Answer

Introduction

Growing geopolitical fractures, visible in conflicts, inequality, and even the U.S. boycott of the Johannesburg Summit  have raised fundamental doubts about the G20’s relevance. These tensions expose the forum’s weakening cohesion and complicate its ability to act as the world’s premier economic coordinator.

Body

Major Challenges Confronting The G20 Today

• Deepening Geopolitical Divisions: Conflicts across regions reduce consensus-building and fracture collective action.
  Eg: Johannesburg declaration had to merely call for “just and lasting peace” in Sudan, DRC, Palestine, and Ukraine.
• Weakening Leadership Commitment: Absence of major powers undermines legitimacy and decision-making.
  Eg: U.S. President Donald Trump boycotted the summit entirely, the first such boycott by the largest economy.
• Selective Solidarity and Silence: Lack of unified criticism of disruptive actions weakens the forum’s credibility.
  Eg: No collective criticism of the U.S. boycott despite its significance.
• Persistent Economic Inequality: Global economic uncertainty and uneven development agenda strain cooperation.
• Erosion of the Ubuntu Spirit: Growing self-interest among powerful members contradicts G20’s ethos of shared responsibility.
  Eg: Those who should uphold “I am because we are” are instead sidelining the grouping.

How India Has Positioned Itself As A Key Voice Of The Global South

• Championing Global South Priorities: India foregrounded inequality, conflict resolution, and development needs of the South.
  Eg: India ensured AU’s permanent G20 membership in 2023, expanding Southern representation.
• Offering Development-Oriented Initiatives: India proposed practical, scalable initiatives addressing health, skills, and data gaps.
  Eg: Traditional Knowledge Repository, G20–Africa Skills Multiplier (training 1 million Africans).
• Promoting South–South Cooperation: India shares technology, capacity-building, and expertise tailored to Global South needs.
  Eg: Proposal for “Open Satellite Data Partnership” for agriculture, fisheries, and disaster management.
• Advocating Security Concerns of Developing Nations: India raised the drug–terror nexus and demanded stronger global cooperation.
• Embedding Inclusivity in Global Governance: India emphasised alternative development parameters relevant to emerging economies.

Limitations / Failures In India’s Positioning As A Key Voice

• Limited Influence on Final Declaration: India’s priorities did not fully shape the summit outcome.
  Eg: India was “disappointed” with minimal condemnation of terrorism compared to the 2023 New Delhi declaration.
• Inability to Prevent Great Power Disengagement: India could not avert U.S. boycott despite its leadership role.
• Strained Impact on Geopolitical Issues: India’s calls for peace saw limited collective traction.
  Eg: Declaration’s generic peace appeals revealed India’s constrained influence on conflict diplomacy.
• Competing Narratives of Global Leadership: Internal divisions reduce India’s ability to steer the collective Global South agenda.
• Modest Reception of India’s Development Initiatives:  Proposals did not command unanimous enthusiasm due to member priorities.
  Eg: Initiatives like Critical Minerals Circularity and Healthcare Response Team remained aspirational.

Conclusion

Reforming the G20 is essential to restore trust, ensure universal participation, and revive the cooperative spirit of “Ubuntu”. Strengthened inclusivity, clearer development priorities, and renewed commitment from major powers can rebuild the grouping’s credibility and enable it to respond effectively to global economic and political challenges.

DOWNLOAD PDF