Editorial Note

Some numbers answer a question. Others only begin one.

A trade deficit tells us how much a country buys and sells, but not necessarily how dependent it has become. A growing creative economy raises questions about what we count and what we leave out. And an online shopper may have more information than ever, yet find it harder to make an informed choice.

This issue of SUNA! brings together these questions, each asking us to look beyond what the numbers, labels and headlines appear to say.

In this month's Big Question, Shivani Singh examines a paradox of the information age: when information is everywhere, why are informed choices still so difficult? Drawing on research on choice overload, consumer policy and India's dark-pattern guidelines, she explores the difference between information being available and information being genuinely useful. This is an important question that ASIA's Centre for Law and Emerging Technologies (CLET) has been examining for over a year through its work on the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) framework. 

The same concern runs through our other research. ASIA's Digital History Lab look at India's orange economy and the challenge of defining and measuring it, CCER examine how agricultural applications handle farmers' data under the emerging DPDP framework, and revisit the question of India's trade dependence on China. We also introduce Here Be Numbers, ASIA's new data-journalism initiative, which takes research beyond reports and datasets to tell the stories behind the numbers. Its first edition examines dark patterns in online shopping, drawing on an audit of 26 applications that documented 135 instances of deceptive design - ASIA's research on dark patterns.

Our work has also travelled beyond the page. The State of Intellectual Property in India (Published by Manohar Publishers) was presented in Chennai as South India Launch of the book, at IP Manthan in Delhi, and through educational broadcasts on DD SWAYAM Prabha. We also launched the ASIA Open Data Platform to make the report's underlying evidence more accessible. In this issue's ASIA SenseMaker, former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg joins Prof. Amogh Rai to discuss The Great Indian Budget and the institutions, choices and priorities that shape how the government spends public money.

These subjects may seem far apart, but they share a common concern: what lies beneath the information we are given, and what does it take to make that information useful?

That is the spirit in which we put together this issue of SUNA.

THIS MONTH'S INVITATION

Have a dataset that deserves a closer look, a research question that needs exploring, or an idea that could benefit from a wider conversation? We would like to hear from you. We are particularly keen to connect with researchers and institutions interested in contributing to or collaborating with Here Be Numbers.

Team SUNA

When more information becomes available, do we actually make better decisions? 

Imagine buying a phone online. You have hundreds of models to choose from, product specifications, customer ratings, reviews, comparison tables, discount offers and recommendations generated by artificial intelligence. You can spend hours researching your options and still wonder whether you have made the right choice. 

The problem is no longer simply whether we have enough information. It is whether we can distinguish what matters from what merely demands our attention. 

Access to information is often treated as an important condition for informed decision-making. When people know more about their options, they can compare alternatives, assess risks and make choices that better reflect their interests. But this relationship is not automatic. Information must be relevant, understandable and usable before it can improve a decision. Beyond a certain point, additional information can complicate the process it is intended to support. 

When more choice becomes more work 

Research into consumer behaviour has long examined whether having more options necessarily improves decision-making. The phenomenon known as choice overload challenges this assumption, although the evidence does not suggest that more options invariably produce worse outcomes. (Chernev et al., 2015). 

A 2015 meta-analysis by Alexander Chernev, Ulf Böckenholt and Joseph Goodman, published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, examined 99 observations involving 7,202 participants. The researchers identified four factors that influence the relationship between the size of an assortment and choice overload: the complexity of the available options, the difficulty of the decision, uncertainty about personal preferences and the individual's decision goal. Greater complexity and uncertainty can make a large assortment more difficult to navigate. The study therefore points towards a conditional relationship rather than a universal rule, suggesting that more choices can either improve or hinder decision-making depending on the complexity of the options, the difficulty of comparing them, and how clearly people understand their own preferences. (Chernev et al., 2015). 

Consider two situations. In the first, a consumer compares three clearly differentiated products. In the second, the consumer compares thirty products with overlapping features, different pricing structures and inconsistent descriptions. The larger selection may offer more possibilities, but it may also require more effort to identify meaningful differences. 

The distinction matters beyond shopping. People encounter competing explanations when researching public affairs, lengthy disclosures when using digital services, and complex information when evaluating financial products. More information can expand what people know, but it can also increase the work required to decide what deserves attention. 

The first puzzle, therefore, is not whether information is valuable. It is whether the way information is organised helps people use it. 

Disclosure is not the same as understanding 

The digital economy makes this distinction particularly visible. Online platforms can provide consumers with extensive information about products, prices, sellers, privacy practices and contractual terms. Yet making information available does not guarantee that people will notice it, understand it or use it to evaluate their options. 

The OECD examined this problem in its Digital Economy Outlook 2020, particularly Chapter 8, “Consumer Policy in the Digital Transformation.” The report discusses information overload as a behavioural concern and explains that consumers facing complex products or a bewildering range of choices may struggle to decide. They may defer a decision or rely on simple rules of thumb. The OECD also highlights framing and anchoring, which can influence how people interpret information and how heavily they weigh particular details (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020). 

Consider an online purchase. A headline price may attract attention, while additional charges become visible later. A countdown may create urgency. Ratings, promotional claims and recommendations may compete for attention. These elements do not all have the same function, and their presence alone does not establish that a platform has acted deceptively.  

India's regulatory framework addresses some of these concerns. The Central Consumer Protection Authority issued the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 on 30 November 2023. The guidelines define dark patterns in terms of deceptive user-interface or user-experience practices designed to mislead or trick users, impairing consumer autonomy, decision-making or choice in ways covered by the guidelines. 

One example identified in the guidelines is drip pricing, which concerns the disclosure of elements of a price only later in the user experience. Such practices raise questions about whether consumers can properly evaluate an offer when the full cost is not apparent at the relevant stage (Central Consumer Protection Authority [CCPA], 2023). 

The broader issue is not simply whether information has been disclosed somewhere. It is whether people can access and interpret the information they need when making a decision. 

Can technology make information more useful? 

It would be a mistake to conclude that less information is always better. Removing detail can simplify a decision while concealing important qualifications, risks or costs. The challenge is to make information easier to navigate without sacrificing accuracy or completeness. 

Artificial intelligence adds another dimension. AI tools can summarise lengthy documents, compare alternatives and explain technical material in accessible language. These capabilities may reduce the effort required to process information. However, summaries can omit qualifications, and AI-generated answers can contain errors or express uncertain conclusions too confidently. Convenience, therefore, should not be confused with reliability. 

A short comparison may help someone choose between routine purchases. A complex legal, financial or medical decision may require detailed explanations, qualifications and access to underlying evidence. The appropriate amount and format of information depend on the decision being made and the consequences of getting it wrong. 

This creates a distinction between the availability of information and the capacity to evaluate it. The former can be increased through disclosure, technology and access. The latter depends on how information is presented, the context in which it is used and the ability to assess its relevance and reliability. 

There is also a measurement problem. A quick decision is not necessarily a good decision, just as confidence in a choice does not prove that it was well informed. To understand whether additional information helps, researchers must examine outcomes such as comprehension, the ability to identify relevant facts, the quality of comparisons and whether decisions reflect the objectives people are trying to achieve. 

Existing research provides useful evidence about choice overload and information disclosure, but it does not establish a universal threshold beyond which more information becomes counterproductive. The effect can vary with the decision, the individual and the way information is structured. 

What should we be measuring? 

For ASIA, the opportunity is to investigate not merely how much information people receive, but the conditions under which that information supports better decisions. 

One possible research approach would be to compare how people respond to the same information presented in different formats: a lengthy disclosure, a structured comparison or a concise summary accompanied by access to the underlying detail. Researchers could examine comprehension, decision time, confidence and the consistency of choices with participants' stated preferences. The study would need a clearly defined population, a suitable research design and appropriate measures for each outcome. 

Such an investigation could help distinguish between information that is merely available and information that is genuinely useful. It could also inform wider discussions about digital consumer protection, interface design and the responsible use of AI. 

The objective would not be to prove that more information is inherently good or bad. It would be to understand when information empowers people, when it creates unnecessary complexity and how institutions and digital platforms can present it more effectively. 

The Big Question ASIA should pursue is this: When information becomes abundant, what makes it genuinely useful for decision-making, and how can we tell the difference between an informed choice and one that merely feels informed? 

Source and methodology note 

This article synthesises secondary research and official policy materials. Its principal sources are Chernev, Böckenholt and Goodman's 2015 meta-analysis of choice overload; the OECD's Digital Economy Outlook 2020, Chapter 8; and India's Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. The article proposes a direction for further research. It does not report an ASIA-led empirical study or claim original findings on decision-making. 

References 

Picture a Community Health Centre ten kilometres from a village. It has a signboard, a building, a code in the district records and a line in every government report on rural health. On paper, the village is covered. Then, late one night, a woman goes into a difficult labour and her family brings her to the gate. There is no obstetrician on duty. There has not been one for months. The nurse does what she can and writes a referral slip. Now the family has to find a vehicle, money for fuel, and a hospital two hours away that may or may not have a bed. 

None of this would register as a failure in official data. The building exists, and the centre is counted as functional. That is the quiet gap at the heart of India’s health system: the presence of a health facility does not guarantee that care will be available when someone needs it. 

We tend to judge progress by infrastructure – how many centres have been built, how many beds added, how many schemes launched. These markers matter. But they do not answer the question a patient cares about: will I get the help I need when I get there? By infrastructure measures alone, a facility can look like a success even when it lacks the specialists, diagnostics or referral links that make it useful. In rural India, that gap is especially wide. 

Close by, yet out of reach 

The numbers make the point plainly. According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Health Dynamics of India 2022–23 (earlier published as Rural Health Statistics), rural Community Health Centres (CHCs) had 4,413 specialists in place as of March 2023, against a requirement of 21,964. That is a shortfall of 79.9 per cent. In other words, four out of every five specialist posts meant for surgeons, physicians, obstetricians and paediatricians were not filled. A year earlier, the shortfall stood at 79.5 per cent, so the gap has barely moved. Surgeons were the scarcest, with a shortfall of 83.3 per cent. 

For a patient, these are not abstract vacancies. A pregnant woman reaches the nearest hospital and finds no emergency obstetric care. A child with a high fever has to be taken to another town because there is no paediatrician nearby. An elderly man with a chronic illness makes the same long journey every month because his local centre cannot manage his condition. 

The real problem here is not how far a person lives from a hospital building. It is how far they live from the care they actually need. That distinction should shape how we plan health services. The number of hospitals is only part of the picture. What matters is how many people can get the right treatment, at the nearest facility able to provide it, in time. 

When geography becomes inequality 

The cost of a missing specialist does not stop at the clinic door. Families lose days of wages. They pay for transport, food and somewhere to stay in an unfamiliar town, and someone has to travel with the patient, often giving up work as well. Two people with the same illness can face very different chances of recovery simply because one lives near a well-staffed hospital and the other does not. 

So health inequality in India is not only about money. It is about where capacity sits, and about patients quietly making up for the system’s shortcomings with their time, savings and health. Building new hospitals in underserved areas still matters. But unless the people, equipment, diagnostics and referral systems are in place, the same problem will simply reappear in new buildings.

A constitutional question 

This is not just a matter of policy. Article 21 of the Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Over the years, the Supreme Court has read into this a clear duty on the State to protect life, including through timely medical care. 

The case that settled this began with a fall from a train. On the evening of 8 July 1992, Hakim Seikh, a member of the Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, an organisation of agricultural labourers, fell off a train at Mathurapur station in West Bengal and suffered serious head injuries. The local primary health centre could not treat him. He was then turned away by one State hospital after another, for want of a bed, the right facilities or the expertise. In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court held that the failure of government hospitals to provide timely treatment to a person in need violates Article 21. It ordered compensation and directed the State to act, including equipping primary health centres to stabilise patients, upgrading district hospitals, and putting in place arrangements to transfer patients and find available beds. 

The lesson of the ruling is simple. The State cannot meet its duty to protect life merely by setting up hospitals if people who need care cannot get it in time. That raises an uncomfortable question for rural India. If a citizen’s chance of receiving timely, life-saving treatment depends largely on where they live, what does the Constitution’s promise of equal concern demand of the State? 

Article 14 offers another lens. The equality it guarantees is substantive, not merely formal: it asks us to look at the disadvantages people face in real life, rather than assume that the same scheme on paper delivers the same care everywhere. This does not mean every district must have identical specialist facilities. It does mean that health planning must make real provision for those who are worst placed to reach them. 

Responsibility here is shared. Public health and hospitals fall mainly under the State List of the Seventh Schedule, so State governments carry most of the burden of delivery. The Union Government shapes the system through funding, standard-setting, workforce planning and coordination among governments. What is lacking is not responsibility, but systems that turn that responsibility into care. 

Counting hospitals versus counting care 

If we want different results, we have to start by measuring different things. 

The real measure of healthcare 

A hospital building is easy to see. The absence of a specialist is much harder to notice, yet its consequences can be far more serious. That is the difference between infrastructure and healthcare. 

The debate on healthcare in India should not stop at how many hospitals have been built. It must ask whether those hospitals can give people the care they need. The patient waiting at the door of a hospital with no specialist already knows the answer. 

A health system should be judged not by the number of its buildings, but by how safe its people are. 

A hospital may exist on the map. Healthcare exists only when a patient can actually receive it. 

References 

$112.16 billion: what India buys from China against what it sells

India ran a goods trade deficit of $112.16 billion with China in 2025-26, up from $99.2 billion the year before. Imports from China came to about $131.6 billion and exports to about $19.5 billion, according to India’s trade statistics office.

It hasn’t slowed. The January to March quarter alone produced a $30.45 billion deficit with China, roughly 36 per cent of India’s entire goods deficit for those months. China’s own customs data points the same way. For January to July 2026 it records $93.24 billion of Chinese exports to India and $14.99 billion of imports from India, a gap of about $78 billion. Indian exports to China grew 40.2 per cent over that stretch, roughly double the 20.6 per cent growth in Chinese exports. India still sells about 16 cents for every dollar’s worth it buys, so fast growth from a small base barely dents the gap.

India counts by fiscal year, April to March. China counts by calendar year, and records its exports by destination and its imports by origin. Neither side publishes a “deficit” for India as such. The open question is what the gap measures. A deficit this size says India buys far more than it sells. It can’t tell you how much of that buying is dependence and how much is input for Indian production.

References

Here Be Numbers is ASIA’s data-journalism initiative, built around a simple idea: one number, one finding, one source. It takes research done by ASIA and outside and datasets beyond reports and puts them into public conversation through accessible visual storytelling. Each edition examines a specific question, presents the evidence and assesses what works, what fails and what lies in between. The aim is not just to present numbers, but to make institutions and their performance more understandable and accountable.

The series begins with dark patterns in online shopping, examining how digital platforms use design choices to influence consumer decisions. Our first Instagram edition draws on an audit of 26 shopping apps, documenting 135 instances of deceptive design. A research done by ASIA.

Explore the first edition on ASIA’s Instagram page. New editions every Friday.

Because behind every number, there is a story worth understanding.

The question

India now has a name for its creative economy, but no size. The Economic Survey 2025-26 gave the orange economy its first official working definition: activity in which value comes mainly from creativity, culture and intellectual property rather than physical goods. The Union Budget 2026-27 then funded AVGC Content Creator Labs in 15,000 schools and 500 colleges. Yet no official statistic says what the sector produces, how many people it employs, or whether it is growing. This project asks three linked questions. What should India count as its orange economy? How should it be counted? And which institution should own the count?

Why other countries count it

The term ‘orange economy’ was popularised by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2013, and a growing number of countries now treat the sector as a measurable part of their economies. UNESCO estimates that cultural and creative industries generate about US$2.3 trillion in annual revenue, roughly 3.1% of world GDP, and account for 6.2% of global employment. Among the 36 mainly developing economies surveyed for UNCTAD’s Creative Economy Outlook 2024, the sector’s share ranges from 0.5% to 7.3% of GDP and from 0.5% to 12.5% of employment, and more than 70% of countries now have a national plan, strategy or policy for it. Trade explains much of the interest: world exports of creative services reached about US$1.7 trillion in 2024, a fifth of all services trade, and creative goods added a further US$709 billion (UNCTADstat).

Read more here: https://asiaresearch.co/counting-indias-orange-economy-one-sector-many-sizes-no-official-number/

Why data protection in agriculture is important?

With agriculture becoming more digital, the question of what happens to personal data provided by farmers when using applications to receive agricultural advice, measure land, buy inputs and utilise government services needs to be considered. This is not just about having a privacy policy in place but the understanding of the farmers regarding how their data will be used. Are they able to give informed consent and have effective data protection?

The Centre for Competition and Economic Resilience (CCER) at the Advanced Study Institute of Asia (ASIA) has conducted an initial review of agriculture based mobile applications to consider how they comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (DPDP Rules).

What the initial review reveals?

Agriculture related applications will ask for information that links personal data to land, livelihoods and public services. This can include GPS co-ordinates showing farm boundaries, crop images, contact details, farming activities and financial information. If combined with government schemes information or identifiable information there is risk of identity theft and financial fraud.

The applications looked at were Plantix, GPS Field Area Measure, AgroStar Agridoctor and Kisan Suvidha. These applications cover private services from foreign and Indian companies and also a government service.

Reviewing the publicly available information including privacy policies and terms of use (as of 28th  May 2026), there was a common trend across all four applications. They all required users to accept terms of use without clarity around agreeing to specific data uses. The policies also tended to reference older legislation. However Plantix and AgroStar are beginning to include clauses relating to the DPDP framework.

There have been reported cases of fraudulent PM-Kisan applications, phishing and misuse of farmers Aadhaar details on government agriculture services. This shows how there are risks, but does not mean that these applications have caused or allowed fraudulent activity.

In addition, a wider trend can be seen from looking at additional incidents that have been reported between 2016 and 2025. The endpoint of the PM-Kisan scheme website was reported to be vulnerable in 2022, leading to the exposure of Aadhaar details during location-based searches. This scheme had over 110 million registered farmers. Further vulnerabilities were reported in Andhra Pradesh including the exposure of names, phone numbers, subsidy details and bank account details. Problems have also been reported in Karnataka where the Bhoomi land records database has been tampered with and in Andhra Pradesh where land related welfare schemes have led to incorrect records. These accounts rely on public reporting and have not been independently verified by ASIA.

Where the evidence runs short?

The data available is about how organisations claim to handle data. There is no independent evidence to show how they handle data internally. There is no information about how they secure data, store data and how much data they share with third parties.

Agriculture advice, e-commerce and loans can involve several organisations having access to farmers data. Whilst this study highlights how data can be shared with insurance companies, loan providers, analytics and input companies there is no indication of how often this occurs.

The DPDP Act is being rolled out in stages and most of the substantive requirements are not due to come into effect until later. This means that whilst there are differences between the current privacy policies and what the framework requires there is no indication that they are not complying.

Building a usable body of evidence

The study has collated evidence from the applications, privacy policies, terms of use, legislation, government notifications and reported incidents. These have been analysed to determine if they provide notice, consent, security, transparency, redress and empower farmers.

It can be difficult to know exactly what is happening as it is not clear if there are real risks or just potential risks. Also there are not always clear indications of what the legal requirements are. The four applications used are just examples and aren’t representative of the whole agricultural technology industry. This study has highlighted how important it is to consider how farmer organisations, Agricultural Produce Market Committees and others interact with data protection aspects.

From research to policy action

Having a stronger evidence base will enable us to move away from general concerns around data protection for farmers and focus on who is responsible for protecting farmers data. It will provide clarity around what risks need to be explored further, what needs to improve with regards to notice and ensuring there are stronger security measures and redress options.

The findings could be used to provide practical guidance for agriculture applications, clearer notices in Indian languages, data literacy and ensuring platforms, government agencies and farmer organisations are better informed. A broader review could also be undertaken to see if the claims made are actually true.

This isn’t about saying the applications are compliant or not compliant. It is about knowing what we know and where we lack evidence. This will allow for more informed decisions in the future.

Research/ Output: State of Intellectual Property in India: A Flagship Report on Five Year of a Granular Data, Full Case-Law Synthesis, International Benchmarking, and an Institutional Landscape

Context: State of Intellectual Property in India, a flagship report by the Advanced Study Institute of Asia (ASIA), assesses India's intellectual property ecosystem through five years of granular data, case-law synthesis, international benchmarking and institutional analysis. Covering patents, trade marks, copyright, industrial designs and emerging technologies, it proposes a reform agenda for 2026–2031.

1. ASIA’s South India Book Launch at SRMIST: ASIA marked the South India launch of The State of Intellectual Property in India at SRM Institute of Science and Technology (SRMIST), Chennai, on 23 October 2026, in association with SRM School of Law and O/o CGPDTM.

The event featured the launch of the ASIA Open Data Platform, followed by a panel discussion on Shaping India’s Intellectual Property Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities. Bringing together experts from academia, law and IP policy, the discussions explored IP protection, AI, industry–academia collaboration and the future of India's innovation ecosystem.

2. IP Manthan: Hosted by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (O/o CGPDTM), on 8 October 2026, our colleagues Shivani Singh and Sonal Lalwani presented findings from their book, State of Intellectual Property in India: A Five-Year Audit (2020–21 to 2024–25), with a Reform Agenda for 2026–2031, published by Manohar Publications. The session also featured Dr. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent of WIPO, who spoke on Global Innovation Index and Indian IP Scenario, bringing global perspectives to India's innovation and intellectual property landscape.

3. ASIA LIVE: ASIA’s Intellectual Property Unpacked: From Foundations to the Future, featuring Prof. (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit, Shivani Singh and Sonal Lalwani, explored India’s innovation journey, IP frameworks and the future of research and creativity. The two sessions were presented through the Consortium for Educational Communication (CEC), a UGC Inter-University Centre, and telecast live on DD SWAYAM Prabha Channel 7 on 14 October 2026, reaching wider educational and public audiences.

74% of students nationwide spend more than two hours per day on screens for non-academic purposes.

(Based on a NCCS nationwide survey of 6.3 lakh participants)

A recent study by the National Council of CBSE Schools (NCCS), cited in an analysis published by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), found that about 74 percent of students nationwide spend more than two hours per day on screens for non-academic purposes, with around 21 percent exceeding four hours daily.

Concerns about social media use among teenagers have grown, particularly regarding privacy, cyberbullying, academic performance, and mental health. However, the relationship between social media use and mental health is complex, and further empirical evidence is needed to establish the extent and nature of these effects.

India’s push towards age-based social media restrictions gained policy attention in 2026. The Economic Survey 2025–26 raised the issue of age-based access restrictions and recommended that platforms be made responsible for enforcing age verification. Subsequent policy discussions have brought the regulation of minors’ access to social media further into focus. However, policy recommendations and ongoing discussions should be distinguished from restrictions that have been formally implemented.

A country's Budget is more than an annual statement of government finances; it is a reflection of the state’s economic priorities, political choices and approach to public resource allocation.

In this ASIA SenseMaker session, Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, former Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and former Executive Director at the World Bank, examines the institutional architecture and political economy of India’s Union Budget, drawing on his book, The Great Indian Budget: How the Government of India Spends Your Money.

The conversation between Mr. Garg and Prof Rai, Research Director ASIA, explore India’s budgetary framework since 2014, the distribution of decision-making authority between the Finance Ministry and the PMO, public expenditure priorities, taxation, fiscal deficits, public debt, gender budgeting and Centre State fiscal relations. It also examines the gap between budgetary allocations and actual expenditure, the changing analytical role of the Economic Survey, and the transparency and accountability of public financial management. 

Research travels further when it meets other people's questions. If something in this issue overlaps with your data, your institution or your own line of inquiry, we would like to hear from you.

Write to us at [email protected] and tell us where our questions meet.

ASIA operates under a governing framework called the "3I Framework" — Inquire (beginning every project with a genuine question rather than a predetermined conclusion), Interpret (connecting regional events to global patterns and situating policy in context), and Illuminate (conveying genuine complexity to audiences who need to act on it, rather than simply publishing research that sits unread).

Despite being only three years old, ASIA has already placed research in major outlets like The Hindu, Financial Express, Economic Times, and Der Spiegel; convened conferences including national and international and secured formal recognition as a partner in the WHO/UNEP-led Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint. The Institute is governed by a board chaired by Najeeb H Jung, with Dr Indu Bhushan as Vice Chairperson, and members including Dr Rajat M. Nag, Sandhya Vasudevan, and Prof. Amogh Dev Rai serves as Research Director and Ex-Officio Board Member.

What It Does

ASIA's work is organized across six research centres, each committed to a defined five-year research question rather than broad thematic coverage:

Beyond research, ASIA produces publications (journals, policy briefs, monographs, working papers), hosts podcasts and webinars (including the SenseMaker series), and convenes conferences and dialogues.