India Minus Politics: Drinkable Water in India

Access to safe drinking water in India varies widely between regions and communities. Urban areas often have formal piped systems (though reliability and quality can be patchy), while many rural families depend on wells, hand-pumps or community taps. According to government and survey data, only about 36–40% of Indian households have piped water connections. There is a stark urban–rural gap: roughly 61% of urban households have piped supply vs only about 25% of rural ones. A man pumps water from a communal handpump in a Delhi street – nearly half of rural households rely on such groundwater sources. This disparity means rural women often walk long distances to fetch water. Indeed, ~41% of rural families do not have an in-home water source, compared to ~18% in urban areas. Notably, nearly all households (96%) report access to “improved” sources (piped water, wells, bottles, etc.), but these are not uniformly safe: shallow groundwater often contains arsenic, fluoride or salinity, and intermittent supply/storage can introduce contaminants. The resulting health toll is severe: poor WASH (water/sanitation) contributes to 90% of diarrhoea-related child deaths in India (a leading cause of under-five mortality).

Water Sources and Quality

Indian households use a mix of water sources: piped municipal supply (mainly urban), bottled or packaged water (urban middle/upper-income), groundwater (hand-pumps, tube wells, wells), and surface water (tanker trucks, rivers, ponds). A recent survey found hand-pumps/tube-wells to be India’s most common source (40% of households). In rural India, roughly half rely on wells or hand-pumps, whereas in urban areas only ~15% do – with about 10% of urban families using bottled water for drinking. Government tap water (piped into home/yard) serves ~36.6% of households nationally (61.4% urban, 25% rural). However, “improved” sources like protected wells or standpipes are not always safe: water often becomes contaminated during handling. Studies cite frequent presence of fluoride, arsenic, iron or nitrate in groundwater across India. Acknowledging this, the Jal Jeevan Mission specifically funds contaminant-removal technologies (e.g. defluoridation, arsenic filters) in affected areas.

Source Type	Usage/Setting	Quality Concerns	Approx. Coverage (2020–23)
Municipal piped water	Urban homes (~61% coverage urban); some rural areas (25%)	Often disinfected, but many systems deliver intermittently with possible contamination in pipes or storage. Aging infrastructure means leaks (sometimes >30% loss) and low pressure.	~60–80% urban access, improving rural via JJM (reached ~78% in 2024)
Hand-pumps/Tube-wells	Rural (common) and some peri-urban	Groundwater often has natural contaminants (arsenic in Bengal, fluoride in Andhra, salinity in parts). No treatment at source.	~40% households rely on these; integral to ~half of rural supply.
Bottled/packaged water	Primarily urban middle/elite	Usually purified (RO/UV) but expensive; plastic waste is an issue. Safety depends on regulation enforcement (occasional lapses reported).	~9–10% of urban households use bottled water; minimal rural use.
Surface water (tanker, etc.)	Water-scarce rural/urban areas (drought, slums)	Often untreated (high risk); may be legally dubious supply.	Variable; e.g., drought-hit regions resort to tankers. Hard to quantify nationally.

Water Purification Methods 

Given water quality issues, many Indian households treat water before drinking. A study in Northern India found 98% of rural families and ~79% of urban families practiced home water purification. Common methods include boiling, simple ceramic or candle filters, UV lamps, and reverse-osmosis (RO) units. Boiling is widespread (especially in rural areas) and kills germs, but does not remove chemicals. Filters (charcoal/ceramic) are popular for particulate and bacterial removal; RO purifiers are prized in cities for removing salts and hardness, though they produce wastewater. In the Northern India survey, 81.5% of households used a ceramic “candle” filter as their main treatment.

The government recognizes the need for treatment: Jal Jeevan Mission guidelines mandate “technological interventions for contaminant removal” in affected villages (fluoride, arsenic, iron, etc.). Still, coverage of such solutions is uneven and many rely on traditional practices. Poor handling can re-contaminate water, underscoring that “improved” sources alone do not guarantee safety. Public health experts note that effective household treatment could drastically reduce waterborne disease: WHO projects that safely managed water in India could prevent ~400,000 diarrhoeal deaths annually.

Infrastructure Challenges and Resource Pressure

India’s water infrastructure faces huge strains. Many rural water projects under previous programs (pre-JJM) were plagued by incomplete works, low functionality, and cost overruns. A government audit (CAG 2018) found 98% of schemes relied on groundwater, with little attention to surface supplies or sustainability, resulting in abandoned schemes and ₹2,212 crore of unproductive expenditure. Fund release delays (sometimes 15+ months) and weak community participation also hindered progress. Urban supplies leak heavily due to aging pipes; World Bank studies estimate non-revenue water losses of 30–50% in many cities.

At the resource level, India is water-stressed. It holds just ~4% of the world’s renewable freshwater for 16% of global population. Groundwater is overdrawn: about 62% of India’s irrigation and 85% of rural drinking supply come from aquifers, and 17% of groundwater blocks are officially “over-exploited”. Decades of high-yield farming and power subsidies have incentivized deep tube-well pumping, depleting water tables especially in north India. Additionally, climate change is altering monsoon patterns, worsening droughts and floods. Pollution from industry and agriculture adds to scarcity by making surface/groundwater unsafe in many districts (over half of India’s districts report significant groundwater contamination).

Health implications of these challenges are stark. Unsafe water and sanitation contribute to malnutrition and child stunting. An estimated 44 million cases of water-related illness occur annually, and up to 90% of diarrhea-related child deaths are linked to poor water/sanitation. The burden falls disproportionately on the poor and vulnerable (Dalits, tribals, the urban poor), who are least likely to have piped water. On the positive side, improved water access can transform lives: WHO estimates that JJM’s reach could save millions of Disability Adjusted Life Years and prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths by providing reliably clean water.

Community-Based Solutions and Innovations

India has seen many grassroots and tech-led innovations to improve water access. Traditional methods like rainwater harvesting have been revived: initiatives like the “Catch the Rain” campaign encourage village ponds and rooftop collection. NGOs and citizen groups often lead such efforts (e.g. installing percolation pits or reviving village ponds) to recharge groundwater. Social enterprises produce low-cost filters (e.g. ceramic pot filters) and solar UV units for rural homes. In some villages, community RO plants are run by local women’s cooperatives. The Jal Jeevan Mission itself promotes “Jan Bhagidari” (public participation): Gram Sabhas formally take charge of local schemes, often contributing labor or materials for sustainability.

Technological innovations include low-cost arsenic/fluoride filters and smartphone-based water quality sensors. For example, government schemes now install UV disinfection at community taps in fluoride areas, and fund solar pumps in remote hamlets. Start-ups are also piloting IoT-based monitoring of village pumps and real-time leak detection. These community-driven and tech solutions complement government efforts, though scalability remains a challenge.

Historical Trends and Milestones

India’s approach to drinking water has evolved with each era. Early targets in the 1970s–90s focused on irrigation-linked village schemes (e.g. the Minimum Needs Programme of 1974, Rajiv Gandhi Rural Water Supply, 1986). The first National Water Policy (1987) prioritized irrigation, but later revisions (2002, 2012, 2019) expanded emphasis to drinking water and conservation. In 2009 the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) was launched to universalize supply, but CAG audits found it fell short of targets. Major new initiatives since 2014 include the Swachh Bharat Mission (sanitation, indirectly benefiting water quality) and the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation & Urban Transformation (AMRUT) (guaranteeing urban piped water). A pivotal change came in 2019: the separate Jal Shakti Ministry was created, and on Independence Day 2019, the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) was announced, aiming for 100% tap water coverage in rural homes by 2024.

A concise timeline of key milestones:

Year	Milestone / Policy	Notes
1987	First National Water Policy	Focused on irrigation and larger projects.
2002	Revised National Water Policy	Introduced water quality and drinking water priorities.
2009	National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP)	Aimed to provide safe water to all rural habitations, yet CAG later found major shortfalls.
2014	Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)	Nationwide sanitation push (ODF villages), improving hygiene.
2015	AMRUT (Urban Development)	Targeted universal piped water supply in urban areas by 2022.
2019	Jal Shakti Ministry	Merged water resources and drinking water departments.
2019	Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM)	Flagship scheme for tap water to all rural homes by 2024.
2021	Jal Jeevan Mission rollout underway	Rapid scale-up; over 11.8 crore rural homes got taps by Aug 2024.
2022	NWP 2019 & Climate focus	Emphasis on water recycling, stormwater.
2025	JJM Extended to 2028	Budget 2025 announced increased funding (₹67,000 crore) and 100% rural coverage target.

The timeline shows a shift from piecemeal rural projects to integrated national campaigns. Each major launch has accompanying goals, funding and public campaigns. JJM, for example, in 2024 had reached ~78% of rural households (over 15.0 crore families) with taps. In Budget 2025, it was extended to 2028 with ₹67,000 crores to reach 100% rural coverage.

National Policies and Programs

The Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) is currently India’s flagship rural drinking water program. Its goal is to ensure every rural home has a functional tap delivering water of prescribed quality. Launched August 2019, JJM inherited earlier schemes and vastly expanded resources. By Aug 2024, JJM had delivered nearly 11.82 crore new household connections, covering about 78% of rural homes. (At inception only ~17% had taps.) Key features include 50:50 cost-sharing between centre and states, robust community involvement (Gram Panchayats manage systems), and convergence with other programs (sanitation, health). The 2025 Union Budget increased JJM’s outlay to ₹67,000 crore and extended its timeline to 2028, aiming for 100% rural coverage. The program emphasizes not just installations, but also water source sustainability and O&M, signing MoUs with states for citizen-centric service.

Other national initiatives include: the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) (2009–2019) – which focused on habitations but suffered bureaucratic delays and was eventually subsumed by JJM; the Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen) (2014–2019) – a sanitation drive that, by eliminating open defecation, helped protect water sources; and AMRUT (2015–2022) – an urban development mission promising 24×7 water and sewerage in cities. Alongside these, the central Ministry of Jal Shakti launched campaigns like Jal Shakti Abhiyan (Catch the Rain) to promote rainwater harvesting in water-scarce districts. Every scheme sets ambitious targets (e.g. JJM’s 55 liters per capita per day norm) and regularly publishes progress on public dashboards. Notably, JJM has yielded endorsements from health experts: WHO and Nobel laureate Michael Kremer estimate that universally safe tap water could save hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of DALYs in India.

Political Challenges and Governance

Despite robust policy frameworks, implementation hurdles are often political or administrative. A recurring complaint is bureaucratic inefficiency: planning and fund release bottlenecks have delayed many projects. For instance, a 2018 audit found that 21 states still lacked approved drinking-water security plans, and state agencies (SWaSAs, SWaTs) were often not properly set up. States sometimes cite lack of funds or technical capacity, while the centre points to uneven uptake. Such centre–state coordination issues can be pronounced in federal India, since water is a concurrent subject (both levels have roles). Politicization is seen when schemes become election issues: parties promise “free piped water” or new tanks, but delivery is complex. Additionally, corruption and patronage problems occur: ghost taps, contractor kickbacks, or diversion of maintenance funds have been reported at the state level. For example, investigations in some states revealed embezzlement in local water schemes, and poor collection of even modest user charges (under 2% collection rate in one study).

Inter-state politics often complicate resource sharing. Long-standing disputes over river waters (e.g. Cauvery between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Krishna among Maharashtra/Karnataka/Andhra, Mahadayi between Goa/Karnataka) are perennial flashpoints. Politicians in each state appeal to local farmers or voters, sometimes flouting tribunal orders. Recent news reports show Tamil Nadu and Karnataka legislatures passing dueling resolutions over Cauvery water sharing. Such conflicts can stall infrastructure projects and breed public distrust. Another debated issue is water privatization vs. public provision: proposed water tariffs or public–private partnerships often meet fierce resistance from communities who view water as a basic right. In cities like Delhi and Mumbai, attempts at private operation of supply networks were rolled back under public protest.

Overall, while successive administrations (both at Centre and states) have invested heavily and achieved gains (e.g. JJM’s progress in rural taps), systemic issues remain. Weak accountability and politicization mean that many infrastructure projects miss quality or equity goals. High-level commissions (like the 15th Finance Commission) have tried to tie financial grants to water outcomes, and some observers note the rising trend of digital monitoring (dashboards, IoT sensors) that might improve governance. A balanced view recognizes that the current government has delivered tangible coverage increases, but many experts stress that true success requires empowering Gram Sabhas, enforcing regulations, and ensuring cross-state cooperation.

Interstate Disputes and Debates

Water shares frequently trigger interstate legal and political battles. The Cauvery issue saw Tamil Nadu’s assembly recently unanimously urge the Centre to enforce tribunal orders on Karnataka, while Karnataka leaders counter-claim acute local shortages. Such episodes show water becoming a populist issue. The debates extend to policy: some states have banned bulk water privatization, while others experiment with PPAs. Election manifestos often include grand water promises (free household water quotas, new reservoirs, farm irrigation support), tying access to vote-banks. For example, the recent Budget extended JJM citing rural voters’ needs. Meanwhile, coalitions have clashed over river-linking proposals and inter-basin transfers in Parliament. These politicized debates reflect both the importance of water as a voter issue and the genuine complexity of allocating a scarce resource fairly.

Water as a Right vs. Commodity

At the philosophical level, India’s discourse pits water-as-human-right against water-as-economic-commodity. Activists cite the UN’s recognition of water as a basic right and India’s Supreme Court rulings (e.g. PUCL vs. Union of India, 2003) that “water is part of the right to life” under Article 21. They argue that equitable water must be ensured by the state. On the other hand, policymakers note that water services require infrastructure and funding; many advocate a user-charge principle to sustain supply. Indeed, the 15th Finance Commission insisted on states collecting nominal fees for rural piped water instead of treating it as entirely free. Debates ensue: some local governments (like Delhi) offer a fixed free water quota to poor families, beyond which consumers pay tariffs. Critics warn this can undervalue the resource and strain budgets.

In practice, most Indian leaders rhetorically promise “everyone’s right to clean water,” but rarely are universal entitlements guaranteed by law. Instead, schemes like JJM provide free connections but envisage households paying small O&M charges (e.g. ₹60/month). Such charges, however, are often waived due to political pressure or inability to pay. Thus the narrative remains mixed: politicians cast water as a welfare benefit (often making bold promises on campaign trails), while reformers emphasize sustainability through user contributions. Both sides agree on the basic goal: ending water poverty. Yet the ideological framing affects policy design – whether new schemes should be fully subsidized public goods or incorporate market principles.

“Minus Politics: A Depoliticized Perspective on India’s Drinking Water Challenges”

Removing politics from the equation allows us to view India’s water issues as deeply systemic, rooted in infrastructure, hydrology, public health, and behavior change—not just governance cycles.

     Hydrological Imbalance: India’s rainfall is concentrated in ~100 days and geographically uneven. Solving the water crisis means redesigning storage, recharge, and distribution systems—not just announcing new pipelines. Climate adaptation is key.

     Groundwater Depletion: Over 85% of rural drinking water depends on groundwater, but extraction far exceeds recharge in many regions. Long-term sustainability demands scientific aquifer mapping, managed pumping, and recharge through rainwater harvesting—not temporary schemes.

     Quality over Quantity: Even where water access has improved, safety remains a blind spot. Contaminants like arsenic and fluoride require context-specific treatment technologies and regular testing. National rollout of water quality labs, not just pipelines, is essential.

     Urban Leakage and Waste: Many cities lose 30–50% of piped water to leaks. Fixing old pipes, metering consumption, and recycling greywater are engineering challenges—not political talking points.

     Behavioral Shifts: Technology alone cannot fix water problems unless supported by community ownership, water literacy, and hygiene practices. Empowering local users, especially women, is a social strategy backed by field evidence.

     Health Integration: Diarrhea, stunting, and child mortality are closely tied to poor water and sanitation. The water sector must be aligned with public health and education, treating safe water not just as infrastructure, but as preventive healthcare.

     Decentralization and Data: Community-led maintenance (like Gram Panchayat-based water user groups) works best when local data and tools are in users’ hands. Real-time leak detection, smartphone-based testing, and transparency dashboards can all drive accountability.

In short, removing politics shifts the focus from headlines and elections to hydrology, engineering, community behavior, and public health—the true levers of safe water access. India’s water transformation will ultimately be driven not by manifestos, but by sustainable science, strong institutions, and informed citizens.

Future Outlook

India’s future water scenario will hinge on policy continuity and adaptation. The near-term goal is universal coverage of safe taps, now backed by major funding, digital monitoring, and collaborative governance (e.g. MoUs between Centre and states for JJM). Climate and demand pressures mean conservation and reuse (e.g. wastewater recycling, rain capture) will become more prominent. Technological trends – from low-cost home filters to AI-driven aquifer management – may ease supply challenges. Regionally, federal dialogue on river sharing is likely to intensify, perhaps requiring stronger central arbitration. There is also a growing global shift: emerging legal frameworks in some countries treat water as a community-managed resource, a perspective gaining traction in parts of India.

In summary, India’s drinking water story is a mix of progress and persistent gaps. National programs have brought millions of taps to homes, but systemic hurdles remain in governance and infrastructure. A balanced view acknowledges both successes (e.g. rapid expansion of rural coverage) and failures (e.g. uneven service quality, continuing contamination). Comparative examples show that states with focused governance (like Gujarat or Kerala) outperform those with lagging administration. Ultimately, ensuring safe, accessible water for all will require sustained technical effort and depoliticized management. The stakes are high: water underpins health, livelihoods and equity. As India’s policies evolve, ongoing data collection, community engagement and political will will determine whether the promise of “water for all” becomes reality.

Sources: Authoritative reports, government publications, news media and academic studies were consulted to compile current data and policy analyses.

India Minus Politics: Corruption on the Holy Land

Understanding the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an annual ranking of countries by perceived public sector corruption. It is published by Transparency International (TI), a non-governmental organization, and has been released since 1995. Each country receives a score from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) based on expert and business surveys of corruption in the public sector. The CPI is the most widely used global measure of corruption, highlighting governance quality and transparency. Higher scores indicate cleaner public sectors. The 2024 CPI (published Feb 2025) covers the period May 2023–April 2024.

How the CPI is Calculated

TI’s CPI combines multiple sources (usually around a dozen surveys) that assess corruption, bribery, and misuse of public office. Data from institutions like the World Bank, African Development Bank, and Economist Intelligence Unit are aggregated. Scores are then standardized on the 0–100 scale. The CPI does not measure actual corruption but perceptions; TI notes it is best used to observe long-term trends. In 2024, 180 countries were ranked globally. (For context, nearly two-thirds of countries score below 50, showing corruption is a persistent problem worldwide.)

India’s CPI Ranking and Score Over Time

India’s CPI score has hovered in the 30s and 40s in recent years, indicating a moderately high level of perceived corruption. Notable yearly data include:

• 2019: Score 41 (out of 100), Rank 80 out of 180.
• 2020: Score 40, Rank 86.
• 2022: Score 40 (rank ~85, unchanged).
• 2023: Score 39, Rank 93.
• 2024: Score 38, Rank 96.

Over the last five years, India’s score slipped from 41 to 38. This reflects a slight decline in perceived integrity. For example, India’s rank fell from 80th (2019) to 96th (2024). Transparency International noted that “India’s overall score dropped a point to 38” in 2024. The trend shows stagnation or deterioration: after hovering at 40 (2020–2022), the score edged down to 38 by 2024. These data underscore that corruption remains a significant concern. (For comparison, the global average CPI score is around 43, and more than two-thirds of countries score below 50.)

Comparative Analysis: India vs Other Countries

• Top-ranked (least corrupt) countries: Nations with the highest CPI scores are typically Nordic and Anglosphere democracies. For example, Denmark (90 in 2024), Finland (88), and New Zealand (83) top the list. These countries consistently score above 80, reflecting very low perceived corruption.
• Lowest-ranked (most corrupt) countries: At the other extreme, South Sudan (score ~8), Somalia (~9), and Venezuela (~10) occupy the bottom ranks. These very low scores show pervasive corruption in public life.
• Large democracies: Among major democracies, India’s score of 38 (2024) is much lower. For instance, USA scored 65 in 2024, indicating relatively low corruption. Brazil scores around 34, similar to India, while Indonesia scores about 37. In other words, India’s CPI is comparable to Brazil and Indonesia but far behind countries like the US or Western Europe.
• Regional peers: India’s neighbors also vary. (By contrast, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh generally rank below India, around 30s in score.) For example, Pakistan and Bangladesh often score in the high 20s to mid-30s. China scored about 45 recently, better than India but still showing corruption issues.

This comparative overview shows that India is neither among the “cleanest” nor the “dirtiest” nations. It falls in the lower half of the global rankings, lagging behind advanced economies and matching many emerging democracies.

Impact of Corruption on Key Sectors

Corruption affects many areas of society. Its consequences include:

• Public trust and governance: Corruption “undermines trust, fairness, and the rule of law,” creating serious economic and social consequences. When public officials misuse power, citizens lose faith in institutions. Transparency International notes that corruption leads to erosion of trust and accountability.
• Economy and business: Bribes and graft introduce inefficiency and unfairness. Corruption imposes extra costs on businesses and distorts competition. For example, companies may need to pay kickbacks for permits or contracts, raising prices and deterring investment. Economists note that widespread corruption “lead[s] to significant harm, including ... economic inefficiency, [and] distorted competition”. In India, corruption in sectors like mining and real estate can discourage honest entrepreneurs and reduce growth.
• Infrastructure projects: Corruption in infrastructure (roads, utilities, airports) often causes cost overruns and poor workmanship. When contractors bribe officials, projects may be awarded to the lowest-qualified bidder, leading to delays and subpar quality. Funds meant for public works can be siphoned off, meaning fewer and worse roads, bridges, and power plants for the public.
• Education: Graft can compromise the education system. Bribes for college admissions, embezzlement of school funds, and teacher absenteeism weaken educational quality. Students from poor backgrounds suffer when corruption in scholarship programs or exam systems persists. Overall, corruption in education perpetuates inequality and erodes the system’s integrity.
• Public services: Corruption in day-to-day services (police, healthcare, utilities) forces ordinary citizens to pay bribes. For instance, people may pay under-the-table fees to access hospitals or government offices. This means that access to basic needs depends not on official rules but on who can pay, which undermines social trust.
• Environment and climate action: (Not specific to India but globally noted) funds meant for climate or public health can be stolen, as TI reported. Misuse of environmental funds is also a concern, showing how corruption cuts across sectors.

Overall, corruption makes government and economy less effective. As Arctic Intelligence observes, both bribery and corruption "lead to erosion of public trust, economic inefficiency, distorted competition, and social injustice". In each sector, the presence of graft means that resources don’t serve their intended public purpose, whether it’s a power plant, a school, or a business license.

A 'Minus Politics' Perspective on India’s Governance

Taking a politically-neutral view (“India Minus Politics”) means focusing on systemic solutions rather than partisan blame. In this perspective, one imagines governance by clear rules and impartial institutions. Key ideas include:

• Strengthened Institutions: Emphasize independent anti-corruption agencies and judiciary. If agencies like the Lokpal (anti-graft ombudsman) and Election Commission operate without political interference, enforcement of laws could improve. Career civil servants would be appointed and evaluated on merit, not politics.
• Transparency and E-governance: Expand digital delivery of services (online tax filing, public procurement, land records) to reduce human discretion where bribes can occur. For example, India’s push for digital payments and Aadhar-based schemes aims to cut out cash transactions, which helps limit petty corruption.
• Whistleblower and Civil Society Engagement: Protect and encourage whistleblowers and investigative media. Civil society organizations can monitor projects and expose wrongdoing. Non-partisan civic platforms (like RTI disclosures) can put more information in the public domain.
• Rule-based Enforcement: Focus on consistent enforcement of anti-corruption laws (like the Prevention of Corruption Act) regardless of which party is in power. A neutral approach would publish regular audits of government spending and prosecute violations openly.
• Public Education: Promote ethics and integrity through education. If ordinary citizens and public servants see corruption as socially unacceptable, cultural change can reduce demand for bribes.

In a “minus politics” scenario, India’s CPI could improve over time if reforms are sustained beyond electoral cycles. Rather than claiming credit or blaming rivals, leaders would measure progress by transparency metrics (like the Open Budget Index, e-governance rankings, etc.). Ultimately, higher CPI scores come from lasting institutional strength.

While such a vision is aspirational, focusing on these governance best-practices aligns with global anti-corruption recommendations. In sum, an impartial governance model would treat corruption as a technical and ethical problem to solve through systemic checks (not as a political weapon). Achieving that would require bipartisan commitment to reform – for example, consistent digitization of services, independent oversight of government contracts, and empowerment of courts and auditors. Over time, this could help raise India’s CPI by reducing the discretionary power that enables graft.

Sources: Authoritative data and analysis from Transparency International and credible news reports were used. The figures above are from TI’s CPI reports and major news outlets. The sectoral impacts reflect well-documented consequences of corruption.

India Minus Politics: Value of the Rupee

The value of the rupee refers to what one unit of India’s currency can buy – both in terms of goods/services (purchasing power) and in foreign exchange markets. Globally, currency values float in forex markets under either fixed or floating regimes. In a floating (market) system, a currency’s worth is set by supply and demand; India has used a managed float since 1993, with the RBI intervening to smooth volatility. Key determinants of value include inflation, interest rate differentials, trade balances and deficits, and capital flows. For example, higher inflation in India tends to depreciate the rupee versus other currencies, whereas higher interest rates (relative to abroad) can attract foreign capital and appreciate it. Other factors like political stability or crises can also shift demand for the rupee. In short, the rupee’s value in global markets is set by macroeconomic fundamentals and investor sentiment, under a relatively free (managed) exchange-rate system.

Political Involvement (Contextual Only)

Government policy can influence the rupee indirectly through the economy. For instance, persistently large budget or trade deficits (so-called “twin deficits”) can erode investor confidence and weaken the currency. In the late 1980s India ran high fiscal and import deficits, contributing to the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis. Conversely, economic reforms that open up trade and capital flows can strengthen the rupee. Notably, the 1991–92 reform program removed many exchange controls and introduced a Market-Determined Exchange Rate System (LERMS), making the rupee more responsive to market forces. (These steps reflected economic policy choices, not any one party or leader.) In general, prudent fiscal policy and supportive trade policies can help stabilize the rupee, while extreme fiscal deficits or protectionist shocks can put pressure on it.

Value of the Rupee Without Politics

Macroeconomic Factors

• Inflation: Higher domestic inflation tends to depreciate the rupee, because it erodes purchasing power. Countries with relatively high inflation typically see their currency weaken against partners. For example, if India’s inflation exceeds that of its trading partners, the rupee will generally fall (buying fewer dollars, etc.).
• Interest Rates: Higher real interest rates in India (relative to abroad) can strengthen the rupee by attracting capital. When RBI raises rates, foreign investors may buy rupee assets for higher returns, boosting demand for INR. The reverse (lower rates) can weaken the currency.
• GDP Growth: Robust GDP growth often boosts the rupee. Strong growth attracts foreign direct and portfolio investment (as investors seek to share in that growth), increasing demand for the rupee and pushing it up. Likewise, a growth slowdown can reduce inflows and weaken the currency.
• Current Account Deficit (CAD): A high CAD (importing much more than exporting) means higher demand for foreign currency (to pay for imports), which tends to depreciate the rupee. India is a large crude importer, so spikes in oil prices dramatically widen the CAD. For instance, analysts have noted that higher oil import bills intensify downward pressure on the rupee (as more rupees must be sold for dollars). Past oil shocks in India have coincided with sharp rupee declines and larger CADs.
• Foreign Exchange Reserves: India holds large forex reserves (~USD 630 billion) which let the RBI intervene to support the rupee. High reserves act as a buffer (“shield”) against currency shocks. Sufficient reserves allow India to buy rupees in the market to curb volatility.
• Capital Flows (FDI/FPI): Inflows of foreign investment strengthen the rupee, while outflows weaken it. For example, massive portfolio outflows during the 2013 “taper tantrum” forced a ~15% fall in the rupee. Conversely, sustained FDI or FPI inflows (as seen in 2020–21) can appreciate the rupee. Net remittances from overseas Indians also supply dollars – higher remittances support the rupee, whereas any drop (e.g. due to foreign policy changes) could pressure it.

Technical Indicators

• Nominal and Real Effective Rates (NEER/REER): These indices measure the rupee against a basket of currencies of India’s trading partners (weighted by trade). NEER is the unadjusted weighted average, while REER adjusts for relative inflation differences. A rising REER means the rupee is getting stronger in real terms (making exports more expensive). RBI and BIS publish these; as of early 2025, India’s REER (base 2005=100) was around 115 (vs ~95 in 2009), indicating a historically firm real exchange value. These indices help assess if the rupee is under- or over-valued relative to fundamentals.

• Forex Reserves (continued): As noted, ample reserves let the RBI “lean against wind.” Recent RBI statements emphasize maintaining reserves to manage volatility. Large reserves discourage abrupt currency swings and backstop liabilities.

• Global Commodities: India’s currency is sensitive to key import prices. Besides crude oil (already noted), other commodities like gold, edible oils, and foodgrains affect the rupee. For example, surging global crude during early 2022 (post Ukraine invasion) was a major factor behind the rupee’s weakness. In April 2022, record-high oil prices helped push India’s retail inflation to 8-year highs, which in turn pressured the rupee.

• Performance vs. Major Currencies: Over decades the rupee has steadily weakened vs major currencies. For example, one USD bought ~₹17 (end-1990) versus nearly ₹88 by early 2025. Similarly, one Euro went from ~₹45 in 2000 to ~₹84 in 2020, and one British pound from ~₹68 (2000) to over ₹100 by 2024. The rupee also fell against the yen and yuan (e.g. USD/JPY was ~100 in 2012 and ~133 in 2023, while USD/CNY moved from ~6.2 in 2012 to ~7.3 in 2023). These long-run trends reflect India’s higher inflation relative to peers.

Comparison with Other Countries

Compared to many peers, India’s currency has been relatively volatile and depreciating. Over the past decade India’s inflation has been higher than in developed economies like Germany or Japan, which helps explain part of the gap. The table below compares approximate currency moves and inflation rates:

Country	Approx. Currency Trend (2013–2023)	2024 Inflation (est.)
India	↑ ~40% depreciation vs USD	5.0%
China	↑ ~20% depreciation (CNY/USD)	0.2%
United States	– (USD itself; N/A)	2.9%
Japan	↑ ~35% depreciation (JPY/USD)	2.7%
Singapore	↑ ~10% depreciation (SGD/USD)	2.4%
Vietnam	↑ ~15% depreciation (VND/USD)	3.6%
Germany	↓ ~20% appreciation (EUR/USD↑)	2.3%

(“↑” indicates the currency lost value vs USD.) Data sources: IMF/CIA Factbook inflation estimates; currency moves are approximate trends.

• Currency Stability: China’s yuan is tightly managed, yielding much lower volatility. Singapore’s monetary policy keeps SGD relatively stable. Japan and Germany (Eurozone) have had low inflation, so their currencies have not fallen as much. Vietnam’s dong has been more stable (Vietnam’s inflation ~3–4%). In contrast, India’s higher inflation and external deficits have meant more rupee depreciation.
• Inflation Comparison: For context, India’s inflation (~5% in 2024) exceeds that of China (~0.2%) or the U.S./EU (~2–3%). Japan’s inflation is also low (~2.7%). Vietnam’s inflation (~3.6%) is closer to India’s, reflecting some similar currency trends.

Case Studies

1991 Balance-of-Payments Crisis

In 1991 India faced a severe BOP crisis. Chronic fiscal deficits and a large oil import bill had drained reserves. By mid-1991, reserves were nearly depleted, forcing RBI to sharply devalue the rupee on July 1 and 3, 1991. The devaluations (about 20–25% in total) were coupled with an IMF bailout. These moves ended the old peg and ushered in a market-driven regime. (Crucially, this reflects broader economic conditions of the time.) After 1991, India liberalized trade, moved to a “managed float,” and gradually rebuilt credibility.

2013 Taper Tantrum and Rupee Crash

In mid-2013, global markets were roiled when the U.S. Fed signaled it would “taper” quantitative easing. This triggered a sharp pullback of capital from emerging markets. India saw a strong outflow of portfolio funds and the rupee fell by over 15% between late May and late August 2013. The currency hit record lows (~₹68/USD at the time), despite measures by the RBI. This episode underscored how sensitive the rupee can be to global capital flows. (Importantly, the cause was external – Fed policy – not domestic politics.)

Post–COVID-19 Recovery

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, financial markets panicked. The rupee crashed; on March 23, 2020 it hit a historic low of about ₹76.2 per USD. This reflected a flight to dollars and record reserve selling to provide dollars. However, once global liquidity and vaccine hopes kicked in, the rupee rebounded. By late 2020 and into 2021, sustained foreign inflows and RBI support helped it recover. Over FY2020–21, the rupee actually strengthened by ~4% on net as it bounced back into the low-70s per dollar. This shows how external shocks can temporarily hurt the rupee, but coordinated monetary/fiscal measures and global recovery can restore its value.

Russia–Ukraine War & U.S. Rate Hikes (2022–2023)

The 2022 war in Ukraine sent global commodity prices soaring (especially oil), and inflation surged worldwide. India saw retail inflation hit multi-year highs (e.g. ~7.8% in April 2022). Meanwhile, the U.S. Fed began aggressive rate hikes to fight inflation. These factors together weakened the rupee: in 2022 the rupee lost roughly 10–11% of its value against the dollar – its weakest annual performance since 2013. Analysts noted that rising energy costs and U.S. rate hikes would push INR to around ₹77.5 by early 2023. In practice, the rupee was volatile: it hit ~₹84 in Oct 2022, then the RBI intervened and it settled near ₹80–82 by year-end. (By early 2025 the rupee hit a new lifetime low ~₹87.95 per USD amid continuing global pressures.) In sum, this episode highlights how war-driven commodity shocks and global monetary tightening can jointly weaken the rupee.

Recommendations (Non-Political)

• Maintain Macro Stability: Keep inflation low and stable. A strict inflation-targeting monetary policy can anchor expectations and support the rupee’s value.
• Fiscal Discipline: Reduce the fiscal deficit over time (through revenue measures and efficient spending). Lower government borrowing needs ease inflation and CAD pressures.
• Boost Exports and Diversity: Encourage manufacturing and service exports (especially high-value sectors like tech, pharmaceuticals, and engineering). Diversifying export markets and products makes export earnings steadier, providing more dollars.
• Invest in Productivity & Technology: Improve infrastructure, education, and technology adoption to raise economic productivity. Higher growth from innovation strengthens the currency over the long run.
• Attract Stable Capital: Simplify regulations to draw more foreign direct investment (FDI) in manufacturing and high-tech industries, which is generally more stable than short-term flows.
• Diversify Forex Reserves: Hold a mix of reserve currencies and assets. India already holds large reserves, but small diversifications (e.g. in euros, yen, gold) can reduce reliance on any single currency.
• Trade Policy: Pursue open trade agreements and reduce barriers where feasible. This expands markets for Indian goods and can improve the trade balance, supporting the rupee.

Each of these measures focuses on economic fundamentals – growth, savings, trade, and stability – rather than on partisan issues. Over time, a stronger, more competitive economy will naturally yield a stronger, more stable rupee.

Sources: Authoritative analyses and data from financial media and institutions (e.g. RBI, IMF, Reuters) were used. Key references include currency-factor studies, RBI and IMF research on India’s exchange-rate regime, and news reports on historical rupee events. The inflation and currency data (in tables) are drawn from IMF/CIA World Factbook and historical exchange-rate records. All analysis is presented without political bias.

India Minus Politics: Celebrity Endorsements and Unethical and Harmful Products in India

     Indian celebrities have a long history of endorsing products that pose serious health risks. From tobacco and pan masala to alcohol and gambling, stars of Bollywood, sports, television and social media have lent their fame to market these items. Although direct advertising of tobacco and liquor is banned by law, surrogate marketing (promoting non-harmful products under the same brand name) has proliferated. High-profile partnerships with pan masala and gutka brands (tobacco-based mouth fresheners) and even gambling websites are now common.

This article examines how such endorsements have evolved, their impact on youth and public health, the legal framework governing them, and why movies and ads keep normalizing these habits. It also contrasts India’s approach with stricter international standards, and considers how politics affects celebrity accountability. Finally, we suggest reforms: stronger regulations, ethical advertising standards, and greater celebrity responsibility to protect young people.

 

Historical and Current Landscape of Celebrity Endorsements

     For decades, Indian stars have been frontmen for controversial products. In the early 1990s, just before cigarette advertising was banned, Bollywood icons appeared in tobacco ads – for example, the veteran actor Ashok Kumar famously lit a cigarette in a 1960s Wills cigarette poster. After the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) of 2003 outlawed tobacco marketing, brands resorted to surrogate advertising. They tied tobacco and liquor names to benign products and used celebrities to reinforce brand identity. Thus Vimal Elaichi (cardamom) ads featured heavyweights like Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Akshay Kumar, implicitly promoting their tobacco brand. Similarly, Kamla Pasand pan masala ads have starred Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan and Ranveer Singh. On the cricket field, brandlicensing allowed Royal Stag whiskey to use Rohit Sharma and Jasprit Bumrah in music-CD ads, and Royal Challenge liquor to enlist Virat Kohli for its water and energy drink lines. These high-visibility campaigns – often timed around the IPL or festivals – keep harmful brands top-of-mind.

In recent years social media influencers and reality-TV stars have also joined the fray. Many have promoted online betting and gambling apps in flashy Instagram reels, despite such games being largely illegal. Some Bollywood stars, like Urvashi Rautela, became brand ambassadors for gambling sites (e.g. 1xBet), sparking controversy. In 2024 the government formally warned all celebrities and influencers to refrain from advertising offshore betting or gambling, branding such promotions harmful to society. Yet enforcement lags: many online ads for betting continue unabated, often featuring popular faces. Overall, the celebrity marketing landscape in India remains skewed. Even as some stars refuse these deals, many are happy to endorse products in lucrative contracts.

 

Impact on Youth, Public Health and Consumer Behavior

     Research shows that celebrity promotions of addictive products strongly influence young people. In India, exposure to tobacco advertising predicts initiation of smoking among adolescents. In one longitudinal study, boys highly receptive to tobacco ads were over twice as likely to start using tobacco. The national Global Youth Tobacco Survey data revealed that over 70% of Indian teens reported seeing pro-tobacco ads on billboards, a figure which rose in the late 2000s. Bollywood’s portrayal of on-screen smoking reinforces this effect: a study of schoolchildren found those with high exposure to smoking scenes in Hindi films had more than double the odds of ever using tobacco than those with low exposure. Exposure to alcohol imagery works similarly: one analysis of 300 popular Bollywood films (1994–2013) found 93% featured alcohol use and 70% featured tobacco use. In that sample, alcohol appeared an average of seven times per film and tobacco four times. These constant portrayals – often with stars looking suave or rebellious – normalize drinking and smoking.

The public health costs are huge. India loses about 1.3 million lives per year to tobacco – roughly 13 lakh deaths annually, according to government figures. Tobacco-related cancers and heart disease strain families and the healthcare system. Smokeless tobacco and pan masala are especially deadly: an estimated 40% of all cancer cases in India are blamed on tobacco (including gutka/pan masala) and alcohol. Oral cancer – often caused by gutka – is by far the most common cancer among Indian men. One global study found over 83,400 of South Asia’s 105,500 oral cancer cases occurred in India, driven largely by gutka/areca-nut abuse; the authors warned that Bollywood ads for pan masala are fueling “painful…incurable” mouth cancers in young people.

Gambling promotions have similarly grave consequences. A recent study by IIM Rohtak found that celebrity-endorsed gambling apps greatly increase young people’s intent to gamble. Young viewers exposed to gambling ads featuring stars were far more likely to think gambling is easy money – especially if the ad’s legal disclaimers were delivered by non-celebrities (whom they ignored). In the worst-case scenario (celebrity endorsement plus an ineffective warning), more than 78% of youth said they would gamble, risking addiction. The real-world toll is already evident: a recent petition to India’s Supreme Court noted that in just one year in Telangana, 978 young people committed suicide due to gambling-related financial distress. Stories abound of families ruined after betting apps advertised by popular actors. In sum, multiple studies and statistics confirm what common sense suggests: when movie stars and sports heroes glamorize cigarettes, gutka, alcohol or gambling, young fans are far likelier to try them, often with tragic results.

 

Legal and Advertising Standards

     India’s laws technically forbid direct advertising of tobacco, alcohol and many gambling products. The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003 bans all tobacco ads in media, on billboards and sponsorships. Similarly, Cable TV Rules (1994) and subsequent directives prohibit liquor ads on TV. Yet loopholes remain. Surrogate advertising (promoting an alternate product under the same brand name) is not explicitly outlawed by law, so tobacco and liquor brands exploit it. The health ministry and courts have battled surrogates: for example, a 2005 COTPA amendment tried to ban any tobacco depiction in films and TV, but producers challenged it and it was struck down on free-speech grounds. Today, OTT and TV rules (2023) require smoking in films/series to include anti-tobacco disclaimers and prevent brand placement, but implementation is uneven.

Self-regulatory codes also exist. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) forbids celebrity endorsements of products requiring statutory warnings (like tobacco or wine). In late 2023 new guidelines under the Consumer Protection Act proposed heavy fines (₹10 lakh+) on celebrities who do surrogate ads for banned products. In practice, though, enforcement is weak. Industry watchdogs have issued advisories: in March 2024 the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting advised all influencers and endorsers to stop promoting offshore gambling sites, warning of “rigorous scrutiny” and penalties. The Central Consumer Protection Authority similarly urged platforms to disable accounts of gambling advertisers. State authorities have begun acting: Telangana police recently filed FIRs against 25 actors and influencers (e.g. Rana Daggubati, Vijay Deverakonda, Prakash Raj) under anti-gambling and IT laws for promoting betting apps. Health officials even asked the IPL to bar all surrogate ads in stadiums, and sportspeople from endorsing tobacco/alcohol, to protect viewers.

Yet many violations go unchecked. ASCI’s own critics call it “toothless” – rules exist on paper but are often ignored. For example, Vimal Elaichi commercials starring top actors ran for months even after public uproar; TV channels regularly air Pan Masala hoardings featuring stars. The recent flurry of notices (e.g. to SRK and co.) shows growing scrutiny, but so far no celebrity has been criminally charged in India simply for a harmful ad. This lax enforcement reflects the reality: India’s regulatory standards are weaker than those of many Western nations, where blanket bans leave no surrogate loophole.

 

Case Studies: Celebrity–Brand Partnerships

        ● Pan Masala and Gutka (Tobacco): In 2022–23 IPL seasons, almost every big star jumped on this bandwagon. Kamla Pasand signed Amitabh Bachchan and later Ranveer Singh; when Bachchan faced online revolt in late 2021, he abruptly withdrew and returned his fee. Vimal Elaichi – the flagship tobacco brand in disguise – has long been fronted by Ajay Devgn, often paired with Shah Rukh Khan. In April 2022 Akshay Kumar appeared alongside them in a Vimal Elaichi commercial, provoking outrage since he also promotes fitness campaigns. Within days he publicly apologized and “stepped back” from the deal. Yet the ads continued airing with his image (contractually), illustrating how brands benefit: the PR spin helps the celebrity save face, while the product gains “free” publicity. Other stars have appeared in gutka ads: Salman Khan in Rajshree Elaichi spots, Hrithik Roshan in Signature Elaichi, and even Telugu superstar Mahesh Babu in Pan Bahar campaigns with Tiger Shroff. Not all celebs comply: in 2024 Anil Kapoor turned down a ₹10 crore paan-masala deal, saying he “has a responsibility” to fans and won’t promote harmful products. His example is rare amid the trend.

        ● Alcohol (Surrogate Promotions): Direct liquor ads are banned, so brands use channel-surfing tactics. Carlsberg’s Tuborg music CDs feature Bollywood parties with slogans from its beer campaign, and Diageo’s Black & White whiskey ads reappear as ginger ale videos. The government recently proposed banning all such surrogate ads, even threatening to hold endorsing celebrities accountable. On the sports field, Royal Stag whisky uses stars like Rohit Sharma and Jasprit Bumrah in music videos or special events (no alcohol shown), while Royal Challenge whisky has Virat Kohli fronting its mineral water and energy drink adverts. Cricket legends have occasionally danced in such ads: Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag and Kapil Dev appeared in Kamla Pasand spots. By contrast, icons like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid have steadfastly refused any alcohol or tobacco endorsements, often campaigning against them.

        ● Gambling and Gaming: Celebrities from Bollywood to regional cinema have been ambivalent about gambling. The recent case of actress Urvashi Rautela is telling: industry bodies demanded legal action after she promoted the offshore betting app 1xBet, calling it “false and misleading” advertising. Lawyers note endorsers risk bans or even criminal charges under the Consumer Protection Act if they flout advisories. In 2022, even sports anchors Aakash Chopra and Sanjay Manjrekar faced criticism for lending their faces to betting ads, prompting an MIB directive that discouraged any such promotions. Notably, no major film or TV star is openly gambling these days (IPL players are under scrutiny), but the ads still run with younger influencers and some actors testing the limits. The swift public backlash against gambling promos – and resulting FIRs in states like Telangana – suggest that celebrity involvement here may soon become a very costly gamble.

        ● Tobacco Surrogates in Media: Bollywood films and songs themselves act like endorsements. For example, a recent music video tweeted that cigarettes were “made of gulkand, kya?” – a viral jibe at Akshay Kumar’s TV ads for Vimal Elaichi. In 2022 Akshay actually apologized on social media: he reiterated “I have not and will not endorse tobacco” even as he stepped away from the pan masala ad. Activists even demanded the government revoke Padma awards of the stars involved, highlighting the hypocrisy. This case underscores how celebrities often try to spin these deals as innocuous (“just elaichi, not cigarettes”) while the net impact remains the same. Media narratives and PR damage control frequently clash with the health facts; consumers eventually realize that surrogate ads and movie glamorization are not harmless.

 

Media Narratives vs. Health Realities

     Ads and film portrayals paint tobacco, alcohol and gambling as glamorous, fun or “spicy”. Pan masala commercials show A-list actors in lavish parties, talking about success and tradition, never health risks. Bollywood songs casually mention being drunk or high as romantic or rebellious. On-screen smoking scenes often lack any negative consequence. The overall media narrative downplays danger: one Vimal Elaichi ad was cheekily billed “flavor of brotherhood”, emphasizing social bonding over medical warnings. In reality, however, these products are deadly. Tobacco is literally “death in a packet” – as a marketer once admitted in a British documentary on selling cigarettes. Pan masala and gutka cause incurable oral cancers. Alcohol leads to liver disease and drunk-driving fatalities. Gambling ruins families financially and mentally. Social media has begun pushing back: memes mock celebrities who deny endorsing cigarettes (“are cigarettes made of gulkand?”), and hashtag campaigns have called out Bollywood for hypocrisy. But film songwriters and ad agencies keep spinning fantasies. Unless viewers connect the dots, the naive appeal (“If my hero does it, it must be cool”) can override sober science.

Thus there is a stark gap between media narratives and logical health consequences. While ads talk of style, survey after survey shows that actual consumption of these products causes widespread disease and death. The myth of harmlessness propagated by ads has no footing in medical data. It’s this dissonance that public health campaigns and regulation must address.

 

Role of the Entertainment Industry in Normalization

     Indian movies, TV shows and music play a huge role in normalizing tobacco, alcohol and gambling. A viewer watching films daily may see their favorite hero light up countless cigarettes or toast shots of whisky without a hint of regret. This normality erodes the social taboo against these behaviors. A PLOS One study of Bollywood films (1994–2013) found that three-quarters of Hindi films for general audiences showed tobacco or alcohol use, and these depictions increased over time. Although tobacco use in movies has declined since tighter rules were introduced in 2005–06, scenes of smoking are still common – one study noted an average of four tobacco incidents per film even in the 2000s. Alcohol shows (7 per film on average) are even more prevalent. On television and streaming, even news or talk shows quietly pour tea laced with the “haldi-chai” colloquialism for tobacco or let guests sip drinks. Product placement blurs reality: songs endorse whiskey brands, web series heroes gamble on camera.

This persistent presence saturates culture. In free time, Indian youths spend hours on OTT platforms and YouTube; a government-ordered study found that influencers on social media are actively glamorizing e-cigarettes and vapes through lifestyle content, despite a ban on these products. The tobacco industry’s tactics – using music, youth icons and trendy themes – deliberately target kids and young adults. In fact, the World Health Organization has praised India’s recent move to regulate streaming content with anti-smoking messages, but cautions it must be strictly enforced. Compared to countries where smoking in films is taboo or strictly rated for adults, Bollywood still implicitly endorses these vices. Until the film and music industries take responsibility (by, for example, refusing paid placements for gutka or showing realistic consequences), the entertainment ecosystem will keep these harmful habits seeming “normal” and acceptable in society.

 

International Comparisons

     India’s approach lags well behind stricter regimes abroad. In the UK, Australia, Canada and many EU countries, tobacco advertising of any kind is fully banned. The UK’s Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act (2002) and subsequent laws outlaw all tobacco ads and sponsorships; cigarettes come in plain, branded-free packs (required since 2016). On-screen smoking in movies triggers higher age ratings – and many Western films now avoid showing cigarettes at all. Bollywood’s 93% film occurrence of smoking would be unthinkable in markets like Australia, which in 2006 introduced the world’s toughest graphic-packaging and marketing ban laws.

Alcohol advertising is also more regulated abroad. Many countries forbid celebrity endorsements of alcohol on TV and require prominent “drink responsibly” disclaimers (India’s ads have nothing comparable). In the UK, new codes explicitly scrutinize any gambling ad to ensure it doesn’t appeal to minors; regulators are even poised to ban celebrities in betting commercials. In contrast, Indian ads for betting sites exploded until recently.

The net result is that youth in the West have lower exposure. For example, UK youth smoking rates are half of India’s (roughly 10–12% vs ~20% of adults), credited to decades of prevention and advertising bans. Similarly, strict enforcement in Australia and Canada means fewer minors see drinking glamorized. India’s relatively lax media environment keeps dangerous product imagery circulating widely. Without outright bans and vigorous policing, any celebrity in India can still appear to “market” a harmful product – something virtually unheard-of in highly-regulated markets. In essence, developed countries have moved from prohibition to prevention, whereas India still lets surrogate marketing skirt the rules.

 

Political Influence and Celebrity Accountability

     In India, the nexus between celebrities, media and politics complicates accountability. Many stars have politicians as friends (or become politicians themselves), which can blunt enforcement. Often, harmful endorsements elicit public outrage and PR stunts rather than legal action. For example, when stars are caught in controversially marketing gutka or betting apps, they usually issue apologies or quietly drop the campaign, whereas actual penalties are rare. Activists can pressure with petitions (as when BJP workers asked the PM to revoke Padma awards from film stars over such ads), but judges rarely prosecute celebrities for ad violations alone. By contrast, in countries like Australia or the US, regulators or consumer courts could slap fines on endorsers.

That said, political voices do matter. Recently, a senior IPS officer in Telangana publicly launched a social media campaign against gambling apps, emphasizing the youth suicides these promotions cause. His activism – not sure how “political” but public sector – spurred police to register cases against film and TV personalities. Central ministries, too, are now vocal: health and information ministers have jointly demanded stricter ad rules. Yet enforcement still depends on bureaucratic will; some industry insiders argue that bodies like ASCI are “lax” and “preach but don’t act”.

In short, celebrity culture in India operates with minimal official pushback. Until the government treats surrogate endorsements as seriously as it does, say, political bribery, stars can keep their extra-legal marketing roles. The comparatively muted response – a few FIRs and advisories – reflects how entertainment and political interests often intertwine. It will take sustained political commitment to override the glamour and hold personalities accountable in any meaningful way.

 

Reforms and Solutions

     Addressing this problem requires action on many fronts. Key reforms include:

        ● Strengthen Regulations: Close all surrogate loopholes. Amend COTPA and broadcasting laws to explicitly ban brand extensions and celebrity tie-ins for tobacco, alcohol and gambling. The government’s proposed rules on liquor adverts (banning any ambush promotion) and new CCPA guidelines penalizing surrogate endorsements should be enacted swiftly. Enforce the Tobacco-Free Film and TV Rules fully: for example, require every movie/OTT scene with tobacco or vaping to carry a large health warning on-screen (not just a fade-in). Increase on-the-ground monitoring (e.g. by MIB/ASCI) of ads during major events like the IPL.

        ● Ensure Media Literacy and Youth Protection: Schools and parents should get resources to counter celebrity influence. The government’s “Tobacco-Free Youth” campaigns must highlight how surrogates work and teach kids to spot them. Regulators should demand clearer on-ad warnings on surrogate products (e.g. explicit “contains tobacco” labels on pan masala ads). Social media companies should honor I&B advisories by removing influencer posts that promote banned products to minors. Programs featuring youth ambassadors or reformed celebrities could help spread truthful messages about the dangers.

        ● Celebrity Responsibility and Codes of Conduct: Actors, sports stars and influencers must internalize their social power. Industry associations (like film chambers) could introduce voluntary charters: pledging not to endorse products with health warnings. Trade bodies could honor public figures who refuse such contracts (e.g. awards for “ethical endorsements”). Celebrities themselves should remember that any publicity on harmful products often backfires with educated audiences – as recent backlash shows. If they do appear in an ad, they should use only the barest appearances (like an advisory clip) and give it balanced context (some countries require celebrities to speak the warning message themselves). Ideally, many stars would simply say “no” to these deals; as Anil Kapoor did, citing a sense of social duty.

        ● Robust Enforcement: Penalties must bite. Fines on companies and endorsers caught advertising illegal products should be substantial, with suspension of ads until cleared. Courts should treat violations under the Consumer Protection Act seriously – e.g. by banning repeat endorsers from advertising any product for a year. State gaming laws can be invoked swiftly against celebrities promoting betting. ASCI needs real teeth: it should publicly blacklist violators and report them promptly to police or broadcasters. Increased surveillance of digital media and proactive action against offenders (not just reactive complaint resolution) would signal change. For instance, India’s new rule allowing MIB to yank online ads for gambling should be enforced automatically.

        ● Learn from Global Best Practices: India can adopt policies that have worked elsewhere. For example, Australia’s plain packaging for cigarettes – with graphic disease images – removes any glamour. Similar plain branding for pan masala packets could be imposed. Film regulators could mandate that any smoking character is shown paying a price (or that films with smoking get stricter age limits). The UK’s ban on celebrity gambling ads (ASA codes) could inspire a legal prohibition in India. Even public health ads by stars (which India already mandates before movies) should be more informative and hard-hitting, countering any earlier images.

        ● Transparent Disclosures: All endorsements should come with disclosures. For instance, the Consumer Protection Rules could require influencers to tag any promotion of these products as “Paid sponsorship for [brand]”, so viewers know it’s an ad. Mandatory disclaimers (beyond fine-print warnings) spoken by the celebrity in native language would help.

Ultimately, no solution will work without public pressure and ethical commitment. Consumers must demand that their favorite stars refuse to lend their shine to destructive products. Media should scrutinize and remind audiences of the science behind every glamorous ad. Politicians and policymakers should prioritize health over occasional tax revenue (noting, for example, that tobacco taxes – ₹4,962 crores in FY2020-21 – cannot justify celebrity promotion of a poison).

In a “safer India,” advertisements would uplift culture and well-being, not toxicity. Stricter laws, vigilant oversight and a culture of responsibility can turn the tide. Bollywood and India’s glitterati have inspired millions – if they channel that influence positively instead of peddling poisons, they could truly become nation-builders rather than inadvertent health hazards.

References: Verified sources including government reports, peer-reviewed studies and reputable media have been cited above to document endorsements, health impacts, and regulations. The facts and figures here rely on published data and analyses to ensure accuracy.

 

 

Again…

"At last there is Space for your Own evaluation and Perception."