Mishik Sharma

A couple of days back, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated Skyroot Aerospace’s new manufacturing facility and launch vehicle. In his speech, he emphasised something subtle but significant: India’s Gen Z is increasingly drawn to the space sector, and young innovators are driving a technological wave that did not exist even a decade ago. The next day, The Economic Times wrote an editorial reinforcing the same idea — that India’s youth is being absorbed into high-skill, mission-driven innovation ecosystems, keeping them productively engaged and off the streets, unlike in several countries facing youth unrest. These two signals — one political, one editorial — point to a deeper transformation underway. India is entering its first truly public–private space age, and the implications go far beyond rockets or satellite launches. This is not merely a tech story. It is a story about India’s economy, state capacity, youth aspirations, and the revival of scientific education. As a sociologis...

India’s GDP growth numbers continue to surprise on the upside. The Q2FY26 growth figure of 8.2%—a six quarter high—reinforces the idea that India is a high-momentum economy. Yet the very same months have delivered repeated reminders that growth masks deep structural vulnerabilities. The common thread across these vulnerabilities is simple but uncomfortable: India assembles products, but depends on other countries—primarily China—for the components, raw materials, and critical inputs that keep its industrial machine running. In other words, we are a downstream power in industries where all real capability and resilience lie upstream. The current moment offers a rare opportunity to confront this reality, especially as a new technological force—AI—is beginning to reshape manufacturing and materials science. Whether India uses AI to break its structural dependencies, or becomes even more dependent on foreign upstream ecosystems, is the defining industrial question of the next decade. I. In...

The implementation of India’s four Labour Codes is being framed primarily as a worker–firm reform. But this misses a larger and more original implication: the Codes fundamentally alter how banks, NBFCs, private equity funds, and venture capital investors should evaluate Indian businesses. Labour is not just a regulatory variable — it is a cost curve. And once a cost curve becomes predictable, it becomes financeable. This blogpost explores how labour-compliance maturity, wage-structure clarity, and statutory social-security obligations should now influence the logic of capital allocation in India. 1. The Codes Convert Labour Costs Into Predictable Financial Variables For decades, investors faced major uncertainties: Differing wage rules across states Volatile PF/ESIC contributions Unclear status of contract vs. core workers Compliance-driven penalties varying by region Wide variations in “basic pay” due to allowance arbitrage These uncertainties forced lenders and equity investors to pr...

The four Labour Codes—conceptualised between 2019 and 2020 and finally brought into force this week—are being widely discussed, and rightly so. For nearly five years, firms, state governments, HR professionals, and compliance officers have known what is coming. These reforms are not “surprise” regulations suddenly disrupting the market. They are the culmination of a long, public, consultative process designed to bring predictability to one of the most foundational factors of production: labour. In that sense, the Codes mark the end of regulatory ambiguity. Every firm in India—small, mid-sized, large, domestic, multinational—now has a clearer horizon for designing workforce structures, compensation policies, benefits planning, and long-term expansion strategies. Yet most public discussions miss the deeper point: The Labour Codes are not merely compliance reforms; they are institutional infrastructure for labour markets. If used strategically, they can reshape employment quality, workfor...

An Economy Saturated With AI Speculation Over the past year, conversations about artificial intelligence have become inescapable. Financial news outlets, technology commentators, YouTube analysts, and social media influencers frequently return to the same question: “Are we in an AI bubble—and is it about to burst?” Every new investment announcement, every spike in GPU demand, and every high-profile funding round triggers another wave of speculative commentary. Investor actions—such as large, sudden stake sales—are frequently interpreted as signals that the market may have reached unsustainable heights. The comparison to the late-1990s dot-com bubble has become almost reflexive. This atmosphere of speculation has created a narrative cycle: Rising valuations →  Increased public hype →  Investor caution →  Renewed bubble warnings The discourse itself reinforces the perception of fragility. A Rapid Stock-Taking: Market Jolt Amid the Ongoing Speculation While the bubble debate...

Part 1 — The Economists’s Proposal: A Global Panel on Inequality On 14 November 2025, more than 500 economists, sociologists, and activists endorsed an open letter calling for the creation of an International Panel on Inequality (IPI) — a body modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but dedicated to systematically tracking and advising governments on inequality. The signatories urged G20 leaders, meeting today in Johannesburg, South Africa, to place this proposal on the agenda and adopt it as a global governance mechanism. The letter makes several key claims: Inequality is not natural but a political choice, shaped by tax policy, labour institutions, land regimes, global capital flows, and regulatory failures. Inequality at extreme levels threatens democratic institutions, erodes trust, polarizes societies, and destabilizes economies. Proven solutions exist — progressive taxation, universal public services, strong labour protections, and coordinated global acti...

In the rush of big-ticket announcements at investment summits, some of the most strategic signals often get buried. The $12-billion investment proposal that Brookfield Asset Management announced at the recent CII–Andhra Pradesh summit in Visakhapatnam is one such example. It briefly made headlines before being overshadowed by Reliance, Adani, Google and others. But structurally, Brookfield’s announcement could herald a deeper shift in India’s investment landscape — one that policy-makers and analysts should pay close attention to. This is not a routine commitment by a single company. It is a portfolio commitment by a global investment firm that controls or significantly influences dozens of companies across sectors: data centres, green energy, warehousing, hospitality, infrastructure and more. Earlier this year, Brookfield made a similar cluster-style announcement for Maharashtra.  Large investment firms announcing multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment plans is not new. Over ...