The reason for doing this was that they wanted to influence global trends, tackle cross-cutting issues and address emergent crises. But very soon, the G7 realised that it was not good enough. By the 1990s, a number of crises developed, particularly on the financial and economic side. In 1994, there was the Mexican financial crisis, in 1997, it was the East Asian financial crises, and in 1999, there was the Russian financial crisis. But the Asian financial crisis was felt the most.

In response, the G7 realised that they needed the most important of the developing countries or the emerging markets. So they set up a group of 20 but it was at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors only. This continued for a few years. This compositional structure, too, was found to be inadequate during the international financial and economic crisis of 2008. Therefore, it was upgraded or raised to the summit level in 2008, the first being held at Washington DC. By the time of the third summit, again in the US, the grouping had come to be designated as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.

Now, the developing countries obviously have their own loyalties to international organisations. For example, we had the Non-Aligned Movement, which is more of a political grouping. We have the economic entity called G77, which today has 134 members but it became very unwieldy. So, a G15 was set up by a smaller group of emerging economies and developing countries.

But typically, these groupings addressed issues on two verticals. First was the South-South cooperation, which was about exchanges between developing countries. The other pivot was the North-South dialogue, where these countries (called Emerging Markets and Developing Countries or EMDCs) engaged with the developed nations. Unfortunately, this had had a very limited success. Very often, the communique sent by EMDCs is not even acknowledged by the developed countries. On some occasions, they would invite a select few EMDCs for a side meeting, like a breakfast meeting, for example.

In the interim, a few of the EMDCs tried to engage at the summit level with the G7. This interim process was known as the G8+5, (eight because Russia was included by the G7 in 1996 and then expelled in 2014), the five being India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. This came to be known as the Heiligendamm Process, the meetings taking names after cities in Germany and Italy where this process started but again, it was not good enough.

From the perspective of developing countries, there were the G8 and G20 at the finance ministers’ level, and a G8+5 at the leaders’ level. So 2008 is, therefore, a real landmark, when the developed nations realised that in order to tackle the great recession, they needed all the G20 leaders. That is when the EMDCs got a place at the high table as equals. And the rest as they say is history.

Over the years, the G20 has evolved, and it has 12 permanent invitees — Spain and organisations like the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, WHO, ILO, Financial Stability Forum, OECD, ASEAN, the African Union and the AU NEPAD. That makes it 32. Then, the host has a prerogative of inviting its guests. In the case of India, we have invited 11 special guests, including three organisations, the International Solar Alliance (ISA), the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) — where India has been at the forefront of setting both the forums — and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). So, that now makes it 35.

In addition to that, we have eight invitee countries, which are going to be special invitees at this summit. Two of them are the Netherlands and Oman, where I had the privilege to serve. In addition, we have the UAE, Singapore, Bangladesh, and three African nations, namely Mauritius, Nigeria and Egypt. So at the Delhi summit, there will be 43 heads of state or heads of international organisations. The G20 has only one African country, that is South Africa. So I think the Indian presidency has done very well by inviting three more African nations, Mauritius, Egypt and Nigeria.

On the lead-up to a G20 summit

G20 is an informal grouping. It has no secretariat, arising out of the fear that the organisation may be captured by international bureaucrats. So it is the presidency that provides the secretariat with the help of the troika — the outgoing, the present and the incoming. For example, in our case, the troika comprises Indonesia, which is the last presidency, India, and Brazil, which is the incoming presidency. While the decisions of the G20 are absolutely important, they do not get implemented automatically. That’s why it is considered an informal organisation.

However, its decisions are important because of the heft of the grouping itself. The G20 today represents 50 per cent of the world’s landmass, 67 per cent of the global population, three-fourths or 75 per cent of international trade and 85 per cent of the global GDP. So, its decisions are seen as important political impulses. A decision on a trade issue has to be formalised in the WTO, an agreement on financial issues will have to be taken up by the IMF or the World Bank, and the one on climate will be referred to the COP (Conference of the Parties) and the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

The G20 works on three major tracks, financial, unofficial and the Sherpa  does the heavy lifting and assists heads of government. Sherpas don’t put out any communique, they work on the final communique at the summit. We have 13 working groups and India’s presidency means the focus is on disaster risk resilience and reduction. The Indian contribution to the unofficial track has been the Startup 20, the Women 20, Youth 20, the Science 20 and so on. In addition, India has held more than 15 ministerial meetings. Also, G20 decisions are taken by consensus. So let us be very clear that whatever anybody does, each sovereign member has a kind of veto on every decision.

On arriving at a joint communique

Every country brings something to the table that is of interest to them. India, as the president, has its own priorities. All these are put together in the first draft. Each word, sentence and paragraph is negotiated threadbare by the sherpas. Then in smaller groups, the sous-sherpas conduct parallel discussions. Ultimately, they all come to the Sherpa for a final word.

Audience Questions

On India’s role in a joint communique

India has the presidency but every member has an equal stake. Ultimately, multilateral organisations are a beast, where nobody gets everything. Compromises have to be made to reach a consensus and the G20 is no different. If there is political will on the part of the 20 members, I am confident that we will get a communique at the Delhi summit, given India’s effort and credibility. Even without a  joint communique, the outcome documents are all agreed documents, which is really the domain of the G 20.

On the US-Russia tussle and India

India has always stood for strategic autonomy and we aren’t going to ally, in the foreseeable future, with one group or the other (US and Russia). India’s credibility comes from the fact that we are trying to be honest brokers, in terms of drafting the communique. The Ukraine problem is not going to be settled at the summit. G 20 is a forum of cooperation and we are not bringing in problem areas or disputes. As I said, no country gets everything, compromises have to be made. And, therefore, the lowest common denominators will prevail.