Leverage is crucial in any negotiation; we must establish a position of strength
At a New Delhi policy forum, Indian parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor offered a sober reckoning with the world as it is rather than as nations might wish it to be: fragmented, volatile, and indifferent to those who wait for calm before acting. His argument was not a counsel of despair but of preparation — that India's aspiration to become a developed nation depends less on a stable global order than on the strategic leverage, institutional depth, and human capital investment it builds within itself. In an age of polycrisis, readiness is the only reliable foundation.
- The global order is fracturing along geopolitical, economic, and climatic fault lines simultaneously, leaving nations that assumed stability as a given dangerously exposed.
- India's most glaring vulnerability is the chasm between its demographic weight — 17.2% of humanity — and its meager 4% share of global research output, a gap that signals decades of underinvestment in knowledge and innovation.
- Aggressive tax enforcement described as 'tax terrorism' continues to push Indian capital and entrepreneurial talent abroad, undermining the very economic foundation that strategic ambition requires.
- Tharoor's prescription is not passive resilience but active leverage-building: strengthening economic autonomy, reforming bureaucratic culture, and engaging multilateral institutions from a position of credibility rather than dependency.
- The launch of TRaNJA — a CUTS International campaign to map the real-world winners and losers of the WTO system — signals a broader push to ground global trade governance in transparent, evidence-based accountability.
Speaking at a CUTS International event in New Delhi, Shashi Tharoor, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, delivered a pointed message to policymakers and economists: India cannot afford to wait for the world to settle. The era of polycrisis — simultaneous geopolitical fragmentation, economic instability, climate stress, and technological disruption — demands not patience but preparation.
Tharoor's central argument was about leverage. In a world where no stable order can be assumed, India must build the economic resilience and strategic autonomy to compel engagement on its own terms. This means strengthening institutions capable of evidence-based decision-making and coordinated action even when the global horizon is uncertain — not embracing volatility, but navigating it with purpose.
The statistic he returned to most forcefully was damning in its simplicity: India accounts for 17.2% of the world's population and intellectual capacity, yet produces only 4% of global research output. This is not fate, Tharoor insisted — it is a policy failure, one that strategic investment in innovation ecosystems and talent development could begin to reverse. Without it, India's demographic dividend risks becoming a squandered inheritance.
He also addressed the persistence of what he called 'tax terrorism' — aggressive enforcement practices that drive Indian capital abroad despite recent legal reforms. True ease of doing business, he argued, requires not just new rules but a transformation in how those rules are lived out by the bureaucracy that applies them.
The vision of Viksit Bharat Tharoor articulated was deliberately broad: developed nationhood measured not merely in GDP but in institutional strength, equitable growth, human capital, and global responsibility. India's engagement in trade negotiations, climate diplomacy, and digital governance is inseparable from its domestic development — each reinforces the other.
The evening also marked the launch of TRaNJA, a CUTS International initiative co-chaired by Tharoor and former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, aimed at rebuilding multilateral trade legitimacy by mapping how the WTO system actually affects different countries and communities at the grassroots level. It was a fitting complement to Tharoor's broader thesis: that strategic realism, grounded in evidence and institutional credibility, is India's most reliable path through an unstable world.
Shashi Tharoor stood before an audience at a CUTS International event in New Delhi and made a stark assertion: India cannot wait for the world to stabilize. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs was speaking to a room full of policymakers, economists, and civil society leaders about what it will actually take for India to become a Viksit Bharat—a developed nation. His message was not comforting. It was practical.
The world, Tharoor explained, is fragmenting. Geopolitical lines are hardening. Economic uncertainty is the baseline condition, not the exception. Climate stress is mounting. Technological change is accelerating. In this environment—what some call a polycrisis—India cannot simply grow its way to stability by following a predictable path. Instead, it must build leverage. "Leverage is crucial in any negotiation," he said. "If we intend to compel future world leaders to negotiate with us, we must establish a position of strength." That strength, he argued, comes from economic resilience, strategic autonomy, and the ability to move independently when necessary.
But Tharoor was careful not to advocate for chaos or instability as a permanent state. Long-term stability remains essential, he insisted. The point is not to embrace volatility but to navigate it—to build institutions and capabilities that allow India to act decisively even when the global order is in flux. This requires strengthening the economy, yes, but also something deeper: the capacity to make evidence-based decisions, to coordinate across government and society, and to remain forward-looking even when the horizon is uncertain.
One number Tharoor highlighted cut to the heart of India's unfulfilled potential. India represents 17.2 percent of the world's population and intellectual capacity. Yet it contributes only 4 percent of global research output. That gap is not inevitable. It is a policy choice—or rather, a failure of policy. Strategic investment in research, innovation ecosystems, and talent identification could begin to close it. Without that investment, India's demographic dividend—its young, growing population—risks becoming a missed opportunity rather than a source of global leadership in knowledge production.
There was also a harder edge to Tharoor's remarks. He spoke about what he called "tax terrorism," the practice of aggressive tax enforcement that drives Indian capital abroad. The government has begun dismantling outdated laws, he acknowledged, but the old bureaucratic culture of arm-twisting persists. True ease of doing business requires not just new rules but a change in how those rules are applied. This is not abstract. It affects whether entrepreneurs stay or leave, whether investment flows in or out, whether India builds the economic foundation it needs.
The vision of Viksit Bharat that emerged from the evening was notably expansive. It cannot be reduced to income per capita or GDP growth. It must encompass institutional strength, human capital development, equitable growth, and global responsibility. India's external engagements—in trade negotiations, climate talks, digital governance, South-South cooperation—are not separate from domestic development. They are levers that can accelerate it. Conversely, India's ability to shape global narratives depends ultimately on its success in delivering growth, opportunity, and institutional credibility at home.
The event also launched a new initiative: TRaNJA, a campaign by CUTS International to revive support for the World Trade Organisation by mapping winners and losers of the system at both policy and grassroots levels. Tharoor chairs the international steering committee; Pascal Lamy, the former WTO Director-General, co-chairs it. The campaign reflects a conviction that the WTO, despite its flaws, remains the most effective multilateral instrument available—and that its legitimacy depends on transparent, evidence-based discussion of how it actually affects different countries and communities.
What Tharoor was describing, in essence, is a form of strategic realism. India cannot control the global polycrisis. But it can control how it responds: by building economic strength, investing in human capital, maintaining strategic autonomy, and engaging with the world from a position of institutional credibility. The path to becoming a developed nation is not a straight line in a stable world. It is a navigation of volatility by a country equipped to move.
Citas Notables
If we intend to compel future world leaders to negotiate with us, we must establish a position of strength— Shashi Tharoor
Tax terrorism remains an unfortunate feature that drives Indian capital abroad, and the old bureaucratic culture of arm-twisting still stands as a major hurdle in achieving true ease of doing business— Shashi Tharoor
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Tharoor talks about leverage, what does he actually mean? Is he saying India should be more aggressive in negotiations?
Not aggressive in the sense of confrontational. He means India needs to be strong enough that other countries have to take it seriously. Right now, if India is weak, others can ignore it or impose terms. If India is economically resilient, technologically capable, and diplomatically credible, then negotiating partners have to actually listen.
But he also said stability is essential. Doesn't that contradict the idea of thriving in volatility?
No, it's the opposite. He's saying volatility is the reality we're in now. Stability is what we should be building toward. The difference is: don't wait for the world to become stable before you act. Build your own stability—strong institutions, good policy, human capital—while the world is still chaotic.
The research gap is striking. India has 17 percent of global intellectual capacity but only 4 percent of research output. Why such a huge gap?
It's a policy failure, essentially. The talent is there. The potential is there. But there's underinvestment in research infrastructure, in innovation ecosystems, in identifying and nurturing talent. It's not that Indians can't do research. It's that the systems to support it aren't in place.
He mentioned "tax terrorism." That's a strong phrase. What's he really talking about?
Aggressive tax enforcement that makes business owners feel threatened. The government has been reforming the laws, which is good. But the old culture—where tax officials use their power to intimidate—still exists. That drives capital out of the country. You can't build a strong economy if entrepreneurs are afraid.
So Viksit Bharat isn't just about becoming rich?
Not at all. It's about institutional strength, equitable growth, human development, and being a responsible global actor. You could have high GDP and still be fragile if your institutions are weak or your growth benefits only a few. Real development is broader than that.
What does India's success in this actually depend on?
Ultimately, on delivering at home. If India can build credible institutions, create real opportunity, and grow equitably, then it has the standing to shape global conversations. The external engagement—trade deals, climate negotiations, digital governance—all flows from that domestic foundation.