3875 words in this article
Estimated reading time 10 minutes
Author | R. Jagannathan
Translated by | He Jiawei
Translation Reviewer | Hu Keyi
Editor of This Issue | Rao Jinshan
Reviewer of This Issue | Jiang Yi
Editor's Note
This article argues that India is facing a vulnerable and dangerous period lasting at least a decade, requiring strong political leadership to overcome the challenges, especially a prime minister focused on reform. The author of this article is R. Jagannathan, a senior Indian media person. The article points out that under the context of deep adjustment in the global order, India faces a complex development and geopolitical security environment. At the same time, the progress of reforms in key areas within India continues to be delayed. However, the current Indian political class is seriously lacking in political consensus, leading to a large amount of resources being invested in election politics. Although the BJP Modi government currently in power once had substantial political capital, it did not concentrate it on the reforms India urgently needs, but instead used it to maintain advantages in election politics. The focus of the political class on election politics has led to limited resources and energy not being invested in reforms, but rather causing the expansion of populist welfare policies. Finally, the author calls on Prime Minister Modi to "stand up with a 56-inch chest" to maximize the inclusiveness of diverse interests, hand over non-essential powers to others, and focus on key reforms. Otherwise, India may continue to suffer from internal strife and face significant difficulties during the next ten years of vulnerability. The South Asian Research Communication has specially translated this article for your critical reference.
Image source: Internet
Against the backdrop of the spiral decline of the global order, India is facing a decade-long period of economic and security vulnerability. Currently, the China-Pakistan alliance poses a greater threat to India, and Bangladesh may join this "anti-India alliance" in a covert or overt manner after the next general election.
As long as the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues, Russia will remain in China's "suffocating embrace." On the other hand, the United States, under Trump, is pursuing a transaction-oriented, short-slogan-driven political line, and its domestic society is deeply divided, making it unlikely to become a reliable friend to any country, let alone India.
With the sharp escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel, driven by profound religious hatred and long-term insecurity, the Middle East will become another super hotspot region.
One, the Vulnerability of India
The vulnerability of India is manifested in multiple aspects: first, India's economic development faces a poor external situation. Economies such as Europe, Japan, the Asian Tigers, and even China have grown into economic powers with the support of the United States after the war, while India will find it difficult to obtain such external support. In fact, both China and the United States may take various measures to slow down India's economic growth and the process of enhancing its global status. Before India becomes a $10 trillion economy and creates a large number of high-quality jobs, it will always face pressure from both inside and outside. Even in the best case, reaching the $10 trillion scale may require ten years or more.
Second, India faces a severe national defense and security situation. Although India's defense capabilities are improving and becoming increasingly localized, high-tech weapons like the "Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft" (AMCA), an indigenous fifth-generation stealth multi-role fighter, may take ten years to develop and deploy, let alone warships and nuclear submarines for guarding the Indian Ocean, which is a relatively optimistic estimate. However, China is accelerating the provision of stealth fighters to Pakistan, putting India in a vulnerable and passive position in the short term.
The purpose of this article is not only to highlight the challenges India faces, but also to explain the following truth: only with firm political will can challenges be successfully overcome. If there is no broader domestic political consensus, India will find it difficult to achieve its goals - without consensus, the reforms necessary for accelerating economic growth and achieving self-reliance (Atmanirbharta) in defense will stagnate, because parties will busy themselves with distributing freebies to gain votes and win elections. At that time, the government and the opposition will act independently. The "0.5 front line" India faces is not only aimed at domestic separatist forces, but also at any destructive political opposition forces that may hinder the reform process (Editor's note: The first Chief of Defence Staff of India, Bipin Rawat, proposed and promoted the concept of "2.5 front war", stating that India must be prepared to deal with three types of security threats simultaneously - China (1 front), Pakistan (1 front), and domestic security threats (0.5 front). However, it should be noted that simply labeling the opposition as "anti-state" is meaningless).
The rifts within India are not always caused by policy differences. These contradictions are often very sharp and difficult to reconcile due to political power struggles and deep personal grudges. The deep enmity between Modi and Rahul Gandhi (the leader of the Congress Party and the grandson of Nehru) is a typical example - although the policies they implemented during their respective terms would not differ much. During Modi's tenure, almost all initiatives launched by the Congress Party (such as direct benefit transfers, Aadhaar identity authentication system, and the Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)) were slightly adjusted and continued by the Modi government. Even if the roles of the two were to be swapped in the future, with Rahul in charge (although the possibility is low at present), this phenomenon of policy continuity is unlikely to change significantly.
Two, How Should We Build Consensus?
As always, the initiative lies with Modi, and this was recently clearly demonstrated - after the "Saffron Operation," the Modi government formed and dispatched a cross-party delegation to several countries to seek international support for India's stance on counter-terrorism. The only discordant note came from the Congress Party, despite the fact that Congress members were important components of these delegations.
The Congress obviously felt dissatisfied with the members selected by the government for the delegation, especially Shashi Tharoor, a member of the Congress Party and a parliamentarian from Thiruvananthapuram, who has repeatedly publicly praised the Modi government's approach to foreign affairs and national security issues, and has been questioned by party members about his stance. Modi could have simply called Rahul Gandhi to resolve this issue, but even when faced with opposition from the Congress Party, the government ultimately "wisely" chose Tharoor, who has a good speaking ability.
India urgently needs to advance reforms and relax regulations in multiple areas, including defense, agriculture, land and labor laws, and the police-laws-judicial system. The current Indian judicial system cannot deliver efficient and fair justice, and without strict laws, it is also difficult to effectively maintain social order. It is precisely these non-economic reforms that are the core driving force for India to accelerate its way to becoming a $10 trillion economy.
Even if political consensus is achieved, these reforms will take three to five years to show initial results. Therefore, India needs a prime minister fully committed to the reform cause, rather than a leader distracted by short-term political pressures.
Fortunately, Modi has sufficient political capital. But the core issue is how he will use this capital. He can choose to cautiously use it more for winning elections, or to work towards building consensus for reform. For example, whenever he holds cross-party meetings, he usually delegates his deputies to coordinate, rarely attending himself. This attempt to stay away from political disputes and avoid using political capital to achieve consensus is not a positive signal.
In addition to the rapidly expanding "freebie culture," most of Modi's policies are generally correct. However, given that India will face a vulnerable period in the next decade, he must consider focusing his primary efforts on addressing these threats and granting more power to state governments and local institutions.
Three, Political Deadlock
India's challenges in foreign affairs and security are quite serious, and addressing these challenges requires extreme political focus. When the government has to deal with angry farmers gathering near Delhi blocking roads, how can it focus on developing defense capabilities and building global alliances? These matters require a lot of effort. Shouldn't India entrust the agricultural sector entirely to the states? Shouldn't the central government focus on establishing national reserves of key goods such as food, petroleum products, or rare earth elements?
If the government is preoccupied with handling tough public safety issues, sluggish judicial procedures, and restless minority groups (especially in the context of un-reformed land and labor laws), how can it formulate reasonable strategies to attract manufacturing investment? If the states continue to complain about resource shortages and electricity subsidies and other welfare expenditures continuously drain the budget, how can the government effectively coordinate fiscal and monetary policies? With such poor urban governance and infrastructure so inadequate that it is hard to sustain orderly development, how can quality employment opportunities be created?
Although the Modi government had a majority in parliament during its second term, it lost the momentum for reform. In 2021, under street protest pressure, the Modi government was forced to repeal three agricultural laws and postponed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) until the 2024 election period, after which the reform agenda took a back seat. Since the Indian Airlines was handed over to the Tata Group, the keyword "privatization" has disappeared from the discourse on reform.
Leaving aside the obstruction from the opposition, can Modi push the BJP-ruled states to relax regulations and promote reforms, and through the demonstration effect encourage other states to follow? Ironically, Modi's political capital may be the obstacle to reform - BJP party members might feel that maintaining political status only requires praising Modi, rather than engaging in the arduous work of reform. The opposition also follows a similar logic, believing that only by increasing welfare spending through populist strategies can they successfully defeat Modi.
Four, The Way Out Is Clear
Modi must use his political capital to advance various reforms simultaneously in BJP-ruled states and opposition-ruled states. If this requires the central government to devolve some overly concentrated powers, it should do so decisively; if it involves constraining the powers of the governors, it is a legitimate move; if it involves the issue of constituency redrawing, Modi must take the lead again. He cannot completely leave these matters to cabinet ministers, as they may lack the necessary political weight to achieve the key consensus needed to drive India forward.
In terms of Sino-Indian relations, Modi bears a dual and formidable mission: on one hand, he must engage with Beijing to achieve a fair trade agreement, and on the other hand, he must strengthen military strength against China. This is a high-level balancing act, yet the opposition continues to criticize the government's policies - including raising absurd accusations, implying that Modi yielded to Trump's pressure during the "Saffron Operation," and Rahul Gandhi further ridiculed it with the mocking phrase "Narendra, Surrender" (Narender, Surrender), which undoubtedly makes the government's balancing efforts even more difficult. In the Pahalgam attack and subsequent short-term Indo-Pak standoff, China has already clearly provided "hands-on" military support to Pakistan.
Prime Minister Modi must ask himself: what use is all the prestige and political capital if he ultimately fails to accomplish anything for the country? He must calibrate his political strategy, which means that the heart in his "56-inch chest" must be open, striving to gain the support of the opposition for the national interest (Editor's note: Modi once said before the 2014 election, "governing the country requires a 56-inch chest," which became a classic quote used by the BJP to shape Modi's image as a manly, capable, and strong political leader, as well as to attack opponents for being weak in governance). When Prime Minister Modi is busy with other matters, he can entrust the election affairs to his deputies and state-level leaders, allowing these officials to accumulate prestige and fulfill their duties. India does not need a "two-engine government," but rather a "three-engine government" involving the central, state, and local levels working together to drive economic growth.
In short, India's decade of vulnerability requires a prime minister fully committed to addressing domestic and international threats and challenges. He cannot be distracted by narrow political interests.
About the Author:
R. Jagannathan, former editor-in-chief of the right-wing Indian magazine Swarajya
This article is translated from an article published in The Print on June 17, 2025, titled "India faces its most dangerous decade while Modi is wasting his political capital on elections". Original link:
https://theprint.in/opinion/india-decade-of-vulnerability-political-consensus-modi/2659034/。
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7557025507880010278/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.