Letter from the Executive Board:

Greetings Members!

It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you to the simulation of Niti Aayog at SSN-
SNUC MUN 2024. We look forward to an enriching and rewarding experience.

This study guide is by no means the end of your research. We would very much
appreciate it if the leaders could explore new realms within the agenda and bring them
forth in the committee. Such research, combined with good argumentation and a solid
representation of facts, is what makes the most impact. Fluency, diction, or oratory
skills have very little importance compared to the content you deliver. So, just research
thoroughly and speak confidently, and you are bound to make a lot of sense. We are
certain that we will learn immensely from you, and we also hope that you all will have
an equally enriching experience.

In case of any queries, feel free to contact us. We will try our best to answer your
questions to the best of our abilities. We look forward to an exciting and interesting
committee, which will certainly be enhanced by the all-pervasive nature of the issue.
Hopefully, we, as members of the Executive Board, will also have a chance to gain from
being a part of this committee. Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding any doubts
you may have.

All the Best!

Executive Board
Valid Sources:

Government Reports (Each ministry publishes its own reports, including the
Ministry of External Affairs)
PTI, PIB
Government Websites
Government-run News Channels (i.e., RSTV, LSTV, DD News)
Standing Committee Reports/Commission Reports
RTI Proofs
Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports
Questions and Answers from Parliament

In recent months, we have seen vociferous protests from some of the southern states on
the issue of devolution of resources from the union government to these states. The
claims of a denial of a fair share of resources from the national pool vis-à-vis those that
benefit from the redistributive transfers of that pool is a complex issue. The shrill
discussion on the subject in recent times has the potential to harm the economic
interests of both the north and the south.

The core issue here is economic. While economic analysis and tools have their own
limitations in fully explaining this phenomenon, an economic perspective beyond what
is being discussed in popular print and electronic media is necessary. This essay is an
attempt to discuss these issues, particularly the fiscal issues that are at the moment
missing from the mainstream debate on the north-south division of budgetary fund
flows.

Financial flows to a state cannot be measured just by the budgetary flow of resources.
There are non-budgetary flows of resources such as union government spending in a
state, investments made by central public sector undertakings, the flow of bank credit,
and private investment including foreign direct investments at the state level. An
aggregate picture of all flows to each state is not readily available, and sadly the
discussion has only focused on budgetary fund flows.
It would not be an exaggeration to assume that a significant part of non-budgetary
financial resources flow to the more prosperous regions of the country. This has
contributed to the increase in fiscal capacity differentials and income inequality across
states. Given the overall resource envelope and the constitutional assignment of
functions to the union, such fiscal inequalities cannot be addressed by the mechanism of
union-state resource transfers alone. This dilemma is not unique to the Indian Union. It
is observed in other federal countries as well. What makes it more challenging for India
is the far higher level of fiscal inequality amongst the Indian states compared with other
established federations of the world.

It needs to be emphasised that since Independence, the needs of fiscal stability in each state
and fiscal equalization across states have formed the basis of budgetary transfers to states.

Budgetary flows remain important components of financial transfers to a state, and they
are a critical determinant of state-specific fiscal balance, irrespective of the level of
income of a state. From the perspective of fiscal stability, a decline in the fiscal flow of
resources can be an exogenous shock to both a rich and a poor state in similar ways.
Concern for fiscal stability is different from the argument about unfairness in transfers.
It needs to be emphasised that since Independence, the needs of fiscal stability in each
state and fiscal equalization across states have formed the basis of budgetary transfers
to states.

These two needs continue to be at the core of fiscal transfers to and across states. The
concerns of individual states do need deeper analysis. In some cases, an appropriate
resolution without undermining the redistributive role of transfers is probably
necessary. The objective of fiscal equalization is to strengthen the fiscal capacity of
states to enable them to provide comparable levels of public services at comparable
levels of taxation. Thus, by definition, fiscal equalization is redistributive. Rather than
blaming redistribution, separate policy instruments are necessary to address the
concerns of individual states.
Constitutional Framework and Budgetary Resource Flows

Let us start with some basic facts about fiscal resource flows to the states. Sharing of
union taxes based on the recommendations of the Finance Commission is the primary
mode of budgetary resource transfers. It constitutes more than two-thirds of the total
flow of budgetary transfers to the states. Grants from the union, allocated through
various central schemes, constitute the rest. Central schemes are of two types: Centrally
Sponsored Schemes and Central Sector Schemes. The former are financed on a co-
sharing basis with the states contributing 40% of the total cost of the scheme. For
northern and hilly states, the states’ contribution is 10%. Central Sector Schemes are
fully financed by the union government.

The quantum of resources borrowed by states to finance budgetary expenditure is also

an important component of resource transfers from the aggregate pool of financial
resources available in the country. The cost of debt servicing of such borrowing is borne
by the states. This borrowing helps the states to enhance their fiscal space to undertake
capital spending. Borrowing by states is governed by their respective Fiscal
Responsibility Legislation (FRL), based on the borrowing limits proposed by the Finance
Commission. Since 2020–21, as a response measure to the Covid-19 pandemic, the union
government has also provided 50-year interest-free loans to the states for capital
expenditure. The interim budget for the year 2024–25 has allocated Rs 1,30,000 crores
for interest-free loans to the states.

Apart from these, there are Externally Aided Projects (EAPs) in the states funded by
multilateral lending institutions. EAPs are mostly back-to-back loans and constitute a
minuscule and insignificant part of the total budgetary resources and have no major
relevance to the fund flow to the states and for that matter on India’s general
government (union and states together) fisc.
Unfairness in Transfers

The argument about unfairness in the distribution of resources emanates from the fact
that southern states contribute more to the union revenues and receive far less as
transfers through the Finance Commission route, compared with their northern
counterparts.

The union minister of state for finance in a reply to a question in Rajya Sabha on 5
December 2023 provided information about state-wise collection of various taxes.
Discussions and debates on the issue so far have extensively quoted these numbers. The
essence of the argument made by some of the southern states seems to suggest that
since they contribute more to the national pool of taxes, they should be receiving more
than what they receive now as devolution. Operationalising this demand of southern
states would mean the origin of tax collection should be an important determinant of
the devolution of taxes to states.

This issue is complex and requires careful analysis. To delve deep, we need to go back to
history and find the reasons for why the ‘collection’ of taxes as an indicator of budgetary
fund flow is not an appropriate measure for deciding on the quantum of devolution of
taxes to individual states. Use of ‘collection’ as an indicator of devolution can further
accentuate the already high levels of fiscal inequalities between the states. It is also
incorrect to attribute tax collection to a state when tax bases are mobile, especially the
direct tax bases. Payment of tax in a state does not necessarily mean that income has
been generated in that state.

Dropping ‘Collection’

In the past, the contribution by states to the national taxes, called ‘collection’, was an
important criterion for deciding on the horizontal devolution of tax resources to the
states. Collection as an indicator of tax sharing was introduced by the 1st Finance
Commission and continued until the 9th Finance Commission. The weightage of
collection in total devolution varied between 10% and 20%.
This was also the period when devolution to the states was tax-specific, implying that
not all taxes were shared with the states. Until the 80th Amendment to the Constitution
in 2000, only income tax and union excise duties were shareable with the states.

The essence of the argument made by some of the southern states seems to suggest that
since they contribute more to the national pool of taxes, they should be receiving more
than what they receive now as devolution.

The state-specific collection of taxes was dropped as a criterion for devolution by the
10th Finance Commission when it recommended that the sharing of the divisible pool
should include all the taxes collected by the union. The 10th Finance Commission
argued that “(T)he generation of income, especially non-agriculture income, is a
spatially interdependent activity. The linkages run through the input as well as the
demand side. An input being produced in a specific place may be using inputs produced
in various other locations. The income generated from the sale of this output also
depends on the income of consumers who may be spatially dispersed throughout the
country. The country as a whole represents a common economic space and market, and
growing interdependence in economic activities has considerably weakened the case of
locally originating incomes in the non-agricultural sector.”

This also implies that a company may pay taxes in a state where its head office is
registered even as its sales and profits might be generated mainly in other states. Since
income generation is a spatially interdependent activity, the use of collection for the
purpose of tax sharing would be regressive and disproportionately benefit the high-
income states and seriously undermine redistribution.

Migration

Post the 1991 economic reforms, this interdependence has only increased. It is not
unreasonable to assume that market integrations and movements of various factors of
production, including labour, across the country have increased at a fast pace during
the last three decades.
Labour supply from poorer regions of the country to the richer regions has kept labour
costs low in the destination state and has contributed to larger value addition in the
destination states. This has also enabled more consumption demand in both the source
and the destination states. Labour migration has created a large income multiplier and
is contributing to economic growth, which, in turn, is working as a natural equaliser.

Since migration has its fiscal benefits for both the source and the destination states, a
partial view of migration – that it benefits only the source states – is harmful. However,
migration also entails costs to the destination state. The major fiscal cost is the need to
enhance the provisioning of public services in destination states. Since rapid
urbanisation and migration will move hand-in-hand, there is also a need to think of an
appropriate way of financing the resource needs of states that are rapidly urbanising
and also becoming attractive destinations for the migrants. The provision of fiscal
resources for forward-looking changes in the economy and society is critical and should
be considered as a strategic need, instead of as an issue of resource sharing between the
south and the north. The support of the union government in this regard beyond
Finance Commission transfers would be important for responding to the challenges and
for harnessing the benefits of urbanisation.

‘Discrimination’, ‘Penalisation’, ‘Reward’

Can the notion of ‘discrimination’ of some of the southern states be backed by data on
budgetary transfers? Have the northern states and the rest of the country benefitted at
the cost of the south? Is there something more to this narrative?

Let us examine how the shares of some states in tax revenue devolved from the Union
have changed in the last two decades covering the award period starting with the 12th
Finance Commission and ending with the 15th Finance Commission. The Finance
Commission transfers are driven by equity considerations. The award of various
Finance Commission’s devolution formulae had one thing in common, that significant
weightage was given to the 'distance' of per-capita income of states 1 , followed by the
size of population and other neutral indicators of need.
The criteria used by the Finance Commissions since the 11th Commission can be
categorised under three broad heads: need and cost disability (population, area,
demographic change, and forest cover), equity (income distance, infrastructure
distance, and fiscal capacity distance), and efficiency/performance (tax effort, fiscal
discipline, and demographic performance).

Despite the element of high progressivity, the shares of devolution of the two most
income-poor states of the country, namely, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, have declined over
time. As per the 12th Finance Commission award, the share of Uttar Pradesh in total tax
devolution was 19.264%; it declined to 17.939% according to the recommendations of the
15th Finance Commission. Similarly, the share of Bihar in total tax devolution declined
to 10.058% from 11.028% over the same period. The share of Odisha also declined from
5.161% to 4.528% during this period. The decline of tax devolution to these states
happened despite a shift by the 15th Finance Commission in the use of the 2011 Census
population instead of the 1971 Census population. The decline in share of most states
mentioned here has been a secular decline.

Despite the element of high progressivity, the shares of devolution of the two most income-
poor states of the country, namely, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, have declined over time.
Amongst the major states, an increase in the share of tax devolution over this period
was observed in Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab,
Rajasthan, and West Bengal. The share of Gujarat declined marginally during this
period. 2 However, the share of Tamil Nadu – one of the most prosperous states of the
country – saw a sharp decline in share of tax devolution to 4.079% from 5.305%, the share
of Karnataka fell from 4.459% to 3.647%, and that of Kerala to 1.925% from 2.665% during
this period. However, Kerala saw an increase in its share during the award period of the
14th Finance Commission.

One of the major reasons for the decline in Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu’s shares
was the sharp increase in per-capita income ranking of these states in the last two
decades. This is evident from the comparable GSDP data provided by successive Finance
Commissions. 3
Revenue deficit grants

If the tax devolution is not sufficient to cover the pre-devolution deficit of a state, the
shortfall in the revenue is covered by grants awarded by the Finance Commission.
These 'post-devolution revenue deficit grants' are given to eliminate shortfall in
assessed revenue receipts and revenue expenditure of a particular state. Revenue deficit
grants are untied and by nature are like tax devolution. The revenue deficit grants are
fixed in absolute amounts and ensure certainty of resource flow to a state in the form of
a grant. The assessed revenue deficit by the Finance Commission may be different from
the actual revenue deficit of a state.

It is also to be noted that Kerala received revenue deficit grants to deal with the shortfall
in tax devolution according to the assessments of both the 14th and 15th Finance
Commissions. Though the combined share of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana also
declined during this period, Andhra Pradesh received revenue deficit grants to deal with
the decline in its share of tax devolution in the recommendations of the 14th and 15th
Finance Commissions.

The decline in the share of tax devolution then is not the only indicator to examine the
decline in budgetary resource flows through the Finance Commissions. A combined
view of the share of revenue deficit grants and tax devolution is necessary.

Fiscal stability and resource need

It is evident from the data that the narrative of gain and loss seen through a north-south
lens is erroneous. It is also important to note that the element of progressivity in the
Finance Commission devolution formula has declined steadily over time. During the
11th Finance Commission award, the weightage given to income distance – the most
progressive component of devolution – was 62.5%. This weightage declined over the
award periods of subsequent Finance Commissions: it was 45% in the award of the 15th
Finance Commission.
The fiscal stability concerns of individual states need appropriate resolution and that
requires thinking beyond the shares in tax devolution for the purpose of equalisation.
This overall decline in progressivity is not to imply that Finance Commissions are not
concerned about equity. This decline in one component of the many factors that go into
deciding allocation is a reflection of the concern Finance Commissions have attached to
fiscal stability of states, irrespective of the level of per-capita income of a particular
state.

If the income-distance remained at the level used by the 11th Finance Commission,
states that saw sharp increase in per-capita income ranking in the last two decades
would have observed a sharper fall in their shares of tax devolution. Having said that,
the fiscal stability concerns of individual states need appropriate resolution and that
requires thinking beyond the shares in tax devolution for the purpose of equalisation.

The way forward

The existing mechanisms of transfers in the form of tax sharing and grants are meant to
provide fiscal space to the states for their revenue expenditure. There is no explicit
mechanism to provide non-debt creating resources to the states for capital expenditure.
They have to borrow from the market for this purpose. The limits on market
borrowings are determined by state-specific FRLs. This is a restrictive view on how to
finance public investment at the state level. The inability of the states to finance capital
spending over and above the borrowing limits prescribed by the FRL is acting as a
limiting factor for capital investment, especially for poorer (in terms of per-capita
income) states.

A time-bound reduction in the revenue deficit can enhance capital spending at the state
level, and greater flexibility to access market borrowing to states may help augment
capital expenditure and growth. Since some of the high-income states also have a large
deficit in their revenue account, a prudent management of their finances is critical for
fiscal stability.
To the extent the decline in tax devolution has contributed to the increase in revenue
deficits of these states, this needs to be quantified and, if required, necessary support
can be considered based on the past precedence of performance-incentives grants
provided by the Government of India or various Finance Commissions.

The inability of the states to finance capital spending over and above the borrowing limits
prescribed by the fiscal responsibility legislation is acting as a limiting factor for capital
investment…
Finally, it appears that the horizontal devolution of resources is also about the element
of progressivity that the current transfer system can optimally afford without creating
unmanageable strains in union-state relations, because of the large dispersion in
income inequality across states.

Addressing inequality in fiscal capacity across states through revenue expenditure

equalisation will remain sub-optimal unless there is symmetric access to capital
investment for balanced regional development. A comprehensive view of budgetary and
non-budgetary flow of resources across states is necessary to understand the issue of
under-development in some parts of the country. A view only through the budgetary
lens is partial and unfair to poorer states.

Introduction

The current year (2023) marks the mid-point for the implementation of the 2030
Agenda, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for their mid-way
monitoring and evaluation is likely to show that the SDGs faced setbacks due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the
Afghanistan crisis, and the emerging new world order. The SDG Summit, scheduled to
be held in September 2023, intends to “mark the beginning of a new phase of accelerated
progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals'' and “hi breathe a new life into the
multilateral system”.[i]

A new global consensus is required on multilateral solutions to the current as well as

future problems confronting the new world order.
In order to do so, greater integration and consultation, especially with regard to
geopolitical consensus on SDG-17 (Partnerships for the Goals), need to be fostered.
Thus, this issue briefly examines the geo-political significance of SDG-17, its
contributions to achieving the goal of sustainable development, and India’s role in the
domain.

The journey from MDGs to SDGs- importance accorded to partnership

The genesis of the SDGs can be traced back to the “Earth Summit” held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992. The Rio de Janeiro conference gave recognition to
the interdependent nature of social, economic, and environmental development and the
importance of sustained efforts across sectors for a ripple effect. The Summit also
categorised the concept of sustainable development as an attainable goal by people
across the world and at all levels of governance, whether local, national, regional, or
international.[ii]

Later, there was a global agreement to present a new development strategy for the
changing realities and needs of the twenty-first-century world in the form of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000. This new paradigm was reaffirmed and
further redefined in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, where the “overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for
sustainable development” were highlighted.[iii]

MDGs were a historic and effective global mobilisation effort with their share of
achievements, namely, reduction in poverty level, increased stakeholder participation,
drop in global maternal mortality ratio, and decrease in new HIV infections. They were
also instrumental in developing an organised framework for development cooperation.
[iv] Despite the progress, some gaps still existed between the commitment and
implementation due to limited access to financial resources, limited public awareness,
lack of institutional capacity dedicated to implementation and evaluation, as well as lack
of change in consumption patterns.
The year 2015 became a milestone year for global governance as the journey from MDGs
to SDGs started taking shape. The SDGs agenda built upon the success of the 8 MDGs,
bridged the gaps under the previous initiatives. Mary Robinson, a former president of
Ireland, described 2015 as “the Bretton Woods moment for our generation”.[v] As a part
of a post-2015 development agenda, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
called for actions by all countries- developing or developed. The goals encouraged the
actors to move away from the business-as-usual approach and ensure that no one is left
behind. These underlying principles called for greater global partnership and
commitments, consistency between national and global policies, and balancing the three
dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental. While
also addressing areas of critical importance by simulating action on five key themes:
people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships.

At the operational level, it became clear that the modality of international cooperation
surrounding sustainable development has drastically changed. Focusing only on North-
South cooperation, while absolutely critical, will only make it longer to achieve the goal
of sustainable development. Hence, while emphasising the importance of North-South
cooperation, it was stated that collective action involving all countries and various
stakeholders, the private sector, civil society, ground-level functionaries, South-South,
and triangular cooperation will contribute to solving common problems and advancing
shared interests. SDG 17 Partnership for the Goals lays emphasis on the above and
underscores that “The Sustainable Development Goals can only be realised with a strong
commitment to global partnership and cooperation.”[vi]

Fostering Global Partnerships

The progress of SDGs has been challenged by major global shocks including the COVID-
19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Afghanistan
crisis, restrictive trade policies, high-energy prices, the food crisis, and the triple
planetary crisis (climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss). In this light, partnering
for confronting the challenges, mobilising both existing and additional resources, and
strengthening international cooperation, coordination, and solidarity as underscored
under SDG 17 has gained more significance.
The category of targets enumerated under SDG 17 calls on the developed countries to
fully implement their official development assistance (ODA) commitments towards
developing and Least Developed Countries (LDC), enhance North-South, South-South,
and triangular regional and international cooperation, and support effective and
targeted capacity-building in developing countries for achieving their national plans for
implementing the SDGs.[vii] India on its part has been forging partnerships and giving
international cooperation and collective efforts the centre stage and leaving no one
behind.

India Forging Partnerships for Global Good

India has actively contributed to global common goods through its actions, national
policies and also through collaboration with countries on bilateral and multilateral
levels. This reinforces the Indian philosophy of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is
one family) as a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy. The formation of the International
Solar Alliance (ISA), Coalition of Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), Digital
transformation via India Stacks, and the recent 'Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE)
Movement' are some cases in this regard.

These policy coalitions offer a forum and platform for cooperation on multiple fronts.
Such collaborations also address the challenges with regard to energy security (SDG 7),
food security and poverty (SDG 1 and 2), technological transformation and innovation
(SDG 9), and aid climate action (SDG 13). Besides being a developing country itself, India
has utilised its ground-level experiences towards promoting a human-centric and
sustainable development approach via development partnerships across the globe.
India’s contribution towards generating global consensus in the spirit of partnership for
goals is enumerated as follows:

Global Clean Energy

Under the ISA’s action plan ‘One Sun One World One Grid’ (OSOWOG), the alliance
seeks to create a common solar grid at the global level.
This involves rapid and mass deployment of solar energy, stabilising energy supply,
promoting research and development for overcoming fluctuations in the availability of
sunlight, and maintaining reliable base load capacities at all times. With the opening of
its membership for all UN members in 2018, the ‘One Sun One World One Grid’
(OSOWOG) initiative has been fostered to develop a transnational grid to transport the
solar power generated across the globe to different load centres.

Further, the latest report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), ‘World Energy
Investment 2023’ highlights that investment in clean energy has increased in recent
years, with the transition mainly spearheaded by Electric Vehicles (EVs) and renewable
energy. The report states that India has been one such bright spot that has taken various
measures to encourage energy transition as a part of its net-zero commitments.
According to the Report, apart from the dynamic solar investment in India, other bright
spots include a steady upward curve of clean energy deployment in Brazil and investor
activity picking up in parts of the Middle East, notably in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, and Oman. The report also mentions India’s sovereign green bonds as a
landmark for the emerging sustainable finance ecosystem.[viii]

Disaster Resilience

Under the India-led CDRI initiative, Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS)
serves as a ‘knowledge centre’ for member countries to share and learn best practices
with respect to disaster-proofing of existing and upcoming infrastructure. According to
CDRI, every dollar invested in making infrastructure more resilient in low and middle-
income countries can potentially save losses of over $4 when a disaster strikes. Also, it
estimates that in the last few years, several small island states have lost 9 percent of
their GDP in a single disaster.[ix] In the wake of an increasing number of disasters, IRIS
aims at strengthening infrastructure in small island states so that they are more
resilient against climate disasters. The CDRI has received wide support from developing
as well as Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
 One Earth One Health

The COVID-19 pandemic which engulfed the entire world, demonstrated that collective
efforts must transcend national boundaries. In this regard, Vaccine Maitri fostered the
motto of One Earth One Health. As of June 15, 2023, under Vaccine Maitri over 100
countries have received vaccine supplies of 301.24 million.[x] Telemedicine and digital
health are also transforming the global healthcare landscape. Given the changing nature
of transnational emergencies, India has consolidated its position as the “first responder”
not only assisting its own people but also extending a helping hand to people from other
countries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his inaugural address at the 6th Edition of
One Earth One Health – Advantage Healthcare India 2023, underscored that “India’s goal
is to make healthcare accessible and affordable, not only for our citizens but for the whole
world”.[xi]

Sustainable Lifestyle Choices

The Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE) mission, introduced by Prime Minister Narendra
Modi at the COP26 in Glasgow is a mass movement to nudge individual and community
action to protect and preserve the environment. According to a report by the
International Energy Agency (IEA), the global adoption of measures targeted by LiFE –
including behavioural changes and sustainable consumer choices – would reduce
annual global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes (Gt) in 2030.
Further, upon India’s proposal, the year 2023 was designated by the United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) as the ‘Year of Millets’. This initiative creates awareness about
the nutritional and health benefits of millets (‘Shree Anna’ as stated by Prime Minister
Narendra Modi) and their suitability for cultivation under adverse and changing climatic
conditions. This provides India and the world the opportunity to contribute toward food
security and ensure the livelihoods and incomes of farmers, and poverty eradication,
particularly in regions that are drought-prone or threatened by climate change.
Multilateral forums, such as G20 under the Indian Presidency, have also aligned their
vision with the 2030 Agenda by embracing the above initiatives. India’s G20 Presidency
has strengthened the LiFE initiative by anchoring it in the G20’s framework.
All G20 Ministers have committed to putting sustainable development at the centre of
the international cooperation agenda.

Women-led Development

India is transforming from women’s development to women-led development by

maximising women’s access to education, skill training, and institutional credit.
Achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment through women-led
development is also integral to each of the 17 SDGs. This transformation from women’s
development to women-led development is not only empowering women economically
but will also increase their contribution to the GDP of the nation. It is estimated that by
simply offering equal opportunities to women, India could add US$ 770 billion to its GDP
by 2025.

At the national level, India has placed women’s empowerment at the heart of its
Atmanirbhar Bharat development agenda. It has committed to supporting their holistic
development at all stages of life through policies and programmes such as Beti Bachao
Beti Padhao, MUDRA scheme, Mission Poshan 2.0, Jan Dhan Yojana and bridging the
gender digital divide by providing technology in regional and Indian languages. At the
international level, India is not only setting up examples and showcasing its best
practices but is also fostering a greater consensus among all nations towards the
promotion of women in leadership roles. In this regard, the ‘Solar Mamas’ of Africa,
trained as engineers under India’s development support for harnessing solar energy,
are lighting thousands of homes across the African continent. India’s model of women-
led development has also been placed at the centre of India’s G20 Presidency. Also, as a
founding member of the Executive Board of UN Women and a current member, India
has contributed USD 50,000 to the core voluntary budget of UN Women to further
strengthen the cause for women’s empowerment.
Conclusion

At the global level, an acceleration of the pace of achieving the SDGs needs to be done
keeping in mind the demands of the emerging new world order. As envisioned under
SDG 17, collaborative and supporting policies at all levels of governance are key to
achieving the targets. Further, these supportive strategies and policies will need to be
accompanied by improved access to energy and development contribution, finance,
technology, and capacity-building support. India translated the vision of ‘सबका साथ,
सबका विकास, सबका विश्वास, सबका प्रयास’ (Together, for everyone’s growth, with everyone’s
trust and everyone’s efforts) into action through policy and institutional coherence at
both the domestic and global levels. At the global level, capacity-building and
knowledge-sharing initiatives such as ISA and CDRI advance the energy requirements
of the present as well as future generations in a sustainable and environment-friendly
way. To strengthen international cooperation and partnerships, countries must share
knowledge, expertise, and best practices and mobilise adequate, affordable, and
accessible financing. Intrinsic to SDG17 is global interdependence, cooperation, and
solidarity which India wants to see enhanced and strengthened in every way for
facilitating the achievement of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.