The world today stands at one of the most precarious economic and geopolitical crossroads since the end of the Second World War. The US-Iran conflict has imbalanced the equilibrium of international energy security, trade, and fiscal dynamics. Also, the prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict has disrupted global energy markets, fertiliser supplies, food security, and trade networks. Continuing instability across the Middle East has threatened vital shipping routes, increased insurance costs, and injected uncertainty into global oil markets.  

Adding to these challenges is the enduring dominance of the United States over the international financial architecture, where decisions taken by the US Federal Reserve often trigger economic consequences across continents. The result is a world economy characterised by volatility, inflationary pressures, supply-chain disruptions, currency fluctuations, and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.  

For a country like India, these developments are not distant foreign affairs. They directly affect fuel prices, food inflation, import costs, foreign exchange reserves, borrowing costs, trade competitiveness, and overall economic stability. Unlike developed economies that possess larger financial buffers and stronger social security systems, India remains a developing nation where millions of households are highly sensitive to changes in the prices of essential commodities.  

In such an environment, governments naturally urge citizens to exercise restraint. We are advised to reduce fuel consumption, moderate imports, limit foreign travel, avoid excessive purchases of gold, and adopt responsible consumption habits in the larger national interest. Such advice may be economically prudent. However, it raises a fundamental democratic question: Can governments legitimately ask citizens to practise austerity while they themselves continue to spend extravagantly? This question lies at the heart of India’s emerging fiscal challenge.  

The contradiction of selective austerity  

The principle of austerity loses moral force when it is applied selectively. Indian citizens are repeatedly reminded about the need to preserve foreign exchange reserves, reduce fiscal deficits, and strengthen economic resilience. Yet, at the same time, governments across the political spectrum continue to spend substantial resources on political roadshows, publicity campaigns, ceremonial events, election spectacles, oversized bureaucratic structures, VIP culture, and competitive populism. The contradiction is difficult to ignore.  

While farmers face uncertain incomes, workers battle inflation, soldiers continue to serve under difficult circumstances, and taxpayers shoulder increasing burdens, the political establishment often appears insulated from the very sacrifices it expects from the public. India’s electoral process has become one of the most expensive democratic exercises in the world. Political campaigns increasingly involve massive expenditures on advertising, chartered aircraft, digital marketing operations, social media management, giant rallies, and personality-driven branding.  

Governments frequently allocate substantial public funds to publicity campaigns designed as much for political visibility as for public information. Meanwhile, legislators continue to enjoy generous salaries, pensions, travel benefits, housing facilities, security arrangements, and various allowances that rarely become subjects of serious austerity discussions. This asymmetry creates public resentment because austerity without accountability resembles privilege rather than patriotism.  

Why global uncertainty demands domestic discipline  

India’s economic future will be shaped not only by domestic policies but also by forces beyond its control. The Russia-Ukraine war has demonstrated how quickly energy and food markets can become unstable. The Middle East remains vulnerable to military escalation, threatening global oil supplies upon which India remains significantly dependent. Increasing geopolitical rivalry between major powers is fragmenting global trade and investment flows.  

At the same time, the world financial system continues to operate within a framework heavily influenced by American monetary policy. A change in interest rates in Washington can influence capital flows in Mumbai, exchange rates in New Delhi, and investment decisions across the developing world. In such circumstances, economic resilience becomes a strategic necessity rather than a financial preference.  

India cannot control wars and cannot determine developments across the world. It cannot dictate American monetary policy. What India can control is the efficiency with which it manages its own resources. This makes government efficiency not merely an administrative objective but a matter of national preparedness.  

The case for an Indian DOGE  

This is where India should seriously consider creating its own version of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Whether called DOGE or the National Commission for Government Efficiency, the objective would remain the same: ensuring that public resources are utilised with maximum effectiveness and minimum waste. Such an institution should function independently of day-to-day political influence and be empowered to scrutinise expenditure across ministries, departments, state-funded projects, welfare programmes, public sector enterprises, and political privileges with honesty and without becoming subservient to the establishment and the government.  

Its purpose would be threefold: reduce wasteful expenditure, improve governance efficiency, and restore public trust in public spending. Unlike traditional auditing bodies that primarily focus on procedural compliance, such an institution would examine whether expenditure itself is justified, productive, and aligned with national priorities.  

What Should an Indian DOGE Examine  

Political privileges and entitlements  

Public office should remain an instrument of service, not a source of lifelong privilege. The commission could review multiple pensions for legislators, excessive allowances, subsidised benefits, discretionary expenditure powers, and automatic salary enhancements. Every privilege should pass a simple test: can it be justified before the average taxpayer?  

Government advertising and political branding  

Governments spend thousands of crores collectively on publicity and image-building exercises. An efficiency commission could recommend strict expenditure caps, independent audits, restrictions on personality-centric advertising, and greater transparency in media spending. Public funds should promote public services, not political personalities.  

Election expenditure reform  

Democracy is indispensable. Excessive spending is not. Reforms could include greater transparency in political funding, spending caps, public disclosure systems, state-sponsored debates, and restrictions on excessive campaign expenditure. The quality of democracy should depend upon ideas, not financial muscle.  

Bureaucratic rationalisation  

India still operates many structures inherited from another era. The commission could identify overlapping ministries, redundant departments, excessive layers of approval, and underperforming boards and commissions. Digital governance can significantly reduce administrative costs while improving service delivery.  

Rationalising freebies and subsidies  

The distinction between welfare and populism must become clearer. An Indian DOGE should never recommend abandoning welfare programmes that support education, healthcare, nutrition, rural development, agricultural productivity, or social security. However, it should evaluate whether every subsidy and freebie creates measurable public value. The objective should be targeted support, not politically motivated expenditure.  

VIP culture  

The symbolism of governance matters. Reducing unnecessary convoys, luxury renovations, oversized delegations, ceremonial excesses, and non-essential privileges sends a powerful message to citizens. Leadership by example often achieves more than legislation.  

Public sector performance audits  

Public enterprises should be judged on outcomes. The commission should regularly evaluate financial viability, operational efficiency, strategic relevance, and governance standards. The goal should not be blind privatisation but responsible stewardship of public assets.  

A successful Indian DOGE could generate multiple benefits: stronger fiscal stability, reduced borrowing pressures, better utilisation of taxpayer money, increased investor confidence, greater public trust, improved governance quality, reduced corruption opportunities, and enhanced national resilience during global crises.  

Most importantly, it would strengthen the moral legitimacy of difficult economic decisions. Citizens are more likely to accept sacrifice when they see leaders making sacrifices themselves.  

Risks  

The idea is not without dangers. An efficiency commission could become politicised. Governments may attempt to target opponents while protecting their own excesses. Bureaucracies may resist scrutiny. Excessive expenditure cuts could damage economic growth or weaken social welfare systems. Therefore, the institution must remain independent, transparent, professionally staffed, and accountable to Parliament rather than to the government of the day. Its purpose must be optimisation, not indiscriminate austerity.  

Credibility  

Ultimately, the debate is not merely economic. It is moral. A farmer seeing extravagant political rallies questions calls for restraint. A taxpayer witnessing luxury convoys questions lectures on fiscal discipline. A soldier serving on difficult frontiers may wonder why national resources are sometimes spent more generously on political spectacle than on institutional reform.  

Economic policy succeeds when citizens trust those who formulate it. Trust emerges when sacrifice is shared. The world is entering an era of prolonged uncertainty. Wars, energy disruptions, geopolitical rivalries, trade fragmentation, and financial instability are likely to define the coming decade. Countries that survive these challenges most successfully will not necessarily be the richest; they will be the most disciplined, efficient, and adaptive.  

India’s response cannot simply be to ask citizens to consume less fuel, purchase less gold, or travel less abroad. Such measures address symptoms, not causes. The deeper challenge lies in the cost of governance itself. Before asking citizens to tighten their belts, governments must demonstrate that they have tightened their own.  

For India, the need of the hour is not merely austerity. It is credibility, accountability, and intelligent governance. A republic becomes stronger not when citizens alone sacrifice, but when those entrusted with power become the first practitioners of restraint. 

END OF ARTICLE