Since she uttered those words, India has gone on to be labelled as an emerging, rather than a developing country, and if anything, the paradoxes have arguably become more pronounced. While India’s per capita income has increased, inequality has increased even more. We produce textiles, clothing, toys, and leather products using more capital-intensive techniques than even China, despite being the most labour-abundant country in the world in the 15-60 year age group. Unemployment rates are hovering around 8%, and yet firms complain they cannot fill vacancies. Labour laws are supposed to protect and create jobs, but they end up protecting workers. Technology is exacerbating the gig workforce. In 1991, we decisively rejected the licence raj model and debilitating dirigisme. And yet, there is talk today of licensing Over the Top applications that compete with telecom players. For example, WhatsApp, which competes with telecom licensees for providing voice and data services, is sought to be licensed. This is an example of how India has often attempted to address manufacturing and firm-level disabilities, not by resolving the handicaps, but by creating one for others to level the playing field.

Robinson’s India is heterogeneous and replete with contradictions. As members of G20 countries travel to 50 cities and attend 200 meetings, they will witness first-hand the heterogeneity and the richness of, in AL Basham’s immortal words, “the wonder that is (was) India”. But should we be defensive about our contradictions? Are we an exception to double standards? Is our doublespeak harmful to others?

To my mind, the answers are respectively, no, no, and not egregiously. For long, EMs have been at the receiving end of agenda and standards set by the West. Invoking the metaphor of firm conduct, how many monopolies do we know of that are benign? Google? Apple? Meta? Or Standard Oil, IBM in the past? Naturally, when there is a conflict between domestic interest and compliance with international norms, one expects most countries to act in their own interest. If they possess monopoly power, they will use it. There is nothing surprising or amoral in that. That is the way monopolies function.

Examples abound. The 2001 Doha Development Round of multilateral trade negotiations did not settle the concerns of EMs but moved on to discussing standards, labour and environment, pushed hard by the West. Donald Trump refused to appoint a replacement to the Appellate Body of the Word Trade Organization (WTO), rendering the institution dysfunctional because it suited the United States. Price support for agriculture has been routinely frowned upon as market distortionary while billions of dollars of direct income support to farmers is kosher, because that’s the way the West does it. Many other issues reflect the double standards, astuteness and monopoly of the West, such as reneging on the $100-billion annual climate finance promise and singling out coal as a fossil fuel to be eliminated, while continuing with others such as oil and gas.

The ability of the G20 to create opportunities in the background of such contradictions will depend upon several things, including the negotiating power of coalitions within the G20, and geopolitical developments. 2008 has been the only demonstrated success of the G20. The financial crisis had its roots in the developed world, triggered by loose monetary policy, shady regulation and compromised governance. It quickly spread to other countries, demanding coordination among major nations and, for the first time, EMs were invited to be part of a group that was hitherto limited to a homogenous gathering. Consensus happened because EMs conformed to the standards set by the West. In the “peace” that followed, the G20 was often characterised, although disputably, as a “talk shop”.

That peace has now been rudely interrupted by a war. I believe EMs are unlikely to accept the authority of the West. In many ways, led by a democratic India, EMs will demand justice for the wrongs of the West that are often conveniently forgotten and consigned to the pages of history. The tokenism of belonging to an elite group now needs to extend to an even partnership and proportionate representation on bodies such as the International Monetary Fund.

The ongoing economic crises around food and energy security, and inflation might have cooperative solutions under the G20, but climate and sustainability are becoming harder, if not impossible, problems to resolve. However, that does not imply that India, along with other EMs, should not continue their fight for climate justice. Until justice is delivered, the G20 is unlikely to generate consensus anymore. We may have turned a corner. The focus on climate justice, ending years of intellectual dishonesty, must be on the table.

India has an opportunity to do that, but the task is cut out. The monopoly of the West on the global agenda needs to be decolonised. Starting with Indonesia last year, the presidency of the G20 is in the hands of EMs for four straight years (Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa). This presents an opening for continuity and challenge. Contestation not for the sake of vulgar demonstration of newly acquired influence but for the sake of justice.

Rajat Kathuria is Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Professor of Economics, Shiv Nadar Institution of EminenceThe views expressed are personal