Context: The article highlights the growing tendency to use political disruptions as a substitute for constructive debate and governance, arguing that the greatest damage is borne by the younger generation.
- Democratic concern: Genuine protests against injustice are essential to democracy, but deliberately manufactured disruptions to obstruct legislation or governance undermine democratic accountability.
- Key question: Whether India's next generation will prioritise governance outcomes, institutional accountability and development over political noise.
Political Disruption versus Democratic Protest
- Legitimate protest: Citizens have a constitutional and democratic right to challenge government decisions and raise grievances against injustice.
- Manufactured disruption: Deliberately creating crises, disrupting Parliament and blocking highways as political pressure tactics without presenting constructive alternatives weakens democratic functioning.
- Erosion of accountability: When political success is measured by the ability to create disruption rather than offer alternative policies, substantive debate and governance take a back seat.
- Impact on youth: Such political culture can create cynicism among young citizens, discouraging political participation and weakening their willingness to hold elected representatives accountable.
Governance: India Before and After 2014
- Pre-2014 governance concerns: The article characterises the 2004–2014 period as a phase when political connections, rather than merit and capability, often influenced contracts, investment and access to economic opportunities.
- Crony capitalism: A 2012 Credit Suisse report highlighted the concentration of bank borrowing among 10 major business groups, whose borrowings were equivalent to approximately 98% of the net worth of the Indian banking system.
- Leakages in welfare delivery: A former Prime Minister acknowledged that less than 15 paise of every welfare rupee reached its intended beneficiary, highlighting inefficiencies and intermediary leakages.
- Post-2014 governance approach: The article argues that governance has increasingly focused on direct benefit delivery, reducing intermediaries, infrastructure creation and merit-based economic opportunities.
JAM Trinity and Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)
- JAM Trinity: Integration of Jan Dhan bank accounts, Aadhaar and Mobile connectivity to improve financial inclusion and welfare delivery.
- Direct Benefit Transfer: Enables government benefits and subsidies to be transferred directly into beneficiaries' bank accounts, reducing intermediaries and leakages.
- Financial transfers: More than ₹53 lakh crore has reportedly been transferred directly to citizens' bank accounts since 2014.
- Governance significance: JAM represents the use of digital infrastructure to improve transparency, accountability and efficiency in public service delivery.
Poverty Reduction and Welfare Delivery
- Multidimensional poverty: According to NITI Aayog data cited in the article, nearly 250 million Indians were lifted out of multidimensional poverty over nine years.
- Poverty estimates: The proportion of India's population classified as multidimensionally poor declined from 29.17% in 2013–14 to 11.28% in 2022–23.
- PM-KISAN: Approximately ₹4.47 lakh crore has been transferred to farmers, including nearly 95 million beneficiaries in the latest instalment mentioned in the article.
- Long-term impact: Effective welfare delivery can improve household economic security, reduce dependence on intermediaries and enhance the dignity and autonomy of beneficiaries.
State-Level Governance: Contrasting Development Outcomes
- UttarPradesh:
- The article highlights its transformation from a BIMARU State into a ₹36 lakh crore economy over nine years.
- It cites revenue surplus, improved investor confidence and the elimination of riots as indicators of governance performance.
- Maharashtra:
- Emerged as India's leading destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
- Accounted for more than half of India's FDI inflows in a single quarter, according to the article.
- Karnataka:
- Government borrowings reportedly increased from ₹90,280 crore to ₹1.04 lakh crore in a single year.
- Approximately ₹52,000 crore was allocated towards guarantee schemes.
- The article argues that expenditure on guarantees has crowded out capital formation and infrastructure investment.
- Kerala:
- A White Paper tabled in June 2026 reportedly documented ₹5.07 lakh crore in debt accumulated over a decade of Left governance.
- The State remained in RBI overdraft for 84 days in 2025.
- Capital expenditure stood at 1.3% of GSDP, less than half the national average.
- Underlying concern: Excessive borrowing and revenue expenditure can constrain future infrastructure investment and reduce the resources available for long-term economic development.
Revenue Expenditure versus Capital Expenditure
- Revenue expenditure: Government spending that generally does not create physical assets, such as salaries, pensions, subsidies and recurring welfare payments.
- Capital expenditure: Spending that creates assets or reduces liabilities, including roads, bridges, hospitals, irrigation facilities and industrial infrastructure.
- Economic significance: Capital expenditure creates productive capacity, improves connectivity, attracts private investment and generates long-term employment.
- Fiscal concern: Excessive borrowing to finance recurring expenditure can increase debt obligations and crowd out productive public investment.
Governance and Opportunities for the Younger Generation
- Merit-based opportunities: Transparent governance allows individuals to access contracts, employment and economic opportunities based on their skills, ideas and capabilities rather than political connections.
- Infrastructure development: Roads, hospitals, industrial parks and other public assets create opportunities for entrepreneurship, employment and regional development.
- Economic mobility: Effective welfare delivery and poverty reduction can improve the ability of disadvantaged households to access education, healthcare and economic opportunities.
- Intergenerational equity: Excessive public borrowing and inadequate capital formation can transfer fiscal burdens to future generations while leaving them with insufficient productive infrastructure.
- Democratic participation: Young citizens must evaluate governments based on measurable governance outcomes and hold political representatives accountable.
Way Forward
- Constructive democratic debate: Political parties should prioritise parliamentary discussion, policy alternatives and institutional accountability over deliberate disruptions.
- Fiscal prudence: States must balance welfare commitments with productive capital expenditure and sustainable borrowing.
- Transparent governance: Strengthen digital delivery systems, financial accountability and institutional mechanisms to minimise corruption and leakages.
- Outcome-based assessment: Evaluate governments through measurable indicators such as employment generation, infrastructure creation, poverty reduction and quality of public services.
- Youth participation: Encourage informed political participation and civic awareness among young citizens.
Conclusion: The quality of democracy depends not merely on the intensity of political contestation but also on the ability of governments to deliver public welfare, create productive assets and expand opportunities. Governance that is transparent, accountable and development-oriented is essential to ensuring that the next generation inherits greater opportunities rather than accumulated economic and institutional liabilities.
