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.

Voters Propose, High Commands Dispose

The Congress’s leadership drama in Karnataka is the latest reminder of how decisively India’s politics is shaped by party high commands rather than by voters.

India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy. Yet within its political parties, power increasingly flows upwards. It is this ‘high command’ culture that is increasingly vexing Indian democracy. Nowhere was this more evident in Karnataka, where the ongoing power tussle between the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Siddaramaiah made it clear that adhering to the directives of the Congress high command in Delhi was his top priority, signalling that state leadership is effectively controlled by the latter. This raises a critical question as to whether such a system suitable for healthy democratic functioning, or does it represent indirect authoritarianism masquerading as democracy?


Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar, had met over a much-trailed breakfast on Saturday to hush speculation of a leadership change. Smiles were duly displayed and the handshakes carefully choreographed. Yet, despite the optics of unity those briefed on the talks say the discussion quickly ran into familiar deadlock. After the meeting, Siddaramaiah announced that all was well but emphasized, “We will strictly follow every directive from the high command. The high command has ordered this dispute to be resolved before the assembly session begins, and that will guide our actions.”


Toxic centralism

It would seem from Siddaramaiah’s statements that the Congress high command in Delhi will decide the fate of Karnataka’s people, even though the government was elected by the state’s voters. This deepens a key dilemma in democratic systems is such centralization conducive to a healthy democracy? Does it embody indirect authoritarianism, or the shadow of familial and party-based monarchy? Ironically, Indian voters lack direct authority to choose leadership for national or state governance, creating fertile ground for high command culture to thrive. Parties and their high commands prefer to preserve this setup to safeguard political gains whether it is family dominated or centralized non-familial leadership.


Despite the Congress securing a majority in the 2023 Karnataka assembly elections, the selection of the Chief Minister had dragged on amid prolonged wrangling. Ultimately, Shivakumar had bowed to the Congress high command’s decision and accepted Siddaramaiah as CM. But Shivakumar has repeatedly hinted at a ‘secret’ deal made during the time which envisaged sharing the CM’s post between himself and Siddaramaiah for two-and-a-half years each.


This pattern is far from unique. In Madhya Pradesh, before Kamal Nath’s short-lived government was even sworn in, the Congress high command had effectively pre-selected its nominee, marginalising local legislators. In Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot’s elevation owed more to Delhi’s preferences than to the wishes of his newly elected colleagues.


Pervasive culture

High command culture is not confined to Congress, it pervades the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well. Following the 2023 Madhya Pradesh assembly elections, BJP’s Delhi leadership selected Dr. Mohan Yadav as Chief Minister. Newly elected MLAs then formally endorsed his name in a legislative party meeting, even though he was not a public figure during the campaign. Similar patterns emerged in Rajasthan, where Dr. Bhajan Lal Sharma became CM after BJP’s victory, and in Chhattisgarh and Odisha Maharashtra stood out as an exception, with MLAs overriding Delhi’s suggestions to choose Devendra Fadnavis.


The influence of high command culture runs so deep among party leaders that, despite the BJP-JD(U) NDA alliance securing a massive majority in Bihar, BJP MLAs hesitated to openly declare Nitish Kumar as Chief Minister.


It was only during the victory celebrations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed workers and lavished praise on Nitish. In reality, Modi and Amit Shah had already clarified Nitish’s leadership during the campaign. Meanwhile, a familial variant surfaced in Bihar’s Rashtriya Lok Samata Party, where the high command sworn in its son as a minister, despite him holding no assembly seat or active political background.


In high command culture, the party’s central leadership holds sway over the role of elected representatives chosen by the public. This was evident in states like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, where both Congress and BJP saw chief minister decisions made directly by the high command, despite voters electing their MLAs. It highlights a clear lack of internal democracy and raises questions about whether legislators have sufficient authority to select their own leadership. Such a system fosters dynastic tendencies or centralized power within parties, running counter to core democratic principles.


When high command culture fuels power struggles, development projects and public welfare become collateral damage. In states like Karnataka, leadership tussles have disrupted smooth governance, leaving public expectations unfulfilled. Decisions influenced by high command interventions often prioritize party or broader political gains, ultimately harming democratic health.


This culture has taken a worrisome turn in Indian democracy, especially as most political parties, barring a few exceptions, are dominated by families, particularly regional ones. National and state presidents in these parties are handpicked by families, rendering leadership elections mere formalities. Bihar offers a stark example, where a person serving a sentence on corruption charges was the party president and during that time the party ran a coalition government.


These ironic circumstances compel the public to question high command culture and party individualism-does it belong in democracy? Is it not a new guise of authoritarianism cloaked in democratic values, proving toxic to the system? If the high command is deemed all-wise and state MLAs lack the judgment to choose leaders, will appointing one among them as CM strengthen provincial governance, or does running the state on high command dictates align with democratic processes?


Democratic governance aims to deliver capable, accountable, and transparent administration to the people. Yet high command culture undermines this by indirectly spawning authoritarian structures.


Open discussion and analysis of this pervasive phenomenon are vital to promote internal party democracy, empower elected leaders with real authority, and align with constitutional norms while bolstering democratic vitality.


Comments

bottom of page