The road to progress and politics is always varied in a democracy

We have to understand that the road to progress, companionship, and politics cannot always be the same in a democracy

The grand G20 summit has concluded, and a question arises in its wake: What has the country and its people achieved with such splendour? I’ll take you back 15 years to find the answer.

Perhaps the question in your mind is: What is the immediate benefit of the G20 meetings to India and Indians? (PTI)

In September 2009, then Prime Minister (PM) Manmohan Singh was in the United States for a G20 summit. It was customary then for the PM to speak with the journalists accompanying him, on the aircraft back home. During this press conference, a journalist asked Singh: “Can you give us an idea of what India’s aam aadmi has benefited from the G20 after its three rounds? How does he benefit from the G20 meetings in his daily life.”

Singh replied: “If the world economy collapses, there is obviously some effect on our country... No country by itself can ensure that all its goals of economic life can be achieved by working to the exclusion of other participants, in the increasingly interdependent world that we live in. There is, therefore, a necessity for India to ensure that the global economic system continues to progress.”

Singh’s response remains relevant today. The slogan of ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’ is also used by the current PM Narendra Modi.

The world is moving towards a global village, a concept that took shape in the 1990s. No country in the world may now follow the ekla chalo re (walk alone) policy. On September 26, 1999, the G20 was founded with this goal in mind. The world then was reeling from the Asian financial crisis. There was a consensus that such situations could recur in the future, and that a forum for finance ministers and central bank governors from these 20 nations would be useful in dealing with them. This was a significant move because the G20 group accounts for 85% of global Gross Domestic Product.

Is the mission of this grouping a complete success?

Certainly not. The Russia-Ukraine conflict had left the G20 summit in Bali last year divided into two camps. This time, neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor Chinese President Xi Jinping visited New Delhi. Longstanding tensions between countries are the harsh reality of our times. The League of Nations, founded in 1920, and the United Nations, founded in 1945 with fresh resolutions following its failure, have yet to untangle these knots. What else would you expect from the G20, which is only 24 years old?

Perhaps the question in your mind is: What is the immediate benefit of the G20 meetings to India and Indians? It goes without saying that G20 meetings were held in 60 major cities around the country. This resulted in infrastructure development. The central government alone had set aside ₹990 crore for this purpose. The state governments spent money in addition. I live in Noida, travel to Delhi for work, and frequently visit family in Agra or Varanasi. The development that took place in all these metropolitan cities in one year not only made these cities more beautiful but also added amenities for people.

Another direct and indirect message emerged from this historic gathering.

The G20 tourism group met in Srinagar from May 22 to 24. After several years, such an international event could be held in the Valley. This sent a message to the world that, with the repeal of Article 370 and the division of the state, this violence-hit region is now moving towards peace. Top executives from travel agencies from nations that were unable to attend owing to diplomatic obligations were there. This will pave the way for foreign tourists to arrive in the coming days.

It is desperately required in the current situation.

The Opposition alleges that G20 meetings were held in one or more countries each year, but in India, the central government sought to exploit this chance for electoral advantage. They claim that the way the New Delhi event appeared on giant screens in all cities, towns, and villages was designed to enhance the PM’s image and to distract from existing issues. This is a classic Indian political formula. The same had happened in November 1983, when India hosted the non-aligned nations summit. Similarly, the Asian Games in 1982 were used for political gain. Apart from technology, the only difference between then and now is that the faces and stances of the critics have shifted. We have to understand that the road of progress, companionship, and politics cannot always be the same in a democracy.

Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. The views expressed are personal