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.

Maharashtra’s Mandate: A New Blueprint for Indian Politics

Maharashtra’s Mandate

The outcome of Maharashtra’s assembly election has surprised politicians and analysts alike. While the ruling Mahayuti coalition celebrated its decisive victory, the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) was left licking its wounds. Post-poll analyses have pointed to the success of welfare schemes like LadkiBahin, effective coordination among the Mahayuti partners, and last-minute policy decisions such as the abolition of tolls at Mumbai’s entry points. However, focusing solely on these surface-level factors risks obscuring deeper shifts in the political calculus of Maharashtra’s voters.


Over the past decade, the BJP has consistently secured over 100 assembly seats in Maharashtra, with a vote share hovering around 26%. This performance is not the result of one-off schemes or charismatic leadership alone. It is the culmination of meticulous booth-level planning, an extensive cadre-based organization, and a clearly articulated ideological vision. While the opposition dabbled in reactionary politics, the BJP presented a coherent narrative that resonated with voters.


The BJP’s emphasis on delivering tangible results has further cemented its credibility. Its push to complete long-pending infrastructure projects, coupled with national achievements like the abrogation of Article 370 and the Ram temple construction, has provided voters with visible proof of governance. Such initiatives reinforce the party’s narrative of Vikas (development) and Virasat (heritage), creating a unique selling point that its opponents have struggled to match.


The MVA, in contrast, failed to present a united front or a compelling alternative. Formed as a post-poll alliance of convenience in 2019, the coalition lacked ideological coherence and a shared vision. The Shiv Sena’s departure from its pro-Hindutva roots, its alliance with erstwhile adversaries like the Congress, and public squabbles over the Chief Minister’s post eroded its credibility.


Similarly, the Congress and NCP appeared disconnected from the changing aspirations of the electorate. Their reliance on legacy issues like inflation and unemployment failed to generate enthusiasm among voters, who have long seen these problems as endemic to Indian governance. The MVA’s inability to modernize its campaign strategy or address grassroots concerns decisively contributed to its downfall.


What sets this election apart is the increasing maturity of Maharashtra’s voters. Issues like agrarian distress, inflation, and urban infrastructure deficiencies remain important, but they no longer serve as the sole determinants of electoral outcomes. Voters recognize that these problems have persisted across administrations and are unlikely to be solved overnight.


Attempts to manipulate sentiment through identity politics also fell flat. Efforts to stoke fears about Gujarat’s economic dominance over Maharashtra, for example, failed to resonate, as voters either dismissed them as baseless or attributed them to broader economic shifts beyond state control. Similarly, the Maratha reservation issue, despite its emotive appeal, failed to sway the electorate, likely because of its cyclical politicization by successive governments.


The electorate’s focus has shifted from emotive rhetoric to measurable outcomes. For instance, while LadkiBahin and other welfare schemes were significant, they succeeded because they were embedded in a broader narrative of governance and delivery. Voters rewarded the BJP not for individual schemes but for its perceived ability to execute its agenda consistently and efficiently.


This pragmatic approach extends to ideological clarity. The BJP’s steadfast commitment to its vision, regardless of criticism, contrasts sharply with the ideological flip-flops of its rivals. The Shiv Sena’sabandonment of its Marathi-centric ethos and the Congress-NCP’s alliance of convenience alienated core supporters and left undecided voters sceptical.


Maharashtra’s mandate holds valuable lessons for India’s political parties. First, voters are demanding clarity of vision and consistency of purpose. Political parties that rely on opportunistic alliances or contradictory positions risk alienating an increasingly discerning electorate.


Second, the importance of grassroots organization cannot be overstated. The BJP’s success underscores the value of meticulous planning and a robust on-ground presence. Opposition parties must invest in strengthening their cadre base and developing comprehensive campaign strategies if they hope to compete effectively.


Finally, political messaging must evolve to reflect the aspirations of a more urbanized, connected, and informed voter base. Traditional issues like unemployment and inflation remain relevant but must be addressed with innovative solutions rather than recycled promises.


For the BJP, the challenge lies in maintaining its momentum. As voters grow more sophisticated, even the smallest missteps will be amplified. Sustaining credibility will require continuous innovation and a commitment to addressing core issues like inflation and infrastructure.


For the MVA and other opposition groups, the path forward demands introspection and reinvention. They must develop a cohesive vision that transcends immediate political gains and resonates with the electorate’s long-term aspirations. Without this, they risk irrelevance in an era where voters are increasingly prioritizing substance over symbolism.


Maharashtra’s election results mark a turning point, not just for the state but for Indian politics as a whole. It has set the stage for a new era of politics, where parties must earn trust rather than assume it. The old playbook is obsolete, and those who fail to adapt risk irrelevance. For a state long seen as India’s political laboratory, this verdict may well serve as a blueprint for the nation.


(The author has worked in a Tata company for more than 30 years.)

Comments

bottom of page