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.

Europe’s Nuclear Awakening

With America in retreat, Germany and France seek to fortify Europe’s nuclear deterrence.

Germany

Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is not known for radical departures in foreign policy. Yet his recent remarks about expanding France’s nuclear umbrella to the rest of Europe reflect the most consequential shift in European security since the end of the Cold War. The continent finds itself at a precarious juncture. With U.S. President Donald Trump openly questioning NATO’s future, Europe must now decide whether it can rely on Washington’s nuclear shield or if it must forge its own.


In an interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, Merz stressed on the need to become stronger together in nuclear deterrence in Europe. His comments came just days after French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to open a debate on extending France’s nuclear deterrent to other European nations. For decades, Europe’s nuclear security has rested on America’s commitment to its NATO allies. Now, Trump’s second presidency has unsettled that foundation.


During the Cold War, the American nuclear umbrella, backed by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, provided Europe with strategic stability. France and Britain, Western Europe’s only nuclear powers, maintained their arsenals as a national prerogative rather than a collective security mechanism. The idea of a shared European nuclear deterrent never gained traction, largely due to German reluctance. Berlin’s historical aversion to military assertiveness and its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ensured that Germany would not seek nuclear weapons of its own.


But with Trump’s foreign policy pivot, Europe faces an uncomfortable reality - an American president who has threatened to abandon NATO allies unwilling to meet their financial obligations.


Merz’s position remains cautious. He insists that any discussions on European nuclear deterrence must “complement the American nuclear umbrella, which we of course want to maintain.” Yet his acknowledgment that Germany cannot rely indefinitely on U.S. protection signals a historic shift in thinking within the German establishment. The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has long argued for Germany to acquire its own nuclear weapons, a prospect still unthinkable for mainstream politicians. However, even centrists now recognize that Europe can no longer afford strategic complacency.


Macron has long positioned himself as a champion of European sovereignty. In 2020, he had proposed a strategic dialogue on Europe’s nuclear future, arguing that France’s arsenal could serve broader European security interests. His calls were largely met with polite dismissal in Berlin. Today, the mood has changed. Merz’s openness to discussions suggests that a consensus is forming in Germany’s political mainstream: Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own defence.


Yet any effort to build a European nuclear deterrent will require delicate diplomacy. France’s nuclear doctrine is fiercely independent, designed to serve French interests first. Extending its nuclear umbrella would mean entangling Paris in the defence of countries beyond its borders, something French leaders have traditionally resisted. Moreover, Britain, now outside the European Union, maintains its own independent nuclear arsenal and has not signalled enthusiasm for nuclear-sharing arrangements with the continent.


A Franco-German-British framework would be the logical nucleus of a European deterrent, but London’s reluctance and Paris’s caution complicate matters. However, the more Washington wavers, the stronger the case for Europe to develop an alternative deterrence mechanism.

A serious European nuclear initiative would come at an enormous financial and political cost. France’s arsenal is modest compared to America’s: it possesses around 300 nuclear warheads. Expanding its reach would require massive investment in missile systems, warhead production and delivery mechanisms. Germany, still constrained by post-war pacifism, would have to make an unprecedented leap in its defence spending and strategic doctrine.


Berlin has already taken tentative steps. Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc is in coalition negotiations with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), and both parties have signalled support for a major increase in defence spending. This marks a dramatic shift from Germany’s traditional reluctance to invest in hard power. However, building a credible nuclear deterrent will require long-term commitments and a fundamental reassessment of European security priorities. Either way, the days of European strategic passivity are coming to an end.

Comments

bottom of page