A glimpse into India@100

What the five resolutions to make India a developed nation in 25 years really mean

India has entered a 25-year phase that the prime minister has named Amrit Kaal, an astrological term. He said in 2021 that “the journey of the next 25 years is the Amrit Kaal of a new India'' and “the fulfilment of our resolutions in this Amrit Kaal will take us till 100 years of independence.” What are the outcomes expected in or by 2047, when Amrit Kaal ends? Foreign Minister S Jaishankar revealed this when he summed up Narendra Modi’s August 15 speech. He tweeted: “PM @narendramodi set out 5 commitments for New India as it heads towards its Independence centenary:

1. An India that is developed.

2. An India free of colonial mindset.

3. An India proud of its heritage.

4. An India united & integrated.

5. An India whose citizens put duty above all.”

Let us examine these in turn. To become “developed” India must boost its per capita income. To what extent? There is no definition of a developed nation and the world’s average per capita income, according to the World Bank, is over $12,000. The United States is at $70,000, the UK just under $50,000, Singapore is at over $70,000, Japan about $40,000 and Korea $35,000. These are all exceptional nations and perhaps we should lower our sights. Let us say that a “developed” nation is one with a per capita income of $25,000. India is currently at $2,200. It has taken us 12 years to double our per capita income from $1,100 in 2009 to where we are today and 12 years is also our historical average for doubling per capita income since 1960. At this rate, in the 25 years to the end of Amrit Kaal, we will be at around $8,800. Meaning we will not be halfway to being a “developed” nation and, in fact, a quarter century from now we will still be behind where China is today ($12,500). By 2047 our “demographic dividend” would also have fully evaporated. Before Covid, India’s gross domestic product growth had begun to slow and for the nine quarters between January 2018 and March 2020, there was a sequential dip. Something has to change dramatically for this to be turned around, but it is not clear that we know what the problem is or what is to be done to fix it. Such things are no longer discussed in India.

The second outcome is that India should be free of its colonial mindset. We can remedy this if we can agree on what this colonial mindset is. Some things are relatively easy to do — such as abolishing English from education and government, enforcing dress codes, renaming roads, government positions and institutions and fictionalising history, all of which we have done. Other things — getting rid of the railways (as Gandhi once wanted), replacing the Constitution with some form of religious doctrine and replacing Macaulay’s Penal Code — though it might prove slightly more difficult. Indeed, Pakistan has tried and failed to do the latter two things.

Illustration: Binay Sinha.

One problem is the lack of definition. Mere assertion that we have a colonial mindset somehow means it exists, that it is understood by all or most what this mindset is, and it is understood also what remedying it means. This is not the case of course. Given this vagueness, it will not be fixed, either at the end of Amrit Kaal or ever.

The third outcome is that we should be proud of our heritage. This assumes that currently we are not proud. It also assumes that there is agreement on what heritage means. Is the Taj Mahal our heritage? Are the Victoria Memorial, the churches of Vasco Da Gama and St Francis Xavier our heritage? Is mutton biryani, qawwali, Deobandi scholarship, Naga pork curry and Urdu poetry our heritage? If the answer is mostly no, as appears to be the case from the tone and thrust of India’s ruling party, then it is not a question of taking pride in our heritage. The task is then to reject parts of our heritage, perhaps violently, so that we can be proud only of what remains. Again, this is not going to happen and so this outcome will remain unfulfilled.

A united and integrated India is a function in many ways of what the State does. Unlike some of the other outcomes on this list, the State has genuine agency here and can act effectively. There are two ways in which this can be examined. The first is cartographically. The second is through India’s people and federalism. The interest of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its sister organisations has always been on the integrity of the anthropomorphic idea of nation (Bharat Mata). It has not been very much on the people, especially minorities, and we have seen in recent years what the BJP thinks of federalism. From the beginning the BJP/Jana Sangh has been suspicious of constitutional federalism, and Deen Dayal Upadhayay wanted the states to be abolished.

Given this second way of looking at it, the BJP is unlikely to leave behind an India more united and integrated. In fact, it is possible and perhaps likely that if the BJP remains in power for most of the time to 2047, things will deteriorate on this front.

The last outcome sought to be achieved is that citizens be forced to put “duty above all”. What are these duties? We are told this by Article 51A in the Constitution. A few of these are easy to enforce: For instance, respect the national flag and anthem. Most are vague: “Cherish noble ideals”; “strive towards excellence”; “preserve rich heritage”. Some run antithetical to Hindutva ideology: “promote harmony”; “develop scientific temper” and so on. It is not that difficult to see that none of this is going to happen.

Mr Jaishankar followed up his summation of the five outcomes by saying that “India’s foreign policy in the coming days will fully affect these (five) commitments”. How exactly would this happen and what would he change in the current foreign policy to align with these outcomes? How would it materially show? This he did not say, and perhaps did not need to. A sharp individual, and

Mr Jaishankar certainly comes across as one, will look at that list and see it for what it is. Economically, it is kicking the can of “development” down the road. It is the abdication of any responsibility to discuss the present condition. The rest of it is meaningless, but in our part of the world if something is said with passion and earnestness, it becomes wisdom.

The writer is chair of Amnesty International India