A flood of recent articles and studies have been saying that great things are in store for the Indian economy and the Indian economy will be the third largest in the world this decade.

But what will this mean for [top law] ▮▮▮ grads? A rise in law firm salaries and more opportunities? Or will that still depend on legal sector liberalisation and the establishment of an Indian Judicial Service? Also, are the optimistic projections based on expectations of greater privatisation that the Modi government is yet to carry out?

Another thing: if a socialist Congress/AAP/Third Front government comes to power in 2024, will that derail economic growth through populist welfarism?

Ghanta improvement huwa pichhle 8 saal mein! As for 'populaist welfarism', the Congress government is the one that introduced liberalisation too, without which corporate law firms in India would have never reached the status they have today. Modi has done nothing for lawyers or legal education or profession and his string of law ministers are completely useless.

https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-will-rise-from-fifth-place-to-become-the-third-largest-economy-by-2037-546800

Great news, but some obvious questions:

1. Is this dependent on continuing privatisation and free market policies? What if the UPA returns to power and returns to welfarist, fiscally irresponsible policies?

2. Will China try to derail India through mass cyberwarfare, promoting insurgency etc?

3. Will lawyers benefit in the absence of legal sector liberalisation?

Sure, we'll bite, on the off-chance you're genuinely looking for a discussion on the questions you ask rather than astroturfing.

1. Hasn't UPA also been privatising lot of companies? Do you have any figures on privatisation numbers under both regimes?

1a. How do you propose that the wealth gap should be addressed (if at all), if not through 'welfarism'? Trickle-down economics (i.e., the billionaires get richer, and hope that the poor will see some of that money)?

2. An interesting question, though maybe the wrong one. Countries are generally not as worried about who's the largest, second largest or third largest in some arbitrary rankings - they usually have strategic and economic aims which are far more targeted and specific to their situations. China doesn't need to derail India, since India has happily been buying all of China's electronics and plastics and software other things, and will likely continue doing so, increasing profits for China. If China destabilises India, it would be destabilising its largest nuclear-armed neighbour, which is a risky game to be playing - neither country wants to go to war here. There is the risk of India imposing more sanctions on China, that China might decide to retaliate, though even then, if it has the choice, China would prefer to continue exporting to India than not.

2a. Sure, China wants to be in the driving seat, but economically and diplomatically it has been: its belt and road initiative has been running circles around the international dipomacy of the US, Europe and India. How is India currently significantly threatening China's economic interests?

2b. Why would China promote insurgency, and risk turning this luke-cold war into a hot one? China and India seem quite happy to allow each other to quietly oppress minorities in their own backyards and not ask each other too many uncomfortable questions. If China directly promotes insurgency in India, and is found out doing so, it risks losing India's abstentions in the UN, with very little benefit from itself.

2c. Cyber warfare is risky and exists at different levels and is hard to do without being discovered or pinpointed. Yes, China may try to encourage cyber-espionage if it has something to gain (though many countries do that to some extent), but attacking India outright over the internet is a very risky game to play with India without any immediately obvious gain. Why do you think China would have to gain by cyberwar against India?

3. Rule number one of the profession: lawyers always benefit.