akrishnarao

Tag: Viksit Bharat

  • Beyond Slogans: The Structural Gaps Threatening India’s 2047 Aspiration

    As Parliament remains caught in political confrontation over issues ranging from the Indo-US trade deal to federal fiscal transfers, the Standing Committee on Finance has quietly presented a detailed roadmap for achieving the ambitious goal of Viksit Bharat 2047. In its Twenty-Ninth Report (2025–26), the Committee delivers a sobering assessment: India’s reform story is no longer constrained by policy imagination but by the depth and quality of implementation. The timing of this intervention is significant. With state elections scheduled in 2027 and general elections in 2029, the current budget cycle may represent a narrowing window for politically difficult structural decisions before electoral considerations begin to shape fiscal policy more decisively.

    The Committee identifies three interlinked structural risks that could undermine India’s long-term growth trajectory. First is the persistent implementation lag—administrative capacity at various levels of government continues to trail policy ambition. Reforms are announced with clarity, yet execution remains uneven across states and sectors. Second, India’s growth model remains heavily credit-driven. While lending has expanded, equity capital, technological upgrading, and productivity-enhancing reforms have not kept pace. Third, federal capacity gaps threaten to dilute national reform gains, as state-level disparities in regulatory quality and institutional strength create uneven investment climates.

    To achieve high-income status by 2047, India would need to sustain annual growth of around 8 percent for at least a decade. That objective requires raising the investment rate from roughly 31 percent to nearly 35 percent of GDP. Yet private capital formation has slowed considerably, with its share in total fixed investment declining from over 40 percent in 2015–16 to about 33 percent in 2023–24. Government infrastructure spending has remained robust, but manufacturing capital expenditure continues to lag. The Committee’s message is clear: fiscal stability is not the principal constraint; the revival of private investment is. That revival depends on deeper financial sector reforms, faster judicial enforcement, regulatory harmonization across states, and a more predictable business environment.

    Food inflation volatility poses another macroeconomic risk. The Committee stresses that stabilizing prices requires stronger agricultural supply chains, expanded cold storage networks, and deeper digital market linkages for farmers. Without supply-side strengthening, inflation shocks could erode real incomes and dampen domestic demand. At the same time, accelerating investment could widen the current account deficit, underscoring the need for domestic demand-led growth and deregulation that enhances export competitiveness without compromising macroeconomic stability.

    Progress on disinvestment has also been slower than anticipated. The Committee calls for concrete timelines and incentive-based frameworks to encourage reform of state-level public sector undertakings. Credibility in execution, rather than repeated announcements, will shape investor confidence. Similarly, in the MSME sector, inadequate risk capital remains a structural constraint. The Self-Reliant India (SRI) Fund has attempted to provide equity-like financing, but uptake has been limited by legal structures, small ticket sizes, and information asymmetries. Expanding credit alone, the Committee warns, will not yield productivity gains unless firms adopt technology upgrades and integrate into larger supply chains.

    Labour market reforms occupy a central place in the roadmap. The Committee advocates establishing a centralized Labour Market Information System to bridge mismatches between job supply and demand. It recommends benchmarking India’s labour force participation rate against advanced economies and upgrading Industrial Training Institutes in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. With artificial intelligence reshaping global employment patterns, curricula must become modular, industry-co-designed, and multilingual to address widening digital divides. The emphasis is on agility and employability rather than scale alone.

    Innovation remains another area of concern. India’s R&D expenditure, at just 0.65 percent of GDP, is far below the global average of 2.7 percent. The Committee cautions that increased funding by itself will not deliver results unless accompanied by stronger intellectual property enforcement, faster patent processing, dedicated commercial courts, and deeper industry–academia linkages. Translating research into commercially viable innovation requires institutional reform as much as financial commitment.

    India’s digital public infrastructure has transformed governance delivery, yet the Committee notes that digitalization must move beyond registration metrics toward measurable income and productivity outcomes. The proposal for an indigenous government-owned AI server reflects concerns over data sovereignty and strategic autonomy, but its true test will lie in whether it enhances productivity across sectors rather than remaining a symbolic asset.

    In an era marked by global fragmentation and shifting supply chains, India’s growth advantage rests on macroeconomic stability and the strength of its domestic demand base. However, the Committee’s overarching message is that the next phase of economic transformation will depend less on new policy articulation and more on execution discipline, institutional strengthening, and sustained private-sector dynamism. As political debates continue to dominate the parliamentary landscape, the roadmap offers a quieter but enduring reminder: achieving Viksit Bharat 2047 will hinge not on reform announcements, but on reform credibility and productivity-led growth.

  • In Search of Lost Standards

    “Lok Sabha’s first Speaker G.V. Mavalankar, the second Speaker Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, and the first Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Vice President Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan had a profound influence on the functioning of parliamentary institutions. They conducted themselves with dignity and impartiality while framing rules, procedures, conventions, and practices. Even though the Jana Sangh had no representation in the Rajya Sabha, I used to watch the proceedings from the visitors’ gallery. It was because of them that I had the opportunity to learn about Question Hour, adjournment motions, bills and resolutions, standing committees, calling attention notices, members’ privileges, and many other aspects. Eminent leaders sitting on the opposition benches spoke with as much eloquence as those on the treasury benches. The Speaker acted as an honest guardian of the rights of the opposition. It was because of these noble traditions that Indian democracy withstood many tests and maintained its international reputation.”

    These words were written by none other than Lal Krishna Advani, one of the founders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, in his autobiography My Country–My Life, describing the parliamentary standards of earlier times.

    Standards endure only when individuals uphold them. If individuals sacrifice standards for personal interests, no standards remain worth citing as examples. If declining social standards enter Parliament, the current functioning of legislatures is proof of what happens. “Guide us. If we go astray, correct us if necessary. Advise us. Scrutinize our conduct,” India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru requested the first Lok Sabha Speaker G.V. Mavalankar. Mavalankar acted accordingly. Whenever serious differences arose, the Prime Minister and the Speaker would consult and resolve them. On one occasion, there was an argument between Nehru and Mavalankar in the House. Nehru wanted to make a second statement the same day, but Mavalankar clarified that it was against the rules. Nehru accepted and withdrew.

    Mavalankar strongly opposed the frequent promulgation of ordinances. He insisted they should be issued only in rare emergencies and that laws must be made in Parliament. He even wrote to the Prime Minister on this matter. If any legal doubt arose, he personally consulted the Attorney General, asserting that the Speaker must function like a judge. Nehru accorded him equal respect. When officials complained to Nehru that parliamentary committees were subjecting their decisions to excessive scrutiny, Nehru replied that it was not within his domain and advised them to approach the Speaker. Many rules framed by Mavalankar remain in force even today. The first Lok Sabha Secretary-General Shakdher described him as a Speaker who maintained balance between the ruling and opposition parties, conducted the House efficiently, and safeguarded public interest. It is noteworthy that Mavalankar, who insisted that Parliament must remain independent of government control, was elected from Gujarat.

    After Mavalankar’s death, Ananthasayanam Ayyangar followed the same path. Born into a Vaishnava Brahmin family in Tiruchanur near Tirupati, he conducted the Lok Sabha impartially. He once stated: “Under a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, citizens’ lives and freedoms have no protection. If the dictator is benevolent, people may live well. But even in a democracy, there is a danger that dominant groups may behave dictatorially and suppress those in smaller numbers. The only person who can firmly control such tendencies and protect minority interests in the House is the Speaker.” He remarked that there were no greater orators than Hiren Mukherjee (CPI) in English and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Jana Sangh) in Hindi. Even without formal recognition of an Opposition Leader due to inadequate numbers, Ayyangar gave full respect and opportunity to opposition members. In the second Lok Sabha, both ruling and opposition members unanimously proposed his re-election as Speaker — a testimony to the standards he upheld. In 1972, when a Dalit Christian candidate contested from Tirupati, Ayyangar campaigned to support him at Congress’s request, responding to critics by saying, “Secularism is embedded within Vishishtadvaita.” This was later revealed by former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.

    After Mavalankar, Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh admitted no-confidence motions against Nehru’s government, declaring that Parliament held supremacy over the government. His successor Neelam Sanjiva Reddy allowed a discussion on a no-confidence motion on the very day the President addressed both Houses. During his tenure, the first parliamentary committee on the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was formed.

    Gradually, parliamentary standards began to decline from 4th Lok Sabha. During the Emergency, parliamentary proceedings were censored in unprecedented ways, yet the presiding officers remained silent. Indira Gandhi forced G.S. Dhillon to resign as Speaker and appointed him Shipping Minister the same day. After the Emergency, Speakers such as K.S. Hegde, Balram Jakhar, Rabi Ray, Shivraj Patil, P.A. Sangma, Balayogi, Manohar Joshi, and Somnath Chatterjee each tried in their own way to uphold the dignity of the office. Balayogi, the first Dalit and first Speaker from a regional party, maintained such neutrality that during his tenure the Vajpayee government fell by just one vote. Later, during the tenures of women Speakers Meira Kumar and Sumitra Mahajan, frequent disruptions occurred. The Telangana movement made Meira Kumar’s tenure extremely difficult, while increasing confrontation between ruling and opposition parties during Narendra Modi’s premiership placed Sumitra Mahajan in a challenging position. Since then, tensions have intensified, and Speaker Om Birla too has found himself in a helpless situation over the past six years, with parliamentary standards steadily declining.

    Recently, opposition parties moved a no-confidence motion against Om Birla for not allowing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to speak — a sign of the deteriorating condition of Indian democracy. If a discussion had been allowed on former Army General Naravane’s book on the India–China conflict, and if the government had responded, people would have had the opportunity to assess the facts. Instead, opposition parties stalled Parliament. Sessions ended without full discussions on the President’s Address or the Budget, and without the Prime Minister speaking in the Lok Sabha. Furthermore, the Speaker himself claimed he had information that women MPs were planning to attack Modi — an unusual development. In reality, both government and opposition are responsible for failing to show flexibility and for using Parliament as a political arena. In an atmosphere where mutual respect is absent, no one expects the Speaker to remain impartial. As a result, the office of the Speaker too appears to be losing its dignity.

    “The Speaker represents the entire House. He reflects its dignity and freedom. Since the House represents the nation, the Speaker becomes a symbol of freedom in the country. It is therefore a position of great honor. Only individuals of the highest competence and impartiality should occupy it,” said Nehru. But it is impossible to compare those days with the present. Those in power then sought to set standards themselves and serve as role models for future generations. At a time when the country aspires toward a ‘Viksit Bharat’ (Developed India), leaders must internally deliberate on preserving parliamentary democratic standards within a defined timeframe.