top of page

By:

Rajendra Joshi

3 December 2024 at 9:20:26 am

The Warning Beyond NEET

The Jantar Mantar protests exposed the widening gap between education, employment and growth. The month-long protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar may have formally ended, but the political and economic questions it raised will linger. Triggered by the NEET paper leak, the movement became a major expression of youth discontent. What began as a demand for a fair examination system became a broader indictment of an economic model that promises opportunity but increasingly fails to deliver...

The Warning Beyond NEET

The Jantar Mantar protests exposed the widening gap between education, employment and growth. The month-long protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar may have formally ended, but the political and economic questions it raised will linger. Triggered by the NEET paper leak, the movement became a major expression of youth discontent. What began as a demand for a fair examination system became a broader indictment of an economic model that promises opportunity but increasingly fails to deliver employment. The government initially treated the protests as a law-and-order issue. That changed when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological fountainhead of the ruling establishment, publicly criticised police action and expressed solidarity with the students. The subsequent resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, withdrawal of criminal cases and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's endorsement of the integrity and aspirations of India's Gen Z transformed the political narrative. The issue had moved beyond examination reform to whether India's development model is serving its young citizens. The NEET paper leak was merely the spark. The fuel had accumulated through rising educated unemployment, declining confidence in public institutions and growing frustration among millions of young Indians. Education is increasingly seen as an uncertain investment rather than a guaranteed pathway to opportunity. Every examination scandal reinforces the perception that merit alone is insufficient, while recruitment delays deepen the belief that the system is failing those who have done everything expected of them. India has celebrated its demographic dividend for nearly two decades, projecting its young workforce as its greatest competitive advantage. But demographic dividends are never automatic. They generate prosperity only when education is matched by employment, productivity and rising incomes. Otherwise, they become demographic liabilities that breed frustration rather than growth. The evidence suggests India is approaching that inflection point. GDP has expanded impressively over the past two decades, yet employment has failed to keep pace. Employment elasticity has weakened sharply. During the 1980s, every percentage point of GDP growth generated roughly half a percentage point increase in employment. Today the ratio is estimated at about 0.16, among the lowest for major emerging economies. Growth continues; jobs do not. This disconnect reflects India's growth strategy. Public policy has increasingly favoured capital-intensive industries through subsidies, tax incentives and investment support. Such sectors contribute to output and productivity but generate relatively fewer jobs. Agriculture continues to suffer from incomplete reforms and low productivity. Manufacturing has not expanded fast enough to absorb new workers, while artificial intelligence and automation are reducing opportunities in occupations once regarded as gateways to middle-class prosperity. India thus faces a paradox: it is producing more graduates while creating fewer opportunities to absorb them. The comparison with Asia is instructive. Vietnam and Bangladesh have pursued manufacturing-led growth that has generated substantially higher employment relative to economic expansion. Vietnam's employment-to-population ratio is estimated at nearly three-fourths, compared with about one-half in India. Vietnam has also moved into the upper-middle-income category, while India remains a lower-middle-income economy. These comparisons do not diminish India's achievements. They highlight the urgency of correcting structural weaknesses before they become politically destabilising. History demonstrates the risks of prolonged youth unemployment. The Arab Spring showed how educated but unemployed youth can transform political landscapes. More recently, political instability in Bangladesh and Nepal has reflected frustration among younger populations facing shrinking opportunities. India's democratic institutions are stronger, and its circumstances are different. Yet no democracy can indefinitely ignore the aspirations of its largest demographic group. The significance of Jantar Mantar lies here. India's Gen Z is organised, digitally connected and politically conscious. Social media transformed local grievances into a national movement within days, while traditional political parties largely responded after the sentiment had acquired independent momentum. The RSS intervention further complicated the government's challenge. Once protesting students found resonance within the ideological ecosystem closest to the ruling establishment, the issue ceased to be a partisan confrontation. It became an internal warning that India's youth expect credible institutions, transparent examinations and, above all, meaningful employment. The Centre's examination reforms are necessary but insufficient. Restoring the credibility of competitive examinations addresses only one symptom. The larger challenge is to redesign India's growth strategy around employment. Labour-intensive manufacturing, support for small and medium enterprises, investment in skills, higher-education reform and greater attention to employment outcomes must become central to economic planning. The Jantar Mantar agitation should not be remembered simply as the NEET protests. It marked a moment when India's youngest generation questioned the assumptions underlying the country's development model. Governments can manage protests and reform examinations. But unless economic growth translates into broad-based employment, similar movements will return. India's demographic dividend remains its greatest opportunity. It could equally become its greatest challenge. The warning has been delivered. The question is whether policymakers are prepared to listen.

Cricket’s Latest Gift to the Lazy Elite

In a move that’s sure to revolutionize domestic cricket – or at least give senior players a golden excuse to lounge in the pavilion with a cold one – the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has graciously introduced the “serious injury replacement substitute” rule for the 2025-26 season. Inspired, apparently, by heart-wrenching tales like Rishabh Pant’s injury woes, this noble edict allows teams to swap out a player who’s suffered a “serious” injury mid-match, preventing them from heroically hobbling on and risking further damage. How thoughtful! Because nothing says player welfare like handing over the reins to a fresh substitute from the bench, all while the umpires play doctor and decide if it’s legit. On paper, it’s a masterstroke of compassion. But let’s peel back the layers, shall we? This rule is a sarcasm goldmine, ripe for rampant misuse by those grizzled veterans who’ve seen more IPL auctions than actual fitness drills.


Picture this: It’s a sweltering afternoon in the Ranji Trophy, the pitch is a minefield, and your team’s star senior batsman – let’s call him “Captain Evergreen,” a 35-year-old legend whose knees creak louder than the stadium gates – faces a fiery young pacer. One bouncer whizzes past his helmet, and suddenly, oh dear, he’s clutching his shoulder like he’s been shot by a cannon. “Serious injury!” he wails, dramatic as a Bollywood death scene. The physio rushes in, the umpires confer, and poof! In comes a spry substitute from the reserves, while Captain Evergreen retires to the dressing room for an “extended recovery session” that suspiciously involves scrolling Instagram and sipping chai. Misuse? Perish the thought! This is just the rule working as intended – if “intended” means giving seniors a get-out-of-jail-free card for when the going gets tough.


And why stop at genuine discomfort? Senior players, those wise old foxes who’ve mastered the art of selective participation, could turn this into a veritable art form. Imagine the excuses: “Ouch, my hamstring twinged while tying my shoelaces!” or “Doctor, it’s a serious case of… selective amnesia about how to face spin.” The rule stipulates the replacement comes from the nominated substitutes at the toss, but who’s to say teams won’t stack their bench with all-rounders ready to step in at a moment’s notice? It’s like having a backup band for when the lead singer decides he’s too “injured” to hit the high notes. Humorously, one could envision a scenario where the entire senior brigade coordinates “injuries” in rotation – today it’s the opener’s mysterious back spasm during a chase, tomorrow the all-rounder’s sudden elbow flare-up when bowling uphill. The youngsters grind it out, while the vets preserve their bodies for those lucrative T20 leagues. Player welfare, my foot; this is welfare for the well-paid!Let’s not forget the wicketkeeper exception, that delightful loophole where teams might snag a specialist gloveman from outside the original subs if their keeper goes down. Brilliant! Now, a crafty senior keeper could “injure” himself early – say, by “diving” for a ball that was miles wide – and summon a fresh face while he kicks back. “Sorry lads, my gloves are giving me blisters… serious ones!” he’d quip, as the team suddenly fields two keepers for the price of one mishap. The potential for abuse is endless, especially in multi-day formats where fatigue sets in like an unwanted houseguest. Senior players, already masters of the “strategic rest” in international cricket, could exploit this to dodge the drudgery of fielding on day four or batting against a reversing ball. It’s almost comical how this rule, meant to shield the brave, might instead empower the cunning. Teams could even game the system: Nominate a bunch of versatile subs, then “injure” a senior to unleash a tactical wildcard. Umpires and referees might as well carry stethoscopes alongside their light meters.


Of course, the BCCI assures us this is all above board, with umpires holding the veto power. But in the heat of domestic cricket, where passions run high and scrutiny runs low, how foolproof is that? We’ve seen players milk timeouts for “cramps” that vanish miraculously post-match; now amplify that with a full substitution. It’s a recipe for hilarity – or hypocrisy, depending on your view. Senior players, those paragons of experience, might start viewing matches as optional excursions. “Why risk my golden years on this dusty track when I can invoke the magic rule and watch from the sidelines?” they’d chuckle. And let’s be real: In a country where cricket is religion, fans might even cheer it on, mistaking it for “smart management.” But deep down, it’s a farce that could erode the spirit of the game, turning domestic cricket into a senior citizens’ spa retreat.


In conclusion, kudos to the BCCI for this “innovative” rule – it’s sure to keep our veterans fresh, fabulous, and far from the fray. Who needs grit when you have substitutes? Perhaps next, they’ll introduce “serious boredom replacement” for when the match drags on. Until then, let’s watch as this well-intentioned safeguard becomes the ultimate loophole for the elite. Cricket just got a whole lot funnier – and a tad less fair.


(The Writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page