West Bengal Political Science Review | Vol. XXVIII, 2026 | ISSN: 2230-8296

Arun Kumar Banerji

---

India is a civilisational state; as a civilisation India existed for thousands of years. But the new Indian state is a legacy of the British Raj; it emerged as an independent state in 1947 when the British left India after partitioning the British Indian empire and transferring power to India (and Pakistan) as Dominion(s) because it would be easier for the British Parliament to grant independence to a Dominion, rather than to a Republic, and with the transfer of power the Dominion would automatically become a member of the Commonwealth. India’s Dominion status in no way would have curbed its right to self-governance and independence, as was evident from the experience of the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all former British colonies. Nevertheless, Indian leaders thought that India should be a Republic, with an elected head of state, rather than a head of state formally appointed by the British monarch.  With this end in view the Constituent Assembly of India, after long deliberations adopted a Constitution for India on 26 November 1949 and it became effective from 26 January,1950. The Preamble to the Constitution, declared India as a ‘sovereign, democratic republic’.   Subsequently, through an amendment to the Constitution, the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were added to the Preamble in 1976, though questions have been raised about the propriety of these changes.  

The Indian ‘Republic’ and Membership of the Commonwealth

Reconciliation of India’s republican status with its membership of the Commonwealth created some problems. The lynch- pin of the Commonwealth was allegiance to the British crown and India’s republicanism was viewed by the Foreign Office lawyers in Britain as being tantamount to secession. But the problem was ultimately resolved by the statesmanlike attitude   of the political leaders in Britain, cutting across party lines, and of the ‘European’ member-states of the Commonwealth as well as by the Indian leaders, particularly, Krishna Menon, the then Indian High Commissioner in Britain, and Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference (1949), the  problem of reconciling India’s republicanism with membership of the Commonwealth was finally resolved  –  according to   the Communique  issued at the end of  the Conference  –   by India’s acceptance of the King  as ‘the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.’  (Italics added)   What is significant, India’s membership of the Commonwealth ,  and  subsequently accession of Pakistan and Ceylon ( Sri Lanka ) , after adoption of a  republican  constitution brought about a  change in  the   nature and composition of the Commonwealth from a ‘White Man’s club ‘ to a multi-racial and multi-cultural association of independent states because, as more and more  former British colonies gained independence, with the exception of Burma , all of them  opted for membership of the Commonwealth , even after  becoming  Republics. The only exception was South Africa; the policy of racial discrimination, rather than its adoption of a republican constitution that led to its expulsion from the Commonwealth in 1961. However, after the collapse of the Apartheid regime and the setting up of a democratically elected government in 1994, South Africa was readmitted to the Commonwealth.  

Seventy-five years is a sufficiently long time for evaluation of a state’s performance, as an actor in the international system; both in the international sphere as well as in its internal sphere.  An attempt will be made here to have a tour d’ horizon of   the evolution of the Indian Republic, its mode of operations in international affairs as well as in the domestic sphere, to be able to assess its achievements and failures and to draw lessons from the same as a guide to the future.     

India and the World:  Evolution of India’s Foreign and Security Policies

Professor Michael Brecher in his Political Biography of Pandit Nehru had called him ‘the philosopher, the architect, the engineer and the voice of his country’s policy   towards the outside world’.   He was not far from the truth as very few of his colleagues in the Congress party, before India’s independence, had articulated as carefully as Nehru did what would be independent India’s foreign policy. After independence, Nehru became not only the Prime Minister of India, but also its Foreign Minister and held that position till his death in 1964. On domestic politics the Nehru-Patel duumvirate worked till the latter’s death in 1950, but in foreign policy Nehru’s voice was the dominant voice, although on specific issues there were also a few others – such as V.K. Krishna Menon, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan or Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – who had influenced his foreign policy. As Prime Minister of a newly independent state, he had no doubt that the essence of independence lies in the ability of a state to take decisions free from external influences. It was to achieve that goal that he tried to fashion a new philosophy of foreign policy   that came to be known in later years as the policy of non-alignment. It is important to note, however, that India’s  foreign policy was not  shaped    de novo   in a vacuum by Nehru’s personal predilections; it was influenced by India’s historical experience, by the hopes and aspirations of the people, and above all, by the vicissitudes of contemporary international politics as had been  explained by  Nehru himself  in a letter to K.P.S. Menon  who was one of the first two Ambassadors appointed by India in January 1947.   “Our general policy”, Nehru wrote, “is to avoid entanglement in power politics and not to join any group of Powers as against any other group. The two leading groups in the world today are the Russian bloc and the Anglo- American bloc. We must be friendly to both and yet not join either.”

“Our foreign policy,” he continued, “will ultimately be governed by our internal policy. That policy is certainly far from being communistic and is certainly opposed to the Communist Party of India.   Nevertheless, there is a great and growing feeling in favour of some kind of a vague socialist order of society. There is much goodwill for America and expectation of help from her in many fields, especially technical. There is also a great deal of sympathy for the Soviet Union and the remarkable change that this has brought about among the people. The Soviet Union being our neighbour, we shall inevitably develop closer relations with it. We cannot antagonise Russia merely because we think this may irritate, someone else. Nor indeed can we antagonise the U.S.A.”      

In a bi-polar world India’s interests would be served better by pursuing an independent foreign policy and as more and more newly-independent states decided to opt for such a stance in their foreign policy, it provided an opportunity to reduce tensions in international relations by widening the area of peace. Non-alignment in its first phase was essentially a neutralist policy – keeping away from the two power blocs, without antagonising either – but it had also a strong anti-colonial bias. In operative terms, this meant opposition to colonial domination and racial discrimination in international forums. “We in Asia, who have ourselves suffered all the evils of colonialism and of imperial domination”, Nehru told the General Assembly of the UN, “have committed ourselves to the freedom of every other colonial country.”   But the only major initiative that India had taken during the initial years was on Indonesia. The much more assertive mediatory role that India played in international affairs was to emerge in the early 1950’s.  

India’s policy of non-alignment was not a policy of isolationism; it was a policy of active participation in world affairs, particularly in Asia. It was the concern for peace that had inspired India’s mediatory efforts in the Korean conflict (June 25,1950- July 27, 1953) and New Delhi’s mediatory role ultimately succeeded in breaking the deadlock over the repatriation of the prisoners of war, thus   paving the way for the Korean truce in 1953, and    India was made the Chairman of the Neutral Nations’ Repatriation Commission (1953-54). Equally significant was India’s role, along with that of Canada, in bringing to an end the war in Indo-China, for which both the states were made members of    the International Control Commission for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. At the Four –Power Geneva Conference that met to discuss the Indo-China issue, although India was not formally a member of the Conference, Krishna Menon and Lester B. Pearson of Canada worked closely that facilitated the conclusion of the Geneva Agreement. Indo-Canadian cooperation, however, started collapsing within a few months.

India’s membership of the Commonwealth, and the decision to pursue an independent policy in foreign affairs paid rich dividends. On several occasions, the British government’s views on developments in East and South- East Asia were closer to the policies advocated by India than to those supported by Washington. India’s policy of non-alignment became much more positive and assertive, particularly in the context of India’ s successful mediatory role in conflicts between the major powers.  India’s support was sought in resolving many international issues, and it was Indian diplomacy that succeeded in ensuring the ‘package deal’ admission of 16 new members to the UN in 1955. India also played a leading role in the Bandung Conference of the newly independent Afro-Asian states that laid the foundation for the subsequent development of the non –aligned movement (NAM).

However, India’s mediatory role in international affairs started declining from the second half of the 1950’s because of a number of reasons. The first and foremost among these was, no doubt, the subtle change in India’s non-alignment policy from what was initially a pro-West policy (as seen during the early stages of the Korean war) to a pro-Soviet orientation caused by New Delhi’s disillusionment with the US, because of its pro-Pakistan foreign policy in South Asia and, the missionary zeal with which the US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was carrying on his anti-communist crusade in Asia. Equally important was India’s partisan role – as the Western powers saw it – during the two international crises that had erupted in 1956: the Anglo-French- Israeli invasion of Suez that India condemned severely, and its rather muted response to the Soviet invasion of Hungary which was primarily due the lack of proper information from the Indian diplomatic mission in Budapest. But once the fact of Soviet suppression of Hungarian nationalist uprising became clear to him, Nehru expressed his support to the Hungarian people in a speech delivered in the Lok Sabha on 19 November, 1956 and this was followed by India’s support to the UN resolution calling upon the Hungarian government to receive UN observers, despite Soviet objections.  

But the most important factor that contributed to the decline in India’s active mediatory role in international affairs since the second half of the 1950s was first, the deterioration in relations with China, leading to the India –China War of 1962, and, second,the relations with Pakistan leading to the India- Pakistan war of 1965.  In the post- Shastri years India’s domestic problems, particularly deficiency in India’s food production, making it dependent on the US for flood supplies, and, jockeying for power within the ruling Congress party, made India totally incapable of playing any leadership role in international affairs. Things, however, changed dramatically after the military crackdown in East Pakistan and brutal suppression of the Bengalis, who were fighting for their legitimate rights, by the Pakistan Army and the Razakars. Political turmoil in East Pakistan resulted in the flight of nearly 10 million refugees to India that would threaten India’s social and economic stability. It was Prime Minister Indira  Gandhi’s deft handling of the situation, the decision to provide  diplomatic and military support  to the Bengalis  – living in East Pakistan (formerly East Bengal) – who were fighting for  an independent Bangladesh ,and  the resounding military victory  that India had won over Pakistan  in the Eastern sector (along with  the Mukti  Bahini fighters ), as well as in the Western sector, in the India-Pakistan War (1971) that established India as the dominant power in South Asia.  India could achieve this success despite the US government ‘s policy, fashioned by the Nixon –Kissinger duo, to scuttle New Delhi’s move; and this was possible because of the diplomatic support India received from the Soviet Union. Indo-US relations, had reached their nadir in 1971; but after India’s decisive military victory over Pakistan followed by New Delhi’s policy of normalisation of its relations with the neighbour brought about a slow but significant change in US policy towards India. This became evident from President Nixon’s foreign policy report to the Congress in May 1973   that stated that the United States would like to see a sub-continent that was independent, progressive and peaceful and so long as India shared similar views, there would be opportunities for cooperation between India and the United States. The US also recognised India as a major power in the region.  India, on its part, had also signalled its desire to seek improvements in Indo-US relations, through dialogues based on mutual respect for each other, as was explicitly stated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in an Article published in Foreign Affairs (New York) in October,1972.   Dr. Kissinger’s brief visit to India in October 1974 offered an opportunity for re-defining the priorities in Indo-US relations; both sides recognised the importance of focusing on the development of mutually beneficial ties.    

India’s standing in international affairs rose further following    Indira Gandhi’s bold decision to go for India’s first under- ground nuclear test – the so-called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) – in Pokhran (in May,1974), as it put India in the elite club of nations having nuclear weapons capabilities. However, it was criticised by the US, Canada, Pakistan and many other states as well as by the ‘pacifists’, who felt let down, as they deeply appreciated Nehru’s campaign for nuclear disarmament which was now being abandoned by his successor. 

From Peaceful Nuclear Explosion to Weaponisation: India’s Nuclear Diplomacy          

The work for the development of India’s nuclear energy programme began much earlier, with the setting up of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Trombay (in January ,1954) and, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in August of the same year. India was one of the first states in Asia, outside the erstwhile Soviet Union, to develop a full- fledged nuclear programme for harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India was also in the forefront of the campaign for nuclear disarmament. Inaugurating the APSARA nuclear reactor in January 1957 Prime Minister Nehru had declared that India would never use nuclear energy for ‘evil purposes’ (i.e., for making nuclear weapons). India was a signatory to the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in 1961, but refused to sign the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, ostensibly because it was discriminatory, as it allowed vertical proliferation by the nuclear weapon- states (NWSes), while preventing horizontal proliferation.  But the real reason for India’s refusal to sign the NPT was New Delhi’s heightened concern for national security, after the detonation of a nuclear weapon by China in 1964, and especially, after India’s failure to have any credible guarantee from the nuclear weapon- states for security against nuclear threats by China. By the end of the decade a virtual consensus had developed among the informed Indian public that India should not to give up the nuclear option.  In fact, none of Pandit Nehru’s successors, except Morarji Desai, had thought it fit to give up India’s nuclear option, because of security considerations, while the government’s declaratory policy was one of ambiguity.  Even Morarji Desai, who had criticised India’s PNE, did not succumb to the US pressure for making India a party to the NPT. 

The Pokhran Explosion (1974), however, raised new concerns about the supply of enriched uranium to India as it was severely criticised by the two governments, the US and Canada, with whom the Government of India had signed agreements for development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, by setting up the CIRUS (Canada-India-US Research Reactor), in 1955. The Indian government pointed out that no agreement with Canada had been violated, nor for that matter, any international agreement, as India was not a signatory to the NPT. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, nevertheless, sought to assure the US, Canada and other states that India had no plan for any further test. This, was clearly a tactical move, as New Delhi sought to pursue a policy of strategic ambiguity.     

The accretion to India’s military strength and the rise in India’s economic and technological capabilities brought about a change in India’s profile. Side by side these developments, by the end of the 1970s, India was transformed from a food-deficient state to a food –sufficient state, because of   the Green Revolution, and by the end of the century it became a food-surplus state. All these developments led to changes in India’s image, as perceived by ‘others ‘. India, that was once viewed as a ‘basket case’, a country of beggars, snake charmers, yogis and of Mahatma Gandhi was now being projected as a ‘Rising Middle Power.’  

As noted earlier, on the issue of acquisition of nuclear weapons, India maintained a position of strategic ambivalence. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by China and development of nuclear (weapons) capability by Pakistan – that had manufactured and tested a nuclear device in 1983, with clandestine help from China, and succeeded in weaponisation of its nuclear programme by 1987 – contributed to the growth of India’s security concerns. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said at a press conference on 5 June,1988 that although India had no plans to make nuclear weapons, it would be difficult to maintain that stance if Pakistan opted for going nuclear. It was the legitimate concern for India’s security that led to New Delhi’s decision not  to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 which turned out to be an instrument for nuclear arms control, without even a theoretical commitment from the nuclear weapon-states to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that India had devised a policy of ambiguity; because, despite disclaiming  any intention of weaponisation  of its nuclear programme, research  on and development of nuclear programmes (including the development of fissile materials) along with  the  development of the integrated guided missile programme , launched in July 1983,  continued unabated . India’ s Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) programme which was put on hold reportedly under US pressure was never really intended to be stopped. It is also significant to note that Dr. A.P.J.Abdul Kalam , known as the ‘father’ of  India’s  Missile programme , was awarded  the Bharat Ratna  in 1997 ;  and,  reports about the inauguration of the phase-II of the IRBM programme  preceded  the Pokhran –II tests in May,1998. Considered against the background of these developments, Pokhran-II   tests were not entirely unexpected, especially because both Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Narasimha Rao had also planned for nuclear tests, but ultimately gave up the idea apprehending adverse international reactions. As K. Subhrahmanyam commented later, the policy of keeping India’s nuclear option ‘open’ was merely for public consumption, and that ‘beyond successfully conducting   the twice-postponed tests, the BJP contributed little to India’s nuclear development programme or policy….’ 

India’s nuclear explosions in May 1998 had sent diplomatic shock-waves throughout the world, with the reaction of different states varying from outright condemnation to a sense of regret and disapproval. But for most Indians these tests were a symbol of India’s assertion to be treated as a ‘great power’, in an international order that is essentially hierarchical in nature, thus radically redefining India’s foreign policy. This transformation, according to Jaswant Singh, who was then the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission (and de facto, one of the principal articulators of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s foreign policy) had been from the moralistic to the realistic.  “It is one-sixth of humanity”, he said, “seeking the rightful place under the sun in the calculus of great powers”. The Pokhran-II nuclear explosions (May 1998) were followed by the conduct of a series of nuclear tests by Pakistan on May 27 and 29 that raised international concerns about the prospects of a war between the two neighbours that could escalate to a nuclear confrontation. For the alleviation of such fears, the focus of India’s post-Pokhran diplomacy shifted to attempts at repairing the damages to India’s bi-lateral relations with the US, Canada, Pakistan, China, Japan and others. India initiated a series of focused and intensive dialogue with the US (the Jaswant Singh- Strobe Talbot dialogues) that led to a better understanding of India’s security concerns in the US. What facilitated these discussions was the unilateral Indian decision to announce a voluntary moratorium on further tests, along with the pledge not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state, and a ‘no –first-use’ pledge against a nuclear-armed adversary. The trade, economic and military   sanctions unilaterally imposed by the US on India and Pakistan, which were mandatory under existing US laws, came to be relaxed gradually, partly because of domestic pressure emanating from the trade and investment lobbies in the US.  Nevertheless, as the Annual Report (1999-2000) of the Ministry of External Affairs revealed, restrictions on non-basic humanitarian assistance from multilateral financial institutions still remained, as well as the restrictions imposed on dual-use technology transfer that affected India adversely. Nevertheless, as far as India was concerned, the over-all impact of the US-imposed sanctions were minimal.

Changes in Perceptions about India in the Post -Soviet Era: From a Rising Middle Power’ to a Putative ‘Global Power’?

The transformation in India’s image was brought about by a number of factors. First and foremost, among these was the policy of economic liberalisation introduced by Dr. Manmohan Singh – who was the Finance Minister in Narasimha Rao’s government (1991-1906) – that led to an acceleration of India’s economic growth. Manmohan Singh was a and his policy of liberalisation, paralleled by strengthening of India’s defence and military capabilities as well as improvements in India’s technological capabilities were noted not only by Western observers, but also by the Chinese which became evident from the statements of Prime Minister Zhu Ronji during his visit to India in January 2002. 

The 21^st century witnessed the transformation of the uni-polar world into a multi-polar one, and India was emerging as a leading state determined to play a significant   role in shaping the nature and pace of its transformation. This was not merely an aspiration bereft of any reality.   By the middle of the first decade of this century, Ashley J. Tellis, a leading American expert on South Asia could visualise that by 2015, India would have the fourth most capable ‘concentration of power’ and that it will be among the five major economies of the world within 25-50 years.    What is more, the CIA analysts referred to India as the most important ‘swing state’   in the international system – a country that could tilt the balance between war and peace, between chaos and order. 

The George Bush (Jr.) presidency (2001-2009) in the US was quick to recognise this.  As an official US publication pointed out in 2005, U.S.-India relations were poised to reach ‘New Heights’ in the 21^st Century.    President Bush wanted to develop   closer relationship with a democratic India based on cooperation in the fields of finance, trade and commerce, science and technology, defence, development of renewable energy as well as cooperation in the development of India’s space programmes. Last, but not the least, was development of close cooperation in the political sphere and deepening of strategic partnership between the two states focusing on Global and regional security concerns. An important development during the Bush presidency was the signing of the India –US agreement on civil nuclear cooperation in 2005, and this was possible because of India’s recognition as a responsible nuclear power. This, building of trust between the two states, also facilitated the transfer of dual-use and defence technologies to India. As Condoleezza Rice, then the US Secretary of State, pointed out, President Bush wanted the growth of a strategic partnership between the two democracies. As she put it :  ‘India is an increasingly  important partner for the United States and we welcome its emergence as a global power in the 21^st Century’  .  An important example of Indo-US cooperation in disaster management  was collaboration in Tsunami relief operations (in 2004)  when US  officials were talking directly to their Indian counterparts.  The Tsunami struck India hard on 26 December,2004, and India’s relief operations started soon after with a massive deployment of its military machinery with skills in disaster management, and a well-trained medical community.  India’s relief operations were extended to the neighbouring states in the Indo-Pacific region as well, facilitated by the cooperation with other regional powers in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly the US, Australia and Japan. This led to the formation of the ‘Core Group’ comprising India, the US, Japan and Australia that was uniquely qualified for providing emergency relief operations; and  this ‘Core Group’ was transformed into the ‘Quad’, a platform for diplomatic  consultation and coordination of policies for providing humanitarian assistance to the people of the region. Subsequently ( after its rejuvenation  in 2017 ) it evolved  into a quadrilateral security  dialogue  for  the maintenance  of  peace and maritime security  in the Indo-Pacific region  because of the increasingly assertive role  of China  threatening  the security of some of the  states in the    region . The Quad which was originally an informal grouping of states has now been institutionalised and the leaders initiated ambitious projects for improvements in health and humanitarian assistance during natural disasters.  China, perturbed by the evolution of the Quad as a platform for quadrilateral security dialogue – dubbed it as an ‘Asian NATO’ .  

The mutual trust that had developed between the US and India during the Bush Presidency reached new heights during the Joe Biden Presidency (2021- 2024); but all that seems to have been jolted because of the erratic behaviour and policies of the incumbent President Donald Trump during his second term.

Engines of Growth: Economic Development and Developments in Science and Technology   

That the policy of economic liberalisation adopted by the government during the early 1990s led to an acceleration of India’s economic growth, became evident during the first decade of this century.  During   2004-09, for example, when Dr. Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister of the Congress –led ‘United Progressive Alliance’ (UPA) government in New Delhi, the average annual growth rate of GDP was between 8%-9%, with the highest rate of 9% being achieved in 2007 making India the second fastest growing economy among the major economies of the world; during his second term (2009-2014), however, the average annual growth rate of the Indian economy slowed down. Therefore, when Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister of the BJP- led ‘National Democratic Alliance’ (NDA) government in 2014 , economic growth was sluggish because of a series of allegedly high-profile corruption cases, during the second term  of the UPA government. The initial years of the NDA government did not see much improvements either, because of the policy of de-monetisation, taking Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes out of circulation, causing immense hardship to the common man, especially in rural India, slowing down the growth in per capita GDP from 6.98 % in 2016 to 5.56% in 2017. The economy suffered another setback during the Covid 19 Pandemic years. Nevertheless, if one looks at the NDA   government’s performance in terms of economic growth figures alone, it seems to be quite impressive, because between 2014 and 2022 India’s per capita GDP rose from US $5,000 to US$7000. According to the data provided by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), the real GDP grew by 8.2%    during 2023-24, compared to 7% in FY 2022-23; and according to the IMF’s projection, the Indian economy projected to grow by 6.5 % in 2024, compared to China’s 4.6% and UK’s 0.6%.   According to the World Bank’s INDIA Development Update (IDU), the Indian   economy was projected to grow at  a robust 7% rate during the FY 2024-25,  making  it  the fastest growing economy among the major economies of the world.  Not only that, in 2014, the Indian economy was in the 10^th position among the major economies of the world and according to Sanjeev Sanyal, Member, Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, it is poised to become a US $ 4 trillion economy and the fourth largest economy by 2024-25, surpassing Japan. Other estimates suggest, India is likely to become the third largest economy within a few years.   All these developments were achieved, despite the setbacks caused by the disruptions in the supply chain by the Covid -19 Pandemic and the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia, and, between the Hamas and Israel.  India has thus emerged as a significant economic power globally. 

But can the GDP growth rate alone be a true indicator of the economic condition of the majority of Indian citizens?  Despite the claim that India is the fastest growing economy in the world, the benefits of growth have not reached all segments of society.  In fact, economic inequality has increased over the last ten years as becomes evident from the fact that only 1 percent of India’s total population holds 40 % of India’s national wealth, while the poor 50 percent of the population hold 6.4 %. According to the World Inequality Report 2022, the top 10 percent of the population held 57 % of the national income and the top 1 percent had 22%, while the share of the bottom fifty percent going down to 13 %. The benefits of growth have failed to reach the rural heartland of India where 60 percent of India’s population lives. In 2023, 23 percent of India’s population lived below the poverty line, while the number of billionaires – whose net worth, measured in terms of an annual assessment of wealth and assets, published by the Forbes magazine – stood at 284 in 2025.      

The Spring 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief (P &EB) published by the World Bank (WB)in April,2025, however, presents a different story, claimed the government.  Citing this Report, a Press Information Bureau (PIB) release claimed in July 2025 that India is not only the world’s fourth largest economy, but also the fourth most equal country in the world, after the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Belarus. India falls into the ‘moderately low ‘inequality category; globally just thirty countries fall in this category, including several European countries with robust welfare systems. According to the government, this has been possible because of the consistent policy focus on reducing poverty, expanding financial access and delivering welfare support directly to those who need it most (DBT).  Extreme poverty dropped in India to 2.3 % in 2023, claimed the PIB release, referring to the World Bank’s P&EB – published in April, 2025 – thus moving 171 million Indians out of extreme poverty, between 2011-23.   

This observation seemed to be in line with the findings of an SBI Survey. On the basis of a survey of annual household consumption expenditure (HCES), researchers working in the State Bank of India claimed that poverty rate in India fell below 5 %, thus nearly eradicating extreme poverty. The findings also showed that rural poverty in India dropped to 4.86% in FY 2024, from 7.2 % in FY 2023, and from 12 % in FY 2012. Urban poverty also declined to 4.09 % in FY 2024 compared to 4.6 % the previous year. 

But annual household consumption surveys, used by both the SBI researchers, and the World Bank in preparing its Spring 2025 P&EB, cannot be taken as a true indicator of economic inequality, as the proportion of income spent for consumption is likely to be very high for the poorer sections of the population, while the same will be much lower for those who are rich, or in the high middle- income group. The World Bank was fully aware of this and warned against the use of Gini Index scores for consumption equality in India for comparing its position vis-à-vis other developed countries, by using the Gini Index score for economic inequality measured in terms of a number of parameters. The World Bank’s ‘Spring 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief’   had also flagged concerns about income inequality. The Indian government’s attempts to show that India is the fourth most equal country in the world, therefore, was misleading and designed to shore up the government’s image at a time when elections are due to be held in a number of States.  Perhaps, this explains the time gap between the publication   of the World Bank ‘s ‘Spring 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief” (in April 2025) and the PIB’s claim in July that India is among the four most equal countries in the world.  This misleading claim of the government apart, there are also other areas of concern. 

Take, for example, the government’s claim on employment generation. While the Service sector has seen some improvements in staff recruitment in recent months (May,2025), the over-all employment situation remains a matter of grave concern and the government is trying to hide unemployment. According to Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh, the Government of India’s Ministry of Statistics has adopted a new definition of employment, where a person working for just one hour a week is considered employed and even after this,  the latest survey report on employment reveals that  ‘only 51.7 % of people have been able to find work.’  The government’s economic policies over the last 11years, he observed, have created despair among the youth particularly because of rising education costs and dwindling job opportunities.  Jairam Ramesh was not alone in his criticism of the government’s economic policy. A India Today-C Voter survey earlier this year, found the situation equally gloomy. The Mood of the Nation (MOTN) survey confirmed that unemployment and inflation were India’s two largest problems and in public perception, they are also seen as the biggest failure of the Modi government. The survey also revealed an overall pessimism on the economic front, with 56.9 % of the respondents expressing their discontent and believing that the situation would either stagnate or get worse.      

Science and Technology                                                              

There has been an unprecedented growth in India’s science and technology sectors. India has made significant contributions to the development of Information Technology (IT)and has emerged as the world’s leading IT hub. Former US President Bill Clinton had once said during an interview with Larry King of CNN that half the world’s software is made in India; no doubt an exaggeration, but it shows how elite images of India have changed in the US and other parts of the world.   Prime Minister Modi’s call for an Atmanirbhar Bharat (a self-reliant India) and his campaign for innovation and entrepreneurship through launching of Start Up projects, have given a further boost to the development of  a self-reliant India. It is possible to argue that the idea of a self –reliant India is by no means a new one .Promoting self -reliance was also a goal of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal  Nehru  and with that end in view he had taken a number of steps by setting up  Institutions/Organisations  in the public sector such as the  Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),  the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Hindustan  Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and the public sector steel plants, to name a few, and, by pursuing a policy of import-substitution. But Prime Minister Modi’s concept of self-reliance is somewhat different.  Delivering the Inaugural Address at the Annual meeting of the Confederation of Indian Industries, on 2 June, 2020, he mentioned five ‘I’s to achieve the goal of self-reliance – Intent, Inclusion, Infrastructure, Investment and Innovation.  Unlike the Nehruvian idea of self-reliance, fortified by a policy of import-substitution, the vision of an Atmanirbhar Bharat is somewhat different and can be realised by developing a world class infrastructure in roads, railways and ports and, by encouraging innovation and competition, by leveraging the power of India’s growing young population, by training them and by making Indian products competitive in the global market, in terms of cost of production.  The concept of Atmanirbhar Bharat  has a special focus  on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and in a significant move towards  that the government  announced a  stimulus package of  Rs.20 lakh crore  on 12 May, 2024 .Not only that, the Indian government  also decided to bring about changes  in the defence  (production)  sector, that was earlier considered as sacrosanct,  and in an unprecedented negative list announced   on 9 August 2024,  banned the import of 101 defence items  while assuring the Indian  defence industry  of orders worth  Rs.4 lakh  crore  during  the next 5- 7 years. Addressing a diverse audience of scientists, industry leaders, academics, Start-Ups, MSMEs and young entrepreneurs at a DRDO- Industry Workshop on Defence Technology Acceleration held in the DRDO Bhawan, on 18 October 2024, Defence Minister Rajnath   Singh emphasised the need for India to emerge as a hub for innovation and technology, as technological advancements have reshaped conventional warfare into unconventional forms.  This was demonstrated during the four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan, in the wake of the ‘Operation Sindoor’ launched by India in May, to avenge the killing of 26 civilians by Pakistan-backed terrorists on 22 April, 2025, or, by the on-going Russia- Ukraine War.   India exports defence equipment to nearly 100 countries, with the US, France and Armenia being the top three destinations for India’s defence exports.

India has also emerged as the world’s 3^rd largest mobile phone exporter, with exports reaching   US $20.5 billion in 2024. The sharp increase in mobile phone production was the result of policy interventions like the introduction of the Production Linked Insurance (PLI) Scheme in 2020, and, integration into global value chains.   

Equally important has been India’s achievements in the development of space technology. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) set up in 1972 has succeeded in making India a member of the elite club of space-faring nations and this has been possible because of the dedicated team work and adoption of time-bound programmes of innovation to end dependence on foreign powers.

Initially ISRO depended on the US, Europe and the former Soviet Union for technologies for launching rockets and satellites. But within decades, it became self-sufficient in rocket technology as well as in building state-of-the -art satellites for earth observation, communications, navigations and military uses which became evident during ‘Operation Sindoor’ (in MAY 2025).  These developments not only reduced India’s dependence on foreign powers, but also saved, over the years, thousands of crores of foreign exchange reserves that were spent earlier for purchase of foreign technology. The pride of ISRO’s rocketry is its heavy- lift launcher GSLV – Mk3, capable of putting satellites weighing four tonnes in geosynchronous orbit. As a part of the government’s Atmanirbhar Bharat Programme, the government has thrown open the space sector also to private industry, which was earlier the exclusive preserve of ISRO. The private players can now build and own rockets and satellites and even export them, with ISRO playing the role of a facilitator and a new organisation called IN-SPACE has been set up through which the private players can get licence for such activities. According to the AIR news, between January 2015 and December 2024, ISRO launched 393 foreign satellites and 3 Indian customer satellites on commercial basis, aboard its PSLV, LVM3 and SSLV launch vehicles and earned $143 million in foreign exchange revenue. The ISRO launched satellites from 34 countries, including the US, the UK, Singapore and other developed countries.    This has been possible because of the reliability of Indian satellite launchers and their low cost.   One of the most significant achievements of the ISRO in recent years was the soft-landing of the ‘Vikram’ orbiter- lander on the south pole of the moon (Chandrayaan 3 Mission) in August 2023, making India the first state in the world to achieve this success. Side by side, ISRO was also preparing for a manned space flight as a part of the Gaganyaan Mission. The opportunity came within two years, on June 2025, with the launch of the Axiom-4 Mission, when the Indian astronaut Group Captain Subhranshu Shukla travelled to the International Space Station (ISS), along with three other astronauts, from the US, Poland and Hungary.    This mission, was based on collaboration between NASA, Space X  and  Axiom Space  and Shukla was the pilot  of the Space X Dragon  Spacecraft. During his 18- day stay in the ISS, Shukla carried out a number of scientific researches. He was the first Indian astronaut to fly to the space nearly forty years after Rakesh Sharma, who had flown to the space aboard the Russian rocket Soyuz –T 11, in 1984 as part of a joint mission between India ( ISRO ) and the Soviet Union, and spent nearly 8 days in Space. These developments place India in the forefront of the club of elite states, involved in space research.

Polity, Society and Governance

According to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is the ‘Mother of democracy’. Whether ancient Indian traditions were democratic may be debatable, but what goes beyond doubt is that the political system that has evolved in India since independence is democratic. India is now considered a leading  democratic state in the world, notwithstanding the fact that during the years 1975-77 attempts were made by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to throttle India’s democracy for personal political gains.  These were temporary aberrations and ultimately democracy survived. What better proof of it can be there than that of a nation of 1.4 billion people, despite the differences in their languages and culture, religious persuasions and political affiliations are living and working more or less peacefully? The 2024 parliamentary elections were depicted by The Week as ‘A Vote for Democracy’ and a mandate of the people ‘for a consensual government.’(June 16,2024).It was no mean an achievement for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct an election involving  64 million  people peacefully , despite  examples  of occasional violence, during the polls  or after the polls, in parts of the country , especially in West Bengal.   The dominant party within the NDA, the BJP, faltered and won fewer seats than expected; however, the NDA had gained an over-all majority while the number of seats won by the Opposition INDIA (Inclusive National Development of India) bloc surged. There were allegations about unfair practices  by the Opposition leaders and even calls for boycotting the swearing -in ceremony,  a bad precedence, no doubt;  but there was no attempt to disrupt  the glittering  ceremony  when Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministerial colleagues  were sworn in  by  President Draupadi  Murmu .When one contrasts this with the events in America  on 6 January 2021, when supporters of the losing Presidential candidate Donald Trump stormed the Capitol Hill  to prevent a joint session of the US Congress from counting of Electoral College votes  to  formally declare  the victory of President-elect Joe Biden,(and his running mate Kamala Harris as Vice-President ), one feels  democracy has come  of age  in  India , despite several shortcomings.  

And shortcomings there are many – lack of good governance, personality driven politics, corruption and intolerance of the ‘Opposition’ and so on. Indian politics has become largely personality-driven, rather than being a contest of competing political ideas. This is as true of the Centre as of the States. Prime Minister Modi’s persona has dominated Indian politics for a decade ‘encapsulating ideology, party and state within his figure’, commented The Statesman   in an Editorial (published on 12 June,2025). At the provincial level, the roles of Mamata Banerjee, Yogi Adityanath, or, Himanta Biswa Sharma, for example, have been no different.  This leads to arrogance which is bad for democracy. There is a tendency to treat the political ‘Opposition’ as foes rather than as political adversaries especially when the ruling party (or a coalition of parties) enjoys an overwhelming   majority. In contrast, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru treated his political adversaries with some respect. In 1957, Atal Behari Vajpayee became a Member of Parliament for the first time, and his oratorical skill made him a brilliant parliamentarian.  He was often quite critical of Nehru’s policies. But Nehru appreciated his qualities as an MP and introduced him to a visiting foreign dignitary as a future Prime Minster of India. It is a measure of Nehru’s qualities as a leader that despite being a sharp critic of his policies, the late Professor Hiren Mukherjee of CPI called him ‘A Gentle Colossus’. Leaders of Opposition parties in contemporary India are not above criticism either; the language they use in criticising the government’s policies, whether in justifiable anger or out of sheer desperation, sometimes become demeaning when it is found that they are more critical of the persona of the PM than that of his policies. The situation at the State (i.e. provincial) level is not much different either, with the ruling party leaders or their spokespersons often criticising their political opponents using abusive languages, while the complements (!) may be returned by the targeted audience in matching terms.  

Turning to the issue of governance, lack of transparency in the execution of policies is destroying the fundamentals of good governance. In West Bengal, for example, corruption has been institutionalised. Nothing else can explain the widespread corruption in the process of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in n –aided and government-sponsored secondary and higher-secondary schools that came to light in July 2022 with the arrest of the former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee and his aide by the ED. As a result of these corrupt practices – popularly known as the ‘cash for job’ scam- the education system in West Bengal has been virtually destroyed, affecting the future prospects of thousands of students, particularly of those whose parents cannot afford to send their wards to the privately- run English –medium schools. As a result of these deplorable developments, many meritorious students are now seeking to pursue higher studies in colleges/ universities outside West Bengal. Equally deplorable is the situation in the health sector that became evident after the rape and murder of a young lady doctor in a reputed medical college in West Bengal on 9 August, 2024. The laxity in the attitude of the government in punishing the corrupt, and harbouring criminal elements within the Party have affected the governance of higher educational institutions also. This became clear from the developments in the wake of the incident of gang rape of a Law College student, within the college premises, in South Kolkata in June, 2025. 

Corruption is not limited to West Bengal alone. The  Professional Examination Board scam popularly known as the VYAPAM  scam in the BJP –ruled  State of Madhya Pradesh, or the ‘Great Forest Loot’ by some Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers in Maharasthra ,  the alleged  IT  scam involving Rs. 25000 crores in Maharasthra are some examples.  There are plenty examples of alleged scams in UP, Haryana, Assam – all BJP -ruled Staes – and, in  Arunachal Paradesh. Even the NEET 2024, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) got involved in a controversy allegedly over malpractices and Question Paper leaks ; and  the UGC –NET  in June,2024  conducted  by the NTA  had been cancelled by the Ministry of Education (on 19 June) allegedly because of lack of integrity and malpractices. In the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index  2024 , based on a survey of  180 countries, India scored 38 on a scale ranging from ‘0’ (indicating most corrupt ) to ‘100’  (indicating very clean).These examples, and the rise of violence against women  in India, indicate a decay in social values of morality, honesty and integrity  of character.  The lack of transparency  in government’s policies and actions also became evident  when the central government launched  the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) in 2018, which was struck down by the Supreme Court , in a landmark judgement delivered in 2024, calling it ‘unconstitutional’. The biggest beneficiary of the EBS was the BJP, among the all-India parties and the Trinammol Congress (TMC) among the regional parties. Again, in Maharashtra, the sudden surge in brazen criminal activities involving politicians and criminals, before the Assembly elections in Maharasthra in 2024, was also an indicator of the politician- criminal nexus. 

What is more, for the sake of sustaining and expanding the ‘vote bank’ (of committed voters), leaders do not hesitate to act or pursue   policies that are contrary to the  idea  of secularism as enshrined in our constitution. Take, for example, PM Modi’s role in the ‘Pran Pratistha’ ceremony of ‘Ram Lala’ after the installation of the idol in the ‘Ram Janam Bhumi’ Temple in Ayodhya. But could the Prime Minister of a secular state perform this act? The formal opening of the Ayodhya temple even before the completion of the construction work raises a few questions. Was this done to consolidate the Hindu majoritarian vote? If that was the purpose, it failed becase the BJP got lesser number of seats (240) in the Parliamentary elections held in 2024, compared to the 303 seats it won in 2019; the NDA, however, won 293 seats, that gave it a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha, although in formulation of policies, the results made the BJP more vulnerable to the pressure from its allies. Moreover, the victory of Awadesh Prasad, a Dalit candidate fielded by the Samajwadi Party (SP), in the Faizabad Lok Sabha constituency that includes the Ayodhya City (a site of immense symbolism to the BJP), was a reassertion of the voters’ choice to uphold pluralism in politics. UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath tried to depict Ayodhya as a glittering tourist destination, but many locals lost their livelihood to the roads built for the temple.  The UP CM’s brouhaha over the Mahakumbha in Prayagraj in 2025   could not cover up  his mismanagement of  an event of such a magnitude;  According  to the BBC, at least 82 people lost their lives in stampedes in different  places, although the  government claimed  that only  37 were killed. 

It is not the BJP alone that indulges in ‘vote bank’ politics. In West Bengal the government has been paying a monthly allowance to Hindu priests, and the   Muslim Imams and Muezzins which is clearly violative of the principle of secularism. The former AAP Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, also introduced the policy of paying monthly allowances to Hindu priests in Delhi and the Grantihs in Sikh Gurdwaras. Such policies are clearly motivated by ‘vote bank’ politics.  Similarly, the announcement of the decision by the West Bengal Chief Minister, to give financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 1.1 lakh to the organisers of Durga Puja in West Bengal in 2025 – compared to Rs. 85 thousand in 2024, shows the government’s efforts to consolidate the ‘vote bank’ of committed Hindu voters, keeping in mind the Assembly elections of 2026. This not only violates the principle of secularism but also indicates the government’s misplaced priorities. There are 45,000 Puja committees and the total cost of this grant of largesse to the Puja organisers would be around Rs. 495 crores of tax payers’ money, at a time when the government cannot pay DA to its own employees, allegedly because of lack of funds, and thousands of posts remain vacant in government departments, including the Police department, and in colleges and Universities, and school buildings in rural areas remain in dilapidated conditions. The economic largesse to the Puja Committees will serve two purposes; it will consolidate the support of the Hindu ‘vote bank’, while turning public attention away, at least temporarily, from the economic hardships being suffered by the eligible teaching and non- teaching staff in schools, as their jobs have been cancelled by the Calcutta High Court (and subsequently by the SC) because of malpractices in the process of recruitment.  It is the interest of the political party that is in power – whether at the Centre or in the provinces – rather than that of the citizens that gets priority in the formulation of government policies. But there is some hope at the end of the tunnel. Some Imams in West Bengal  refused to accept the Allowance (Imam Bhata)  offered to them by the government  on the the ground that they are violative of Islamic norms  that prohibit  Imams from accepting any money from any quarter other than  the authorities of Mosques.  Similarly, some of the Durga Puja organisers had also declined to accept the government’s offer of financial assistance. 

Promotion of religious festivals by the government through providing financial assistance to puja organisers, or providing them with subsidies, has now become a common practice among political parties. Mention has already been made of the role of the AAP, under the leadership of Kejriwal in the UT of Delhi and of the TMC, under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee, in West Bengal. Now the BJP has also joined the bandwagon Rekha Gupta, the CM of the UT of Delhi recently announced in New Delhi that the government will provide 1200 units of free electricity to the organisers of Durga Puja and Ramleela festivals, and declared that the organisers will be required to pay as security deposit only 25% of the costs for installation of meters. She also said that the government also provided financial assistance to the organisers of Kanwar Yatra. Whatever she had said so far was in line with the policies pursued by TMC government in West Bengal or the AAP Government in Delhi. But taking a step further she also announced that one of the Ramleela and Durga Puja days should be dedicated to PM Modi, as a part of the BJPs ‘Seva Pakhwada’ campaign beginning on 17 September, which is his birthday, till 2^nd October.                  

Other areas of Concern: Judiciary, Parliament and Federalism 

An independent judiciary is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy, as is freedom of speech and expression. But independence of judiciary is threatened when the ruling political dispensation, directly or indirectly (through their spokesmen) abuse judges for delivering judgements that nullify their illegal actions/decisions, several examples of which may be cited from the abusive languages used against the judges of the Calcutta High Court or the Supreme Court in recent years.  The most recent example of the misuse of the freedom of speech may be found in the way the Home Minister of the Republic of India cast aspersions on the Vice –Presidential candidate, nominated by the INDIA bloc in 2025 for election to the post of VP, who himself is a retired judge of the SC.   The government at the Centre has even tried to curtail the freedom of the Judiciary by seeking to amend the process of appointment and transfer of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme court, functions that are now performed by the Supreme Court’s Collegium of judges-comprising the Chief Justice and four other senior-most judges. The Collegium recommends the names of such judges to the executive that are forwarded to the President for formal appointment.  The executive department (the Law Ministry) may return some of the names for reconsideration by the Collegium. But if the same names are re-sent by the Collegium, that recommendation becomes mandatory. The government sought to curtail this power by enacting the National Judicial Appointments Commission (N.J.A.C) Act. But that was struck down by the Supreme Court.  

 Indian citizens have, no doubt, the right to criticise the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court; but they do not have the right to abuse the judges. Sometimes the ruling dispensation seeks to influence the judges, argue critics, by appointing a retired judge as the Governor of a State or the Chairman of a Commission, even bypassing the 14^th Law Commission’s recommendation for a mandatory ‘cooling off’ period for such appointments. 

Another factor that affects the delivery of justice to the citizens is the huge backlog of cases in the lower courts. the H.C, as well in the SC. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Indian courts were burdened with a massive load of 5.29 crores of pending cases, as of 21 July 2025, of which the maximum number of 4.65 crore were pending in district and subordinate courts because of a large number of vacancies in the rank of judicial officers.   

State of the Legislature: The Indian Parliament

The three pillars of democracy are the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. In a parliamentary democracy role of the Executive – particularly the role of the elected head of government, both at the Centre as well as in the States – is of utmost importance for good governance. But development of autocratic tendencies – facilitated by an overwhelming majority of seats won by the ruling party or coalition of parties – does not augur well for democracy as it breeds corruption, sycophancy and abuse of power that affects the functioning of the legislature as well. A brief review of the functioning of the 17^th Lok Sabha (LS)will make it clear. The 17^th Lok Sabha had the lowest number of sittings (274) among all previous full-term Lok Sabhas (partly because of the Covid pandemic); but it was also   for the first time that the LS did not have a Deputy Speaker, by convention chosen from the Opposition party/ parties. Even in the current Lok Sabha, the Deputy Speaker’s post remains vacant despite strong protest by the Opposition members.  Constitutional experts say that it is a violation of the provisions of the Constitution (Article 93), which guarantees an important place for the Deputy Speaker in the Indian parliamentary system.     The Deputy Speaker enjoys the same power as enjoyed by the Speaker when he sits in the Chair of the Speaker during his absence. He has other functions too.  

According to the PRS Legislative Research, nearly 35% of Bills were passed with less than an hour of discussion in the last session of the Lok Sabha that concluded on February 10, 2024.This was because of frequent disruptions of the House due to parliamentary ruckus, created by the Opposition members when the Speaker refused to listen to their demand for discussion on some urgent issues, if necessary, bypassing the issues listed for the day. The result: passage of Bills with perfunctory discussions. The BJP did this frequently during the earlier UPA regime. Another important factor that leaves little time for meaningful discussion of issues in the parliament is the government’s tendency to introduce Bills at the fag end of a parliamentary session. In 2025, for example, the Monsoon session of the parliament came to an end on 21 August; just a day before the end of the session, three Bills were introduced, including the controversial   130^th Constitutional Amendment Bill seeking to sack a corrupt   Prime Minister, Chief Ministers /Ministers   who have been in jail continuously for a period of 30 days. The Union Home Minister, while introducing the Bill, argued that the purpose of the Bill was to punish the corrupt.  The Opposition called it a brazen act to throttle democracy and destabilise   the governments of non-BJP ruled States, by misusing the central agencies like the CBI, the ED etc. It certainly is an undemocratic move. But why did the government take this step, when it lacks a two-third majority that is required to pass a Constitutional Amendment Bill, both in the RS and LS? One possible reason could be that the government was trying to divert attention from the controversial ‘vote theft’ charges against the BJP, allegedly facilitated by the partisan role of the EC, in the context of the SIR in Bihar.  Introducing Bills at short notice reduces the time for discussion and the Bills are rushed through parliament by the ruling dispensation by using its majority, which is bad for democracy; while the tactic of political adversaries to ‘walk out’ of the House of parliament as a mark of protest, during discussions on a particular issue, be it the LS or the RS, may indirectly help the ruling party/coalition when it lacks the required majority, particularly, in the Rajya Sabha. Similarly, intra- party and inter-party feuds and the use of unparliamentary languages by the MPs against each other lower the prestige of the parliament. The situation in the State Legislative Assemblies – and the conduct of MLAs – is not much different either. Last, but not least important, is the tendency among some MPs not to attend parliamentary meetings regularly, although they are paid their salary and allowances by using the tax-payers’ money. 

Turning now to federalism. Prof. K.C.Wheare  regarded Indian federalism as an example of quasi-federalism , where distribution of power between  the Centre and the States is tilted in favour of the Centre, while Prof. W.H.Morris-Jones called  it a ‘bargaining federalism’ that functions on the basis of ‘give and take’ thus creating opportunities for cooperation between the Centre and the States . The reality is that a dominant Centre – no matter which party is in power – has often resorted to bullying tactics, to get things done. Perhaps one of the best examples of this was the the dismissal of the democratically -elected communist government in Kerala, led by EMS Namboodiripad, and imposition of President’s rule in 1959, on the advice of the Nehru Cabinet, on the basis of a questionable narrative of breakdown of the constitutional machinery and collapse of law and order. Apparently, Nehru had some reservations about this but ultimately caved in to the pressure of Indira Gandhi, who was then the Congress President. It was the first instance in the history of the Republic when Article 356 was used to dismiss a democratically- elected government and impose President’s rule.  Since then, the Centre –State relations have never been trouble – free and to deal with problem the central government had set up the Sarkaria Commission in 1983 to review the working of the constitutional provisions for the conduct of relations between the Centre and the States. Though the Commission did not suggest any major change in the structural provisions of the Constitution, it did suggest the avoidance of over-Centralisation of power, for promoting cooperative federalism.

Unfortunately, that has not always happened, and over the last two decades, the non-BJP -ruled States have often complained of a biased policy followed by the Centre in the matter of transfer of funds. While all of these accusations may not necessarily be true, the fact of disparity in the net transfer of funds from the Centre to the States cannot be ignored. Take, for example, the Interim Budget for 2024-25 in which all the southern States together were allocated only 88 per cent of the allocation made to UP alone. While the less well-off states should certainly be given more funds for economic development, that should not be at the expense of the better performing states, allege the critics. The southern States, ruled by non-BJP governments have been up in arms alleging discrimination. What is more, there has been a dubious claim about the performance of ‘double –engine sarkars’, particularly of UP, to entice voters in the poll-bound States to vote for the BJP. 

It is not the southern States alone which have complained about discrimination by the Centre.  In West Bengal, the government claims that around Rs.1.16 lakh crore is due from the Centre for various welfare schemes of which dues from the MNREGA scheme amount to Rs. 6.911 crores (Rs. 3732 crores against wage liabilities and, the rest for non-wage liabilities). The State government also claims that the Centre has not released funds for 11,01,731 houses built under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojona (PMAY) scheme, despite the State’s initiative to identify the deserving households, and had to spend money out of its own meager resources for building the same. The Centre (and the State BJP leaders), on the other hand, claim that funds have been withheld because of non- submission of Utilisation Certificates and wide-spread corruption in execution of welfare schemes. That there has been widespread corruption in the implementation of these schemes can hardly be denied. For example, there are allegations of creation of false ‘job cards’ in the case of MNREGA for claiming money from the central government and, diversion of funds from the deserving households to politically influential leaders who   do not deserve it, for building their houses. If the objective of these welfare schemes is to bring succour to the bottom 20% of the population, the tussle between the Central and the West Bengal Government negates that possibility.  The Centre- State blame game and vituperative campaigns against each other have resulted in a ‘Fractured Federalism’.   

Climate Change, Environmental Sustainability and Development

Construction of roads and bridges are necessary not only for the ease of communications but also for enhancing India’s security, especially for guarding India’s long borders with the neighbouring states. But developmental activities should be carried out keeping in view the need for environmental sustainability and ecololgical balance. Over the last few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in floods and landslides because of cloudbursts causing devastation to the Himalayan  states of Jammu and Kashmir(J&K), Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand  and, also in  Punjab, because of   overflowing  of rivers that originiate  in J&K  and pass through the the plains of Punjab .While hearing a  publc interest  litigation (PIL,) filed  by the  environmental activist Anamika Rana on  4 September, 2025,  the SC expressed grave concern over the devastations in the Himayan states due to  floods and landslides  and identified illegal tree felling as the principal cause for this.  As pointed out  by the the petitioner, there are multiple causes for aggravating the scale of devastation : disregard of the hill road manual , encroachment on water bodies and and non-compliance  with the laws for environmental safeguards; and large scale devastations   could have been prevened  if the concerned authorities – the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and  the Ministry of Jal Shakti –  had been strict on  compliance  with  environmental sustainability Acts, -such as the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Forest (Conservation ) Act 1980 , Wildlife  Protection Act, 1972, etc.  and, the Environmental Impact Notification or the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification – while executing development projects. But the current policy of the government, though not publicly stated, is to overlook the violation of these rules or amend them, if they stand as  obstacles  to Ease of Doing Business. The government’s declared policy, though, is to maintain a balance between environmental sustainability and promoting economic development  

It is not only in the Himalayan states alone that unplanned construction activities have triggered landslides and flash floods resulting in loss of lives and property. The Landslide Atlas of India prepared by ISRO precisely mentions the districts and locations where landslides will occur in future. Experts in Geomorphology, after analysing the past data about three of the country’s most seismically vulnerable and landslide -prone ecosystems – the eastern and western Himalayas and the Western Ghats -have pointed out that heavy rainfall in these areas may trigger landslides and flash floods   and warned the authorities not to act in a way that may disturb their fragile ecosystem.  To this has been added another problem – the melting of Himalayan Glaciers due to global warming resulting in the formation of new Glacial Lakes which overflow during periods of excessive rainfall, triggering landslides and disasters. There are 197 Glacial Lakes in the Kistwar Himalays of Jammu, and in Kistwar , 67 pilgrims had lost their lives on 14 August, 2025  , while  several others were  missing, due to a flash flood triggered by cloud burst. Flash floods in Uttarahkhand on 5 August, 2025, wiped out the Dharali village in minutes in which about 50 people had lost their lives and many more were missing while the devastating landslide in Kerala’s Wyanad in July 2024 virtually wiped out several villages in the Western Ghats, known for its green cover and biodiversity, killed several hundreds of people, and resulted in   huge loss of property. Destruction of nature for short term gains has resulted in these man- made disasters.  More than 1000 people have lost their lives in Uttarakhand in a decade, besides the loss of valuable property, because of blasting of mountains for building tunnels and bridges, and massive deforestation for construction widening of roads.                  

Conclusion

During the middle of the first decade of this century, when the UPA Government   was in power, a CIA analysis had referred to India as the most important ‘swing state’ in the international system that could shift the balance from war to peace, from chaos to order. It is possible to argue that India cannot do this on its own, but has to act in cooperation with other states. In dealing with some of the most important contemporary international   crises – such as the war between Russia and Ukraine in Europe, and the Hamas and Israel in Gaza – Prime Minister Modi has always emphasized the need for dialogue and negotiations to end the war. Like Nehru in the early 1950s, in popular perception, he has emerged as the most popular democratic leader in the world in 2025, according to a recent global survey    conducted by a US- based data-analytics firm Morning Consult.   He was also the most popular democratic leader in 2024.   But for dealing with a rogue state like Pakistan, dialogue and diplomacy may not be enough as India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ launched in May 2025, triggered by the Pahalgam massacre of innocent civilians in March, clearly demonstrated.  Nevertheless, in an unstable international system, dialogue, and negotiations seem to be the only way to sustainable peace.  

If the maintenance of ‘independence’ of action in foreign policy be the hallmark of a state’s sovereignty, India has succeeded in demonstrating that. What better example of this can be cited than that of India’s response to the bullying tactics of President Trump in his second term as the President of US?  Take, for example India’s response to the unilateral action launched by President Donald Trump against India, by imposing a 50% tariff on Indian exports to the US, ostensibly to correct the huge trade deficit being suffered by the US in its trade with India, but in reality, to punish India for importing oil from Russia. It is the US and not the UN that has imposed sanctions. New Delhi, instead of being engaged in a vituperative campaign against the US, chose to activate its role in the SCO. The optics of the SCO Summit held in Tianjin, China with PM Modi joining hands with President Putin and President XI Jinping was widely publicized by the western media- yielded desired effects on President Trump whose anti-India rhetoric, subsequently scaled down. PM Modi responded to this gesture positively. 

In the contemporary world, India is not an easy pushover, given its economic strength, military power and technological progress. India hosted the SCO Summit in July,2023 in a virtual summit format, chaired by PM Modi, and the G-20 Summit in September of the same year in New Delhi. India is also a founding member of the BRICS and hosted the 13^th annual BRICS   Summit in a video format in 2021. India is a Dialogue Partner of ASEAN and recently that has been elevated to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership; it is also regularly invited to   the G-7 Summits as a guest. So, India has now emerged as a global player; this has been the result of India’s growth over the last several decades. Equally important has been the influence of India’s soft power which is evident from the fact people across the world appreciate India’s   culture – as depicted in films, dance and music – its achievements in the field of games and sports, and, above all India’s religious traditions and, Yoga.

All these have been possible because of a sense of unity and a feeling of togetherness that Indians share, irrespective of their caste, class or religious affiliations. Unfortunately, that may be shattered, if the dominant party at the Centre (and in a number of States) seeks to promote a brand of majoritarian nationalism based on a homogenised version of Hindutva that is divisive, not inclusive, and contrary to the principle of pluralism as enshrined in the Constitution.  Political intolerance and attempts to suppress political dissent by misusing the provisions of UAPA, especially after the amendment of the Act in 2019 –and virtually retaining similar provisions in the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 – pose serious challenges to Indian democracy. Finally, monumental corruption in public life is sapping the life from the roots of democracy in India, which should be a matter of grave concern for all Indian citizens, irrespective of their political inclinations, in the 75^th year of India’s emergence as a Republic. 

Endnotes: