Eggheads, Not Cheerleaders

Institutions are built on trust, and trust rests on sobriety. The stewards of financial and regulatory bodies are not meant to be drumbeaters. Their job is to be referees, not cheerleaders. The moment they take on the role of pied pipers, they mislead those they are sworn to protect.

Markets do not require pep talks. Investors do not place their faith in patriotic slogans or exaggerated promises. They look for clarity, rules, data, and steady signals. When those entrusted with institutional responsibility slip into boosterism, the line between policy and propaganda begins to blur. That blurring is dangerous. It can misguide investors, distort expectations, and compromise the credibility of the very institutions meant to safeguard them.

Consider a simple example. When a central bank issues its formal growth projection, the number is not plucked from thin air. It is the product of models, scenarios, and a careful balancing of assumptions. It reflects not just the best case, but the likely case, hedged with an acknowledgement of risk. When, minutes later, an official voice casually speaks of a far higher growth rate as a possible outcome, the signal is scrambled. Constituents are left wondering whether to believe the models or the optimism. This is not harmless exuberance. It undermines the calculus that policy is meant to rest on.

The problem deepens when officials wander into political crossfire.

Neutral Voice
Asked to respond to a foreign leader’s disparaging remark on India’s economy, one institutional head parried with growth numbers, international comparisons, and a claim that India contributes more to world GDP than the US. This was unnecessary. There is no need for an institution’s head to take on political rhetoric or compete in league tables of national pride. That task belongs to ministers and elected representatives, not to technocrats charged with neutrality.

The same applies across regulators and market bodies. Whether it is a central bank, a securities watchdog, an insurance regulator, a pensions authority, or the exchanges themselves, the role is not to amplify political slogans or offer reassurance beyond their remit. Their authority rests on enforcement, surveillance, disclosure, and discipline. Confidence in markets and institutions comes from predictable rules and transparent processes, not from proclamations about resilience or destiny. When the referee also waves the flag, prudence collides with promotion.

This is not to say that technocrats and bureaucrats must be mute. But what they say must be anchored in evidence. Responsible leadership talks about data, processes, risks, and thresholds. It tells the public how surveillance frameworks evolve, how outages are addressed, how disclosures are standardised, and how rulebooks are enforced.

It does not peddle ambition. It explains the calculus.

There is a place for exhortation, but it is narrow and specific. Moral suasion has a legitimate role in nudging regulated entities, banks, brokers, or intermediaries towards prudence. That lies within remit. Beyond that circle, exhortation shades into distortion. Once officials begin coaxing households, investors, or the wider public with promises of resilience or invocations of destiny, they cross into the realm of politics. That is not their place.

It is not just unbecoming; it is irresponsible. Institutions exist precisely to counter the temptations of politics, to be sober where others are flamboyant, precise where others are sweeping. When they slip, the cost is not borne by the official who spoke loosely. It is borne by citizens who rely on their neutrality and by markets that price their credibility.

Three decades of reform have given India robust markets and stronger institutions. That achievement was not built on speeches, but on painstaking design, including electronic trading, identity rails, settlement discipline, and disclosure norms. The next stage of development will demand even stronger governance, a supply of high-quality paper, deep liquidity, reliable tickers, transparent enforcement, and the courage to admit mistakes and correct them in public. None of this can be achieved through boosterism.

What is needed is sobriety. Referees, not cheerleaders. Calculus, not chorus.

Ministers and politicians can handle the drumbeating. Institutions must resist the urge to spar with rhetoric or talk up resilience. Their highest duty is to stick with the numbers, the models, the risks, and the rules. Only then will trust deepen. Only then will governance hold.

And only then will institutions remain institutions, not roadshows.