up with sustained, long-term action. It invested heavily in pollution-control technologies, shut down thousands of obsolete and highly polluting industrial units, and aggressively promoted electric vehicles. China’s progress demonstrates what political will and consistent policy execution can achieve.

    India today faces two parallel forms of pollution—one in its air, and the other in its politics. Leaders appear more invested in applause, spectacle, and rhetoric than in effective governance that delivers tangible improvements to citizens’ lives.

  • A government that does not answer questions.

    




    





    Unusual developments have taken place in Parliament. For the first time, the motion expressing thanks to the President for her address was passed in the Lok Sabha on Thursday by a voice vote. On this occasion, the Prime Minister did not come to the Lok Sabha to reply to the debate on the motion, which is without precedent.
    




    Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla stated that he had advised the Prime Minister not to attend the House due to security considerations, following an incident on Wednesday in which a few women Members of Parliament approached the Prime Minister’s seat. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi later clarified that only three women MPs had gone near the Prime Minister’s seat and questioned the security assessment within Parliament.
    




    Opposition leaders alleged that the Prime Minister’s absence was linked to the issues raised by Rahul Gandhi in connection with remarks made by former Army Chief General Manoj Naravane in his book. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera questioned whether protesting women MPs should be viewed as a security threat.
    




    Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to respond to the debate on the motion of thanks at 5 p.m. on Wednesday but did not attend the Lok Sabha throughout the day. Speaker Om Birla also remained in his chamber during this period.
    




    Opposition parties stated that they would continue to disrupt proceedings until Rahul Gandhi was allowed to complete his speech in the Lok Sabha, citing references to General Naravane’s book. As a result, Lok Sabha proceedings were disrupted for three consecutive days. The government did not respond substantively to the issue during this period. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju made efforts to facilitate conditions for the Prime Minister’s reply, but these efforts were unsuccessful.
    




    Rahul Gandhi indicated that he intended to present copies of General Naravane’s book to the Prime Minister in the House. The book reportedly states that during instances of Chinese military intrusions, political leadership did not issue specific directions to the armed forces. Continued disruptions in the House led to a legislative stalemate.
    




    Rahul Gandhi had earlier told the media that the Prime Minister would not attend the House, and the Prime Minister subsequently did not appear. Some observers, including within the ruling party, reportedly believe that the situation might have been resolved had Rahul Gandhi been permitted to complete his speech.
    




    Separately, the government faced questions from the opposition regarding the India–United States trade agreement. According to sources in the Commerce Ministry, the agreement has not yet been finalized, and discussions are ongoing, including on access for certain agricultural products. Despite this, statements were made by the US President regarding large-scale purchases by India and changes in India’s energy imports, prompting calls for clarification.
    




    Although the White House Press Secretary issued an official statement, the Indian government did not provide detailed clarification. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal stated that the proposed agreement would benefit India’s population and support exports but did not outline specific details.
    




    These developments have raised broader questions regarding decision-making during periods of border tensions with China and the nature of political direction provided at such times, as referenced in General Naravane’s book. Observers have called for clear explanations on both national security matters and the status of the India–US trade discussions.
    




    

    
			
    
		
    
		
	
  • 
		
		
    
			
			
    Trade ties and War controversies
    
			
    

    




    On the second day after the Union Budget was presented, immediately following the President’s address, Parliament plunged into severe chaos. This raises a fundamental question: do either the opposition or the government genuinely intend for Parliament to function smoothly? Conventionally, after the Budget is presented, discussion takes place on the motion of thanks to the President’s address, and only thereafter do debates on budget proposals begin. The President’s address to both Houses of Parliament is, in effect, a policy document of the government.
    




    The President’s address detailed the various welfare schemes being implemented by the Modi government, its programmes, and the priority being accorded to infrastructure development. Rising above political differences, the President called upon all national representatives to work collectively in the national interest in line with the goal of Viksit Bharat (Developed India). Ironically, the very next day after the Budget presentation, parliamentary proceedings became impossible due to intense confrontations between the ruling and opposition parties. Who is responsible for this situation?
    




    During the discussion on the President’s address that began on Monday, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya launched sharp attacks on the Congress. His remarks accusing the Congress of being opposed to Indian civilisation, culture, nationalism, and patriotism provoked the party. Would a Congress already seething with multiple wounds remain silent?
    




    Immediately thereafter, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi entered the fray, strongly objecting to questioning Congress’s patriotism and nationalism. He began by saying, “Since the BJP’s young MP has made remarks about our patriotism and Indian culture, I would like to read out a few sentences.” He proceeded to read excerpts published by The Caravan magazine from Four Stars of Destiny, a book written by former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane on the 2020 border clash with China.
    




    As soon as Rahul Gandhi began reading passages written by Naravane about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, BJP MPs created an uproar. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju raised strong objections, questioning how excerpts from an unpublished book could be read in Parliament. Speaker Om Birla clarified that doing so was not permissible under Rule 342. Heated arguments ensued not only between ruling and opposition members but also between the Speaker and opposition MPs.
    




    The same situation continued on Tuesday. Rahul Gandhi submitted a written note to the Speaker asserting that the contents of Naravane’s book were authentic and resumed his speech. However, ruling party members obstructed him as usual. Every time the word “Prime Minister” was uttered, the Speaker intervened. Amid the chaos over Rahul Gandhi being repeatedly stopped, eight Congress MPs were suspended. Eventually, after several adjournments, the House was adjourned till Wednesday.
    




    Why did the situation deteriorate to this extent? Were Tejasvi Surya’s attacks solely responsible for provoking Congress? Why is the BJP preventing any reference to the contents of General Naravane’s book? In reality, the Centre has been blocking the book’s publication for the past two years. The Ministries of Defence and External Affairs have not yet granted permission to the publisher. Naravane himself stated, “I have written what I had to write. It is for the publisher to decide how to release the book.” He has neither commented on the controversy surrounding the book’s contents nor responded to The Caravan excerpts—suggesting that he stands by what he wrote.
    




    Border clashes between India and China are not new. Numerous books have documented the mistakes of the Nehru government that led to war with China. During that war, Nehru expressed anguish over possibly losing Assam, saying, “My heart goes out to the people of Assam,” a remark that caused a sensation. The Congress never attempted to conceal the failures, defeats, and mistakes that occurred during its rule. Those very failures are partly why Congress today finds itself on the defensive on issues of national security and unable to recover from electoral defeats.
    




    But under Modi’s tenure, even discussion of such matters appears impossible. Why is there a refusal to debate issues of national importance, even while minor successes are exaggerated and celebrated with excessive propaganda? Had Naravane’s book been released, it would have been debated for a few days and the matter would have settled.
    




    Naravane wrote that during China’s intrusion into the Galwan Valley, the Defence Minister conveyed that the Prime Minister told him, “Do whatever you deem appropriate.” What exactly happened at that time, how many discussions were held, with whom, and after how much deliberation the Prime Minister decided to leave the matter to the Army—these details cannot be explained transparently on the floor of Parliament. At the same time, completely suppressing the issue and preventing any voice from being raised in Parliament only fuels suspicion.
    




    In reality, budget sessions are meant for discussion on the Budget. A positive environment should have been created for debate on the so-called “mother of all agreements” signed with the European Union just days before the Budget. Instead, discussion on the Budget presented by Nirmala Sitharaman collapsed on the second day itself.
    




    This is the third Budget presented by the Modi government since returning to power for a third term. With revenues estimated at ₹36.5 lakh crore and expenditures at ₹53.5 lakh crore, the government plans to borrow nearly ₹12 lakh crore and raise the remaining funds from the public and through disinvestment. Allocating ₹12.20 lakh crore for capital expenditure, nearly half of it to roads and rail networks, supporting the manufacturing sector, announcing industrial corridors, attempting to curb food inflation, and preparing the country for free trade agreements with global markets—all these may appear impressive. However, none of this may be sufficient to dramatically revive the Indian economy. While the Economic Survey suggested structural reforms, the government appears to have limited itself to announcements suited to current conditions, avoiding tough policy decisions.
    




    Markets behave like flowing rivers. When blocked in one place, they find another route. The world was not intimidated by Trump’s tariffs. The U.S. was isolated as even its partner countries entered into their own trade agreements. The EU’s agreement with India introduced zero tariffs on many goods. China and Canada struck their own agreements as well. Consequently, Trump was compelled to revise his stance and reduce tariffs on India to 18% to stay competitive.
    




    However, Trump’s declaration that India would stop buying Russian oil and instead purchase $500 billion worth of agricultural products, energy, technology, coal, and other goods from the U.S. triggered debate over the agreement’s implications. Rahul Gandhi alleged that Modi compromised with the U.S. and that Indian farmers would suffer, while Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal asserted that this historic agreement would create vast opportunities for Indian citizens.
    




    Until the official details of the India–U.S. joint trade agreement are publicly disclosed, neither excessive optimism nor pessimism is advisable. Nevertheless, the Modi government has entered into two major international agreements at the beginning of 2026—an undeniable development. At the same time, it has become entangled in controversies such as Naravane’s book and the Epstein files. The consequences of these developments will become clear in due course.(4-2-2026)