Why India Should Adopt Baseless (Chained) Indices for Better Economic Measurement

 

---

Why India Should Adopt Baseless (Chained) Indexes for Better Economic Measurement

India’s economy is complex, fast-evolving, and increasingly digitized. Yet, many of its core economic indicators — like GDP and inflation — are still calculated using fixed-base indexes. While these served well in the past, chained (baseless) indexes are now the global standard for measuring real economic growth and inflation with greater accuracy. The shift to chained indexes is not just a technical upgrade — it is a policy necessity.

---

What Are Chained (Baseless) Indexes?

Chained indexes use changing weights from one period to the next, capturing dynamic changes in the economy (like consumption patterns or sectoral growth). This contrasts with fixed-base indexes, which use a single base year, assuming the economy remains structurally static.

Why Chained Indexes Matter

What Do Advanced Economies Use?

These nations use chained indexes as default for their national accounts and inflation figures, improving policy targeting and economic forecasting.

---

How India Can Implement Chained Indexes

1. GDP — Chained Volume Measures

Methodology:

• Use annual or quarterly weighting instead of a fixed base year.
• Calculate real GDP as a chain index using:
• Laspeyres-type or Fisher-type formulas.
• Inter-year linking (e.g., 2022 based on 2021, 2023 based on 2022, etc.)
• Use SNA 2008 guidelines already recommended by the UN.

Implementation Steps:

• CSO/National Statistical Office (NSO) must:
• Develop a consistent time series of annual weights.
• Ensure sectoral disaggregation is compatible with chaining.
• Revise the National Accounts Manual to support chaining.

2. Inflation — Chained CPI

Methodology:

• Update consumer expenditure weights more frequently (yearly or biennially).
• Use Chained Laspeyres or Fisher indexes.
• Introduce real-time price substitution modeling (e.g., if oil rises, gas stove usage rises).

Implementation Steps:

• Conduct annual or rolling household consumption surveys.
• Update weights based on actual shifts in urban and rural consumption.
• Train inflation analysts in dynamic index modeling.

---

Benefits for India

✅ More Accurate Measurement

• Reflects actual economic structure, especially in services, digital and informal sectors.

✅ Better Policy Design

• RBI and Finance Ministry can target inflation and growth based on real behavior, not outdated assumptions.

✅ Credibility in Global Rankings

• Aligns India with IMF and OECD standards.
• Improves global investor confidence and data reliability.

✅ Handles Economic Shocks Better

• Captures shifts like demonetization, COVID-19, and tech adoption far more accurately.

---

Conclusion

Adopting chained indexes is a technical reform with massive strategic value. As India eyes a $5 trillion economy, our measurement tools must match our ambitions. The move to chained GDP and CPI indexes will ensure that our data reflects our true economic reality, guiding smarter policy and better governance.

The Fine Line Between Misinformation and Disinformation in India: A Deliberate Game of Deception

 According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024, India ranks as the country most at risk of misinformation, a crisis that threatens social cohesion, political stability, and trust in institutions. However, a closer examination reveals that much of what is labeled as misinformation in India is, in fact, disinformation—deliberately spread falsehoods where the propagators are fully aware of their falsity but choose to disseminate them for strategic gain. This distinction, rooted in intent, is critical to understanding the dynamics of India’s information ecosystem, where political propaganda often masquerades as innocent error.

Misinformation vs. Disinformation: The Intent Divide

Misinformation refers to false or misleading information shared without the intent to deceive—think of an individual unknowingly sharing a fabricated news story or a misleading health remedy. Disinformation, on the other hand, is the deliberate spread of falsehoods, where the sharer knows the information is false but propagates it to achieve a specific agenda, often political or ideological. In India’s hyper-polarized digital landscape, the line between these two is frequently blurred, with disinformation often cloaked in the guise of misinformation to evade accountability.

The WEF report highlights India’s vulnerability due to its massive digital population—over 800 million internet users—and widespread access to smartphones and social media platforms like WhatsApp, X, and Instagram. These platforms amplify information at unprecedented speeds, but they also provide fertile ground for bad actors to exploit. What sets India apart is not just the scale of false information but the orchestrated nature of its spread, often driven by political motives.

The Disinformation Playbook: Pretending Innocence

In India, disinformation is frequently dressed up as misinformation, with propagators feigning ignorance to dodge responsibility. Political operatives, influencers, and even ordinary citizens knowingly share fabricated narratives, doctored images, or out-of-context videos, all while maintaining a veneer of sincerity. This tactic—what one right-wing X user euphemistically called “positive auxiliary assistance”—is designed to manipulate public opinion while shielding the perpetrator from accusations of malice.

Take, for instance, the recurring phenomenon of viral WhatsApp forwards during election seasons. Messages claiming exaggerated economic achievements, demonizing opposition leaders, or stoking communal tensions often circulate with no verifiable source. These are not innocent mistakes; they are crafted to inflame sentiments and polarize voters. The sharers—whether party-affiliated IT cells or motivated individuals—know the information is dubious but bank on plausible deniability, claiming they “didn’t know” or were simply “sharing what they received.”

A notable example is the 2019 Indian general election, where doctored videos and false narratives about opposition leaders’ statements spread like wildfire. Fact-checking organizations like Alt News repeatedly exposed these as deliberate fabrications, yet the perpetrators rarely faced consequences, often hiding behind the excuse of being “unaware” of the falsehood. Similarly, during the 2020 Delhi riots, disinformation campaigns amplified communal tensions, with false claims about violence or migrant movements shared by accounts that later claimed ignorance when confronted.

The Motive: Political Propaganda Over Truth

The driving force behind India’s disinformation epidemic is political propaganda. In a country with deep ideological divides and a history of communal sensitivities, false narratives are weaponized to sway elections, vilify opponents, or consolidate power. Deep down, many propagators know their claims are baseless but are indifferent to the truth, prioritizing political loyalty over ethics. This is evident in the coordinated campaigns run by political IT cells, which churn out tailored disinformation to target specific demographics—rural voters, urban youth, or religious communities.

The X user’s term “positive auxiliary assistance” captures this mindset perfectly: disinformation is framed as a noble act, a means to bolster a cause or “protect” a narrative. This euphemism reflects a broader cultural acceptance among some groups that bending the truth is justified if it serves a higher ideological purpose. Such rationalizations are particularly prevalent in India’s polarized online spaces, where right-wing, left-wing, and regional factions all engage in selective storytelling to advance their agendas.

The Role of Social Media and Technology

India’s disinformation problem is exacerbated by the architecture of social media. WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption makes it a black box for tracking the origins of false messages, while X’s algorithmic amplification rewards sensationalism over accuracy. Bots and fake accounts further muddy the waters, creating the illusion of grassroots support for fabricated narratives. According to a 2023 study by the University of Oxford, India is among the top countries for coordinated inauthentic behavior on social media, with political actors leveraging troll armies to spread disinformation.

Deepfakes and AI-generated content are emerging threats, adding sophistication to disinformation campaigns. In 2024, a deepfake video of a prominent Indian politician making inflammatory remarks went viral, only to be debunked after significant damage. The creators, linked to a political fringe group, claimed it was a “prank,” but the intent to mislead was clear.

The Consequences and the Way Forward

The consequences of this disinformation epidemic are profound. It erodes trust in institutions, fuels communal violence, and undermines democratic processes. The 2024 WEF report warns that unchecked disinformation could destabilize India’s social fabric, especially in a year with national and state elections looming.

Addressing this crisis requires a multi-pronged approach. First, stricter regulation of social media platforms is needed, with mandates for transparency in content moderation and swift removal of verified disinformation. Second, public awareness campaigns must educate citizens on spotting false narratives and verifying sources. Fact-checking organizations like Boom and Alt News play a crucial role but need greater support to scale their efforts. Finally, legal accountability for deliberate disinformation—without stifling free speech—is essential to deter bad actors.

Conclusion

India’s status as the world’s most at-risk nation for misinformation is not just a product of scale but of intent. Much of the false information circulating is not innocent misinformation but deliberate disinformation, propagated by those who know the truth but choose to weaponize lies for political gain. By pretending to act in good faith, these actors evade accountability, framing their actions as “positive auxiliary assistance” rather than the corrosive propaganda they are. Unmasking this deception is the first step toward reclaiming India’s information ecosystem and safeguarding its democratic future

The Caste Dynamics of Indian Classical Dance: From Devadasis to Brahminical Appropriation

 Indian classical dances such as Bharatanatyam, Kuchipudi, and Odissi are celebrated as timeless embodiments of India’s cultural heritage. Yet, their modern practice reveals a complex history of caste, colonialism, and cultural appropriation that has sidelined the very communities who birthed these art forms. Once performed by lower-caste women like Devadasis and Maharis, these dances are now largely dominated by upper-caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins. This shift, rooted in colonial suppression and 20th-century revivalism, underscores a troubling erasure of marginalized voices in India’s artistic legacy.

Devadasi named Gnyana of Tanjore, 19th century. She also performed at the Royapuram Station Hall at the reception held for the Prince of Wales in 1875.

Historical Roots in Marginalized Communities

Indian classical dances have deep origins in the traditions of Devadasis (in Tamil Nadu), Maharis (in Odisha), and Nautch girls, among others. These women, often from Dalit or Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities, were highly skilled in music, dance, and temple rituals. Their performances in temples and royal courts were not only artistic but also held spiritual and cultural significance. Far from the stigmatized perception they face today, Devadasis and their counterparts were once respected as custodians of sophisticated artistic traditions.

However, their caste and gender made them vulnerable to exploitation. While their roles were prestigious in certain contexts, their association with temple and courtesan traditions often placed them on society’s margins, a dynamic that would later be weaponized against them.

Colonial Suppression and Stigma

The arrival of British colonial rule in the 18th and 19th centuries marked a turning point. Through a Victorian moral lens, the British branded Devadasis and similar performers as “prostitutes,” condemning their practices as immoral. Colonial policies eroded the socio-economic systems that supported these women, dismantling their roles in temples and courts. The Devadasi Abolition Act of 1947 (and subsequent amendments) formalized this suppression, outlawing their temple performances and further stigmatizing their communities. As a result, their art forms—intricately tied to their caste, gender, and perceived sexuality—were shunned, leaving a cultural vacuum.

The Brahminical Revival: Sanitization and Appropriation

In the early 20th century, a movement to “revive” Indian classical dance emerged as part of a broader nationalist effort to reclaim cultural heritage. Figures like Rukmini Devi Arundale, a Brahmin and founder of Kalakshetra, played a pivotal role in reshaping Bharatanatyam. This revival, however, came at a cost. The dance was stripped of its erotic and folk elements, reframed as a “spiritual” and “respectable” art form suitable for urban elites and global audiences. By moving performances from temples and courtesan spaces to proscenium stages and formal institutions, the art was “sanitized” to align with upper-caste sensibilities.

This process effectively excluded the original practitioners. Upper-caste families, particularly Brahmins, began learning and teaching these dances, establishing themselves as the new custodians. State-funded academies, cultural sabhas, and dance schools—often controlled by upper-caste networks—further entrenched this shift, sidelining Devadasi descendants and other marginalized communities.

Why Upper-Caste Dominance Persists

Today, the ecosystem of Indian classical dance remains predominantly upper-caste, especially Brahmin-dominated, for several reasons:

1. Access and Privilege: Upper-caste families often have the financial resources, leisure time, and social networks to pursue and promote classical dance. Training, costumes, and performance opportunities require significant investment, which excludes many from marginalized backgrounds.
2. Cultural Gatekeeping: The guru-shishya (teacher-student) tradition, concert halls (sabhas), and institutional frameworks are largely controlled by upper-caste practitioners. These gatekeepers often dictate who can access training and performance spaces, marginalizing lower-caste artists.
3. Persistent Stigma: Descendants of Devadasi and similar communities face ongoing social and economic stigma, which discourages their participation in the “respectable” world of classical dance. Their historical association with sensuality and caste-based prejudice further alienates them.
4. Erasure in Education: The curricula and syllabi of dance institutions rarely acknowledge the contributions of Devadasis or other marginalized groups. The “classical” label, with its emphasis on purity and tradition, obscures the dances’ roots in lower-caste and folk traditions.

The Irony of “Classical” Dance

The irony is stark: the women whose traditions formed the backbone of Indian classical dance are now largely excluded from its practice and recognition. The “classicization” of these art forms has erased their complex histories of caste, gender, and sexuality, presenting a sanitized version that aligns with upper-caste values. This appropriation not only marginalizes Devadasi descendants but also distorts the rich, diverse origins of these dances.

Resistance and Reclamation

In recent years, a growing movement has sought to address this injustice. Dalit and Bahujan artists, alongside scholars like Saskia Kersenboom, Vijaya Ramaswamy, and Davesh Soneji, have worked to document the contributions of marginalized communities and challenge casteism in the arts. Their efforts highlight the need for inclusive dance education and caste-aware pedagogy. Grassroots initiatives are slowly creating space for lower-caste artists to reclaim their heritage, though systemic barriers remain formidable.

Moving Forward

The dominance of upper-caste Hindus in Indian classical dance is a legacy of colonial disruption and Brahminical appropriation, but it is not an immutable reality. Acknowledging the contributions of Devadasis, Maharis, and other marginalized women is a critical first step. Institutions must prioritize inclusive access, diversify their leadership, and integrate honest historical narratives into their curricula. Only then can Indian classical dance truly reflect the richness of its origins—a vibrant tapestry woven by artists of all castes and backgrounds.

By confronting its casteist past and present, the world of Indian classical dance can honor its true custodians and reclaim its place as a universal art form, rooted in resilience, creativity, and diversity.

The Contradiction of LGBTQ+ Rights in India: Navigating Religion, Culture, and Law

India’s LGBTQ+ Rights Paradox: Balancing Culture, Religion, and Politics

In recent years, the discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in India has revealed a striking contradiction—some might even call it hypocrisy—in how the Indian government and institutions address these rights in the context of religion, culture, and law. While the government often portrays Hinduism as an inherently inclusive and tolerant tradition, its legal and political actions frequently tell a different story, particularly when it comes to recognizing same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ+ rights. This dissonance between rhetoric and action raises critical questions about the interplay of tradition, modernity, and political strategy in shaping India’s stance on equality.

The Contradiction: Celebrating Tolerance, Denying Rights

Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, frequently point to Hinduism’s inclusive legacy when addressing global audiences or during symbolic moments like Pride Month. Ancient texts and art, such as the erotic carvings at Khajuraho and Konark temples or the Kama Sutra’s references to non-heterosexual relationships, are celebrated as evidence of India’s progressive past. Mythological figures like Ardhanarishvara, a deity embodying both male and female aspects, and Shikhandi, a gender-shifting character in the Mahabharata, further underscore this narrative of fluidity and acceptance.

However, this inclusive rhetoric falters in the courtroom. The government has consistently opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, arguing that it conflicts with India’s societal norms and the traditional, heterosexual definition of marriage. This stance seems at odds with the cultural heritage it claims to champion, raising questions about the sincerity of its commitment to inclusivity.

Why the Disconnect?

Several factors contribute to this apparent hypocrisy:

1. Selective Use of Tradition: If Hinduism embraces diversity, as the government often claims, then supporting same-sex unions should be a natural extension of that ethos. Instead, tradition is invoked to block legal progress, suggesting that cultural references are used more for optics than principle.
2. Inconsistent Marriage Policies: The government endorses interfaith and inter-caste marriages through the Special Marriage Act, demonstrating flexibility for some unions. Yet, it denies similar rights to same-sex couples, claiming society isn’t ready. This double standard highlights a selective approach to equality.
3. Rhetoric for Different Audiences: Abroad, India promotes its cultural tolerance to burnish its global image. Domestically, however, conservative interpretations of tradition are used to resist policy changes, often echoing colonial-era moralities rather than Hinduism’s pluralistic roots.

The Political Underpinnings

The government’s cautious stance on LGBTQ+ rights is less about religion and more about political strategy:

• Appeasing Conservative Voters: With elections in mind, leaders prioritize the support of conservative, often rural, communities who may view LGBTQ+ rights as a challenge to traditional norms.
• Avoiding Controversy: Religious and social groups hold significant sway in India. Publicly endorsing same-sex marriage could spark backlash, which the government may wish to avoid.
• Pragmatism Over Principle: Even leaders who privately support inclusivity may hesitate to act, fearing political repercussions. This creates a gap between personal beliefs and public policy.

A Path Forward

To resolve this contradiction, India could draw on its own cultural heritage to support progressive policies. Legalizing same-sex marriage would align with the inclusivity found in Hindu traditions while advancing equality under the law. The government’s willingness to accommodate interfaith and inter-caste marriages shows that extending similar rights to same-sex couples is feasible. Public awareness campaigns could help shift societal attitudes, fostering greater acceptance over time.

Conclusion

India’s claim of cultural inclusivity rings hollow when its legal system denies LGBTQ+ individuals the right to marry, citing the very traditions it celebrates. This contradiction reflects a broader tension between ancient pluralism and modern political caution. By aligning its policies with the inclusive spirit of its heritage, India can bridge this gap, ensuring that its actions match its words and that equality becomes a reality for all its citizens.