Shared recording

Future of Public Affairs and Digital Policy

Session 22.mp4 · 51:17 · 7 speakers

Download (3.2 GB) Anyone with this link can watch and download this recording.

Key takeaways

  1. Speaker 2 said policymaking has become more consultative and industry engagement has increased since 2014.
  2. India’s investment proposition extends beyond market size to purchasing power, talent, institutional credibility and sector-specific conditions.
  3. Digital-policy enforcement is more assertive, but Speaker 2 identified gaps in the legal and regulatory tools available to authorities.
  4. Speaker 2 sees major opportunities in digital credit, digital banking, AI applications, semiconductors and API-enabled government processes.
  5. The enduring value of public-affairs professionals is trusted translation between business and government, not access alone.
  6. Capacity building requires real-world exposure, business fluency, evidence-based advocacy, awareness of current affairs, judgement and relationships.
  7. Corporates need social legitimacy to operate and should communicate and engage communities rather than rely solely on government.
  8. Academia, industry and government should collaborate more closely on practical education, case studies and policy design.

Key moments

  • Session introduction
    Speaker 1 introduces Speaker 2 and frames the session as a discussion of the future of public affairs.
  • Post-2014 policy shift
    Speaker 2 identifies greater industry engagement, expert input and consultation as major changes.
  • FDI proposition debated
    The discussion shifts from market size to the broader factors driving global-board investment decisions.
  • Digital enforcement discussion
    Speaker 2 describes assertive enforcement alongside gaps in legal and regulatory powers.
  • Digital-sector agenda
    Speaker 2 outlines digital credit, digital banking, AI applications, semiconductors and government APIs.
  • Trust asymmetry defined
    Speaker 2 argues that trust is the key residual advantage for public-affairs professionals.
  • Capacity-building guidance
    Speaker 2 discusses entry routes, business fluency and current-affairs awareness for new professionals.
  • Corporate social contract
    Speaker 2 states that companies need societal permission to operate.
  • Regulatory and cross-border coordination
    Speaker 2 discusses RBI dialogue, UAE approval context and cross-border CBDC conversations.
  • Profession relevance defended
    Speaker 2 argues that policy professionals retain a unique role in identifying mutually beneficial solutions.
  • Technology-policy drafting concern
    The discussion addresses law firms, practical technology experience and collaborative policymaking.
  • Closing
    Speaker 2 closes the Q&A and Speaker 1 thanks the speaker.

Decisions made

No explicit final decision was identified.

Proposals & suggestions (not confirmed decisions)

  • Reconsider policy support for digital banks and models that enable digital players to extend credit more directly. — proposed by Speaker 2. Outcome: No final decision; presented as a policy direction for the fintech sector.
  • Build public-policy capacity through exposure at think tanks, research organisations, associations and interactions with policymakers. — suggested by Speaker 2. Outcome: Supported in subsequent discussion by Speaker 3; no formal decision.
  • Bring more practising policy professionals into academic classrooms and develop anonymised real-world policy case studies. — suggested by Speaker 2. Outcome: Speaker 1 supported closer academic involvement in public-policy debates; no formal decision.
  • Industry associations should convene members and policymakers, produce research and evidence, and engage consistently to build trust. — suggested by Speaker 2. Outcome: Advice given to Speaker 7; no formal decision.
  • Government, industry and associations should collaborate in drafting policies with mutually beneficial guardrails, supported by clearer policymaker-side processes. — suggested by Speaker 2. Outcome: No final decision.

Topics discussed

Evolution of public policy and government consultation

to 08:00 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 2 contrasted early post-1991 institutionalisation with pre-existing relationship-driven government dealing. Speaker 2 said that after 2014 government engagement with industry and experts expanded, and cited the digital privacy-law consultation process as an example of extensive consultation.

Foreign investment and India’s market proposition

to 11:05 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 1 asked whether the longstanding FDI narrative based on India’s market size is weakening. Speaker 2 said global boards consider market size alongside purchasing capacity, talent, legal legitimacy, transparency, GCCs, data centres, engineering capability and sector-specific reform constraints.

Digital enforcement and regulatory capacity

to 15:25 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

The speakers discussed safe harbor and implementation of existing laws. Speaker 2 described increasingly strong enforcement but said India lacks some legal mechanisms for substantial penalties and that MeitY, as described, has limitations in filing FIRs independently.

Digital-sector opportunities and public-affairs role

to 20:44 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 2 outlined opportunities in fintech credit, possible digital-bank models, AI applications, semiconductors and API-enabled public administration. Speaker 2 argued that public-affairs professionals are trusted translators between corporate leadership and government.

Future complexity and profession capacity building

to 27:39 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 2 identified digital sovereignty, cross-border legal conflicts and rapidly changing technology as sources of complexity. The discussion on capacity building focused on exposure through think tanks and associations, business literacy, measurable business impact, curiosity and continuing awareness of current affairs.

Judgement, nuance and professional relationships

to 31:04 Speaker 2, Speaker 3

Speaker 3 reinforced the importance of broad awareness, nuance, judgement and relationships rather than superficial general knowledge or online networks. Speaker 2 agreed and stressed interpersonal engagement and in-depth understanding of sectors and institutions.

Corporate trust and social licence to operate

to 34:04 Speaker 2, Speaker 4

Speaker 4 asked whether corporates share responsibility for public trust. Speaker 2 said companies operate through a social contract and must be allies of the communities and causes connected to their operations, while also arguing that wealth creation should not automatically be treated negatively.

Academia and practical policy education

to 37:07 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

An audience member asked how academia can develop stronger policy professionals. Speaker 2 recommended greater practitioner participation in classrooms, development of anonymised real-world cases, and closer integration between academic institutions and industry. Speaker 1 added that academics should participate directly in policy debates.

RBI guidance and cross-border regulation

to 40:47 Speaker 2, Speaker 6

Speaker 6 asked about complex RBI master directions and cross-border regulatory coordination. Speaker 2 said RBI-industry dialogue is improving but noted internal regulatory gaps; Speaker 2 also said regulators are speaking more across borders and cited UAE-related approval, CBDC discussions and potential expansion into Singapore.

Future relevance of policy professionals

to 44:56 Speaker 2, Speaker 4

Speaker 4 questioned how policy professionals remain relevant when company experts have more information and direct access. Speaker 2 argued they remain necessary because they understand the company’s interests, balance those with government objectives, and bring contrary evidence and mutually beneficial solutions.

Industry-association advocacy and technology-policy drafting

to 50:47 Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 4, Speaker 7

Speaker 7 asked how a relatively new industry association can build regulatory capacity and engagement. Speaker 2 recommended bringing members together, conducting research, consistently engaging policymakers and presenting evidence. Speaker 4 then raised concern about law firms shaping technology policy without deployment experience; Speaker 2 called for collaborative drafting, stronger in-house government capacity and trusted industry-government engagement.

Closing

to 51:12 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 2 ended the session to allow attendees to go to lunch, and Speaker 1 thanked Speaker 2.

Important questions

  • What has changed in public policy since 2014? — asked by Speaker 1
    Answered Speaker 2 said government engagement with industry and experts has increased, consultation has expanded, and government is seeking greater transparency and credibility through consultative processes.
  • Are global boards still persuaded by India’s large-market narrative, or should India reposition its FDI proposition? — asked by Speaker 1
    Answered Speaker 2 said India remains a large market but boards also assess purchasing capacity, talent, legal legitimacy, transparency, GCCs, data centres and sector-specific conditions; reforms alone do not automatically produce investment.
  • Has implementation and rigidity around digital safe-harbor provisions changed? — asked by Speaker 1
    Answered Speaker 2 said implementation has become more assertive and consequences are communicated more clearly, while enforcement powers and legal mechanisms still contain gaps.
  • What should government move on for the digital sector generally? — asked by Speaker 1
    Answered Speaker 2 pointed to expanded digital credit, reconsideration of digital banking, AI applications, semiconductors and API-enabled public processes as major opportunities.
  • Have public-affairs tasks become more complicated, and how should the profession build capacity? — asked by Speaker 1
    Answered Speaker 2 said complexity will grow through digital sovereignty and cross-border legal conflicts, but trust remains straightforward; capacity requires exposure, business understanding, measurable impact, curiosity and current-affairs awareness.
  • Do corporates have a role in building public trust, rather than leaving communication to government? — asked by Speaker 4
    Answered Speaker 2 said corporates have a clear role under a social contract: they need societal permission to operate, should benefit communities and should not assume capital alone gives them a right to operate.
  • What can academia change to develop better policy professionals? — asked by Speaker 4
    Answered Speaker 2 recommended practitioner involvement in classrooms, real-world case studies and stronger academic-industry integration.
  • Do RBI master directions make policy work easier or harder, and what does cross-border regulatory coordination mean for advocacy? — asked by Speaker 6
    Answered Speaker 2 said RBI guidance can be difficult to interpret but dialogue is improving; regulators are increasingly communicating across borders, although a fully unified regulatory model is not expected quickly.
  • How do public-policy professionals stay relevant when subject-matter experts have more information and direct policymaker access? — asked by Speaker 4
    Answered Speaker 2 said professionals remain relevant by understanding their own company’s business, balancing company and government objectives, and offering evidence-based, mutually beneficial solutions.
  • How can a new industry association build regulator capacity and stronger cross-regulator engagement? — asked by Speaker 7
    Answered Speaker 2 advised convening the industry, inviting regulators, conducting research, showing evidence and value, and building trust through sustained engagement.
  • How can government and industry address the growing role of law firms in technology-policy drafting when deployment experience may be limited? — asked by Speaker 4
    Answered Speaker 2 said policy drafting should be collaborative, government should develop in-house capability, and trusted industry-government engagement should help develop mutually beneficial guardrails.

Important numbers & facts

  • 1991 — Speaker 2 referred to India’s liberalisation period and said it marked a shift toward institutional-led policymaking.
  • 2014 — Speaker 2 used post-2014 as the period in which industry engagement and consultation increased.
  • six years — Speaker 2 said the digital privacy law was made in a record time of six years and involved multiple consultations.
  • 49% — Speaker 2 cited a past insurance-sector discussion about investment levels above 49%.
  • 74% — Speaker 2 said the insurance-sector limit is now 74%, while questioning whether investment has necessarily followed.
  • five to seven years — Speaker 2 said the government has improved its digital-regulation capability over the last five to seven years.
  • less than 1% or 2% — Speaker 2 described Indian corporate R&D spending as less than 1% or 2%, in the context of foundational AI-model development.
  • 600 days — Speaker 2 said environmental clearance previously took 600 days.
  • less than 100 days — Speaker 2 said environmental clearance is now being completed in less than 100 days through APIs across approval buckets.
  • 48 hours — Speaker 2 said many young people had approached them in the preceding 48 hours about entry-level hiring.
  • 2,000 people on LinkedIn — Speaker 3 used this as an example of superficial networking contrasted with genuine relationships.
  • 12 years old — Speaker 2 said their son, at 12 years old, uses Claude for homework and tells Speaker 2 that help is not needed.
  • seven or eight years — Speaker 7 said the Indian REIT industry is about seven or eight years old.
  • four or five years — Speaker 4 described law firms’ growing role in technology-policy work as a development of the last four or five years.
  • 10 years, 20 years — Speaker 4 asked about the relevance of policy professionals over the next 10 to 20 years.

Speaker highlights

Speaker 1

Main points

  • Moderated the session and framed questions on policy evolution, FDI, digital regulation, the future of the profession, academia and technology-policy drafting.
  • Questioned whether India’s FDI proposition can continue to rely primarily on market size.
  • Suggested that academics should be directly engaged in public-policy debates if they teach the subject.
  • Expressed a contrarian concern that the country may be trying to reduce the influence of technocrats over socioeconomic change.

Positions

  • Public-policy practice is experiential in nature.
  • Academia should participate in the policy issues it teaches.
  • There may be concern about excessive influence of technology and technocrats.

Questions raised

  • What changed in public policy after 2014?
  • Are global boards still persuaded by India’s large-market narrative?
  • Has enforcement of digital laws and safe-harbor provisions changed?
  • What should government change for the digital sector?
  • How should the profession build capacity?
  • How should academia be involved in policy debates?
  • How should industry respond to law firms’ growing role in technology-policy drafting?

Speaker 2

Main points

  • Described the movement from individual-led to institutional policymaking after 1991 and increased government-industry consultation after 2014.
  • Said global investors assess India on more than market size, including talent, purchasing capacity, legal legitimacy and transparency.
  • Characterised digital-law enforcement as more assertive while noting shortcomings in enforcement tools and regulatory architecture.
  • Advocated policies that enable digital credit and reconsider digital-bank models; said India’s AI strength may be applications rather than foundational models.
  • Defined public-affairs professionals as trusted interlocutors who translate between corporate and government stakeholders.
  • Advised early-career professionals to gain substantive exposure, understand their businesses, quantify policy value and stay informed.
  • Called for corporate social legitimacy, practical academic-industry integration, evidence-based association advocacy and collaborative policy drafting.

Positions

  • Government consultation and engagement have improved and are important to policymaking.
  • Policy professionals will remain relevant because they understand their companies and can seek mutual benefit with government.
  • Trust, rather than access or information alone, is the central differentiator for public-affairs practitioners.
  • Companies should treat societal permission to operate as essential, rather than assuming a right to operate.
  • Academia should integrate practitioners and real-world case studies into public-policy teaching.
  • Lawyers can help but should not be the sole source of expertise in drafting new technology policy.

Questions raised

  • How should digital sovereignty be defined without isolating India?
  • How should multinational companies manage conflict between Indian and foreign legal requirements?
  • How can companies and the profession measure public-affairs impact?
  • How can policy professionals be trained to understand their company’s commercial interests?
  • How can associations develop regulator understanding of new industries?

Speaker 3

Main points

  • Reinforced that capacity building requires broad awareness rather than limited general knowledge or social-media summaries.
  • Highlighted judgement, nuance and recognising what may be omitted from information.
  • Distinguished meaningful relationships from large online networks.

Positions

  • Young policy professionals are differentiated by nuance, judgement and relationships, not merely policy studies or general knowledge.

Speaker 4

Main points

  • Asked whether corporates must build trust with the public rather than leaving policy communication solely to government.
  • Asked how public-policy professionals remain relevant as subject-matter experts gain information and direct policymaker access.
  • Raised concern over law firms advising on technology-policy drafting and implementation without technology-deployment experience.

Positions

  • Corporate-public trust deficits can undermine policy outcomes.
  • The growing role of law firms in technology policy is a concern when practical deployment experience is absent.

Questions raised

  • Do corporates have a responsibility to build public trust?
  • How will public-policy professionals remain relevant over the next 10 to 20 years?
  • How can industry and government bridge the gap between legal advice and technology-deployment experience?

Speaker 5

Main points

  • Briefly managed audience participation and directed attention to a questioner.

Speaker 6

Main points

  • Asked about the practical impact of RBI master guidelines and the regulatory treatment of enabling and security technology.
  • Asked how cross-border regulatory coordination affects future policy advocacy.

Questions raised

  • Do RBI master directions make policy work easier or more difficult?
  • Where does cross-border regulatory coordination leave the future of policy advocacy?

Speaker 7

Main points

  • Identified as representing the Indian REITs Association and described it as a relatively new industry in India.
  • Asked how an association can improve regulator understanding, standardisation and cross-regulator coordination for a new product category.

Positions

  • New industries need more structured interaction with regulators to build sector understanding and effective regulation.

Questions raised

  • How can an association build official capacity and create a stronger interface between industry and regulators?

Follow-ups

  • Consider how public-affairs functions can measure and communicate business value from enabling policy outcomes or avoiding regulatory costs.
  • Explore mechanisms for bringing practising public-policy professionals and anonymised real-world cases into academic programmes.
  • Develop approaches for industry associations to build evidence, convene stakeholders and improve regulator understanding of new sectors. (Speaker 7)
  • Consider more structured government-industry-association collaboration and policymaker-side processes for drafting technology policy.