New Delhi: The Indian rupee’s breach of the Rs 90-per-dollar mark has triggered renewed debate on the country’s economic trajectory, political narrative, and public accountability. While the government maintains that the depreciation is part of a global trend and not a reflection of domestic weakness, experts and analysts are calling for a more honest and consistent conversation. Among them is Dr Rajendra Prasad, General Manager at SIDBI, who, in a recent LinkedIn post, questions the silence of public figures who once fiercely attacked the government over a much stronger rupee.
The rupee touched record lows earlier this week, driven by persistent foreign fund outflows, a strong US dollar, and widening import bills. The depreciation is expected to push up the cost of imported goods, from consumer electronics to essential commodities, placing pressure on inflation and household budgets. Despite these concerns, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has urged against “panic analysis,” arguing that India’s fundamentals including growth, inflation, and economic resilience remain sound. She reiterated that the rupee must be allowed to “find its natural level” and insisted that macro parameters are far stronger today compared to a decade ago.
It is against this backdrop that Dr Prasad’s commentary has drawn attention in policy circles. Dr Prasad, who works in the area of Climate Finance (Adaptation and Mitigation), highlights that the rupee’s decline cannot be attributed to a single variable. Calling it “not a sudden collapse,” he stresses that long-term currency strength comes from “productivity, exports, and credibility and not headlines.” He then questions why the public outcry seen during the rupee’s slide in 2012–13 is missing today.
Dr Prasad points out that several celebrities had labelled the rupee’s fall to 58 per dollar as a “national shame,” “government failure,” and evidence of the “common man suffering.” However, with the currency now touching 90, none of them has repeated those statements.
“There are three uncomfortable truths,” Dr Prasad, a postgraduate in Political Science and an M.Phil from JNU, writes, “Economic literacy was never the driver — the rupee was used as a political talking point, not a macroeconomic concern.”
“Celebrity activism follows power, not data, the risk calculus changed after 2014,” he said, adding that “Narrative control is tighter — currency depreciation is now reframed as ‘strong fundamentals’, ‘all currencies falling’, or ‘exports benefit.’
He gives a pointed conclusion: “If Rs 58/$ was considered a national shame, but Rs 90/$ is not evoking concerns, then either the 2013 outrage was exaggerated, or today’s silence is dishonest. Logically, one cannot believe both.”
Dr Prasad’s remarks have reignited a broader discussion on how economic issues are publicly framed and whether public discourse around key indicators is driven by genuine concern or political convenience. Economists note that currency depreciation must be analysed in the context of global movements, trade balances, and domestic productivity, not rhetoric. But they also stress the importance of consistent public communication and honest political dialogue.
As the rupee navigates turbulent global currents, the conversation sparked by Dr Prasad raises a larger question: Should economic commentary depend on who is in power, or must it be rooted in facts, accountability, and public interest?
For now, the government stands by its confidence in macroeconomic strength, even as analysts caution that persistent depreciation requires structural fixes — boosting exports, improving productivity, and maintaining fiscal discipline.
