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.

Time for Atonement: Veer Savarkar and the Stolen Legacy of a Patriot

As India reassesses its history, justice demands acknowledging Savarkar’s contributions to the freedom struggle and the injustices he endured over Gandhi’s assassination.

On February 10, 1949, a special court exonerated Vinayak Damodar Savarkar of any involvement in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Yet, history has not been as kind. The mere inclusion of his name in the case, despite a lack of evidence, remains a travesty of justice, one that cast a long shadow over his political career and deprived India of an influential voice.


The Gandhi assassination trial, which began on May 27, 1948, and lasted eight months, resulted in the sentencing of nine individuals. Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death, four others received life imprisonment, one was given a seven-year term, and another was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The only person who managed to evade legal repercussions was Digambar Badge, who turned approver. Savarkar’s arrest and subsequent acquittal should have been the end of the matter. However, his political marginalization continued well beyond the trial.


Dr. Pankaj Phadnis, a Savarkarite, has argued before the Supreme Court that the trial was, in fact, a ‘mistrial.’ He contends that Savarkar was falsely implicated in a political conspiracy aimed at sidelining him. The timing of his arrest and the lack of substantial evidence to prove his involvement in the plot lend some weight to this argument. Savarkar was a vocal critic of what he termed “distorted secularism,” advocating for equal treatment of majority and minority communities. He also opposed the transfer of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, warning that it would be used against India. His vision for an assertive India included sending 10,000 young men to the United States for military training and another 10,000 to develop a scientific temperament—an agenda that, if realized, could have reshaped India’s strategic landscape.


The aftermath of his acquittal was no less punitive. He was arrested again in 1949 and released only after agreeing not to contest the 1952 elections. A man whose ideological clarity and vision could have contributed significantly to Indian politics was silenced, leaving a vacuum that was never quite filled. He passed away in 1966, never again holding an electoral post.


The assassination of Gandhi was a carefully plotted act, orchestrated by a motley group of men, each with their own grievances and motivations. Nathuram Godse, a former editor of the Hindu Rashtra, was transformed from a mild-mannered writer into a radical Hindu nationalist after his early interactions with Savarkar in Ratnagiri. Narayan Apte, his close associate, was an ex-Indian Air Force officer who shared Godse’s ideological fervour.


Other figures involved included Vishnu Karkare, who dedicated himself to aiding Hindu-Sikh refugees in Ahmednagar, and Gopal Godse, Nathuram’s younger brother, who was swept up in his brother’s radicalism. Digambar Badge, an arms dealer, was initially a co-conspirator but later turned approver, testifying against the others. Shankar Kistya, Badge’s servant, had little understanding of the plot but was caught in its web. Madanlal Pahwa, a refugee from West Punjab, had seen Muslim atrocities firsthand, while Dr. Sadashiv Parchure played a key role in procuring the Beretta pistol that fired the fatal shots.


The conspiracy took shape as Gandhi’s perceived ‘Muslim appeasement’ policies enraged the plotters. His fast to pressure the Indian government into transferring Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan was the final straw. On January 20, 1948, an initial assassination attempt at Birla House failed. Pahwa detonated a bomb to create chaos, but the others were unable to execute their plan in the ensuing melee. The police’s inefficiencies allowed them to escape and regroup.


On January 30, they struck again. Gandhi, as was his custom, had no security checks for visitors. Godse entered first, followed later by Apte and Karkare. As Gandhi walked towards his evening prayer meeting, Godse stepped forward, folded his hands in greeting, and fired three shots. Gandhi collapsed. Witnesses were divided on whether he uttered his famous last words, “Hey Ram.” What is undisputed is that Godse raised his hands and called for the police, eager to prove that his act was deliberate, rational and ideological.


The police, under Bombay’s Chief Minister Morarji Desai and Police Chief Jamshed Nagarvala, moved swiftly. Savarkar’s house was raided, and thousands of letters and documents were seized, but no evidence directly linked him to the assassination. However, Badge’s testimony that he overheard Savarkar telling Godse and Apte, “Yashasvi houn ya” (Come back victorious), became the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case against him. Gopal Godse, in later interviews, revealed that Badge had been tortured into naming Savarkar.


Despite the shaky foundation of the case, Savarkar was dragged through the legal process. In Judge Atmacharan’s verdict on February 10, 1949, Savarkar was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Godse and Apte were sentenced to death, while others received varying degrees of imprisonment. The only person visibly distressed by the verdict was Badge, the betrayer.


Justice G.D. Khosla, one of India’s most respected jurists, later remarked that had the trial been decided by a jury, Godse might have been found not guilty, given the public sentiment at the time. The real injustice, however, was not just the trial but the post-acquittal punishment of Savarkar, when his political career was deliberately stifled - a fate undeserving for a man of his ideological stature.


As India reassesses its history, it is imperative that a more balanced narrative on Savarkar emerges. He was a revolutionary, a thinker and a nationalist whose contributions to India’s freedom struggle remain overshadowed by the controversy surrounding his alleged involvement in Gandhi’s assassination.

A nation’s moral fabric is not just defined by its heroes but also by how it treats those whose legacies have been unfairly tarnished. In Savarkar’s case, the scales of justice have remained unbalanced for too long.


(The author is a motivational public speaker. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page