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.

The Governor’s Dilemma

Caught between constitutional duty and political suspicion, the new gubernatorial appointments underscore how the Governor’s office remains one of the most contested pillars of India’s federal system.

The recent appointment and reshuffling of Governors and Lieutenant Governors for six states and two Union Territories by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, including the politically significant state of West Bengal on the eve of crucial Assembly elections, has once again brought the office of the Governor into sharp public focus. Within India’s federal framework, the Governor functions as the constitutional head of the state and occupies an important position in the governance structure, exercising executive, legislative and certain discretionary powers that influence the functioning of the state government.


Introducing Flexibility

Article 153 of the Constitution of India provides that each state shall have a Governor. However, the Seventh Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956 introduced flexibility by permitting the appointment of the same individual as Governor for two or more states. Unlike the President of India, the Governor is neither directly nor indirectly elected. The office follows a model inspired by the Canadian system of governance, under which the Governor is appointed by the President through a warrant under his hand and seal, while the oath of office is administered by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. By long-standing convention, the appointee is generally an outsider to the state concerned, and the President is expected to consult the Chief Minister prior to such appointment.


As the de jure constitutional head of the state, the Governor is ordinarily expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution expressly permits the exercise of discretion. It is this sphere of discretionary authority that lies at the heart of the ongoing debate surrounding the Governor’s office. These powers allow the Governor to act according to personal judgment without ministerial advice and, in certain respects, are considered broader than those of the President. They include functions such as reserving bills for the consideration of the President or recommending the imposition of President’s Rule, making their exercise a frequent subject of constitutional and political scrutiny.


Controversial Instances

Over the years, several instances have highlighted the controversies surrounding the exercise of such discretion. In 2016, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh advanced a session of the state Assembly, triggering a political crisis that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In the same year, the recommendation of President’s Rule in Uttarakhand by the Governor was set aside by the High Court. In Karnataka in 2018, the Governor invited the single largest party to form the government despite a post-poll coalition claiming majority support. In 2020, the Governor of Kerala faced criticism for delaying assent to a bill passed by the state legislature.


More recently, the issue resurfaced in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R. N. Ravi was criticized for delaying assent to several bills passed by the state Assembly, an action widely described as a “pocket veto.” Observations by the Supreme Court regarding the delay in granting assent to these bills have once again revived debates on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion. Similarly, the West Bengal government has frequently accused Governor C. V. Ananda Bose of unwarranted interference in the functioning of the elected administration, reflecting recurring tensions between Raj Bhavans and state governments, particularly in opposition-ruled states.


Against this backdrop, the recent reshuffling and appointment of Governors by the Union government assumes particular significance, especially in politically sensitive and poll-bound states such as West Bengal. The Governor’s discretionary powers both constitutional and situational may become crucial in times of political instability, including situations such as the appointment of a Chief Minister in a hung Assembly, fragile coalition arrangements, or constitutional deadlocks before or after elections. In such circumstances, the Governor may also be called upon to dismiss a Council of Ministers that fails to demonstrate majority support or recommend the dissolution of the state legislative assembly. Consequently, the office of the Governor often becomes central to resolving political and constitutional uncertainties.


Situational Discretion

At the same time, opposition-ruled states have frequently argued that the exercise of such situational discretion may reflect the influence of the Union government rather than an independent constitutional judgment. This perception has continued to fuel tensions within India’s federal framework, particularly in states governed by parties opposed to the ruling party at the Centre.


The constitutional vision of the Governor’s office, however, demands a high degree of neutrality, restraint and institutional integrity. The Governor was envisaged as an impartial constitutional authority and a vital link between the Union and the states, rather than as a political instrument. Preserving the dignity and neutrality of this office is therefore essential for maintaining the spirit of cooperative federalism that lies at the heart of India’s constitutional design.


In this context, the recommendations of expert bodies such as the Sarkaria Commission (1988), the Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) assume renewed relevance. Their proposals, aimed at insulating the office of the Governor from partisan politics and strengthening its constitutional role, merit serious consideration if India’s federal democracy is to function effectively in both letter and spirit.


(The writers are advocates practicing before the Supreme Court of India. Views personal.)

 


Comments

bottom of page