India has entered a 25-year phase which the Prime Minister has named Amrit Kaal, an astrological term. He said in 2021 that “the journey of next 25 years is Amrit Kaal of a new India and “the fulfillment of our resolutions in this Amrit Kaal will take us till 100 years of Independence”. What are the outcomes expected in or by 2047, when Amrit Kaal ends? External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar revealed this when he summed up Modi’s August 15 speech. He tweeted: “PM @narendramodi set out 5 commitments for New India as it heads towards its Independence centenary:
1. An India that is developed.
2. An India free of colonial mindset.
3. An India proud of its heritage.
4. An India united & integrated.
5. An India whose citizens put duty above all.
Let us examine these. To become ‘developed’ India must boost its per capita income. To what extent? There is no definition of a developed nation and the world’s average per capita income according to the World Bank is over $12,000. The US is $70,000, the UK just under $50,000, Singapore is over $70,000, Japan about $40,000 and Korea $35,000. These are exceptional nations and we should lower our sights. Let us say that a ‘developed’ nation is one with a per capita income of $25,000. India is currently at $2200. It has taken us 12 years to double our per capita income from $1100 in 2009 to where we are today and 12 years is also our historical average for doubling per capita income since 1960. At this rate in the 25 years to the end of Amrit Kaal we will be at around $8800. We will not be halfway to being a ‘developed’ nation and in fact a quarter century from now we will still be behind where China is today ($12,500). By 2047 our ‘demographic dividend’ would also have fully evaporated. Before Covid, India’s GDP growth had begun to slow and for 9 quarters between January 2018 and March 2020, there was a sequential dip. Something has to change for this to be turned around, but it is not clear that we know what the problem is or what is to be done to fix it. Such things are no longer discussed in India.
The second outcome is that India should be free of its colonial mindset. We can remedy this if we can agree on what colonial mindset is. Some are relatively easy to do — such as abolishing English from education and govt, enforcing dress codes, renaming roads, govt positions and institutions and fictionalising history, all of which we have done. Other things — getting rid of the railways (as Gandhi once wanted), replacing the constitution with some form of religious doctrine and replacing Macaulay’s Penal Code — might prove difficult. Pakistan has tried and failed to do the latter two things.
One problem is the lack of definition. Mere assertion that we have a colonial mindset somehow means it exists, that it is understood by all or most what this mindset is, and it is understood also what remedying it means. This is not the case of course. Given this vagueness, it will not be fixed, either at the end of Amrit Kaal or ever.
The third outcome is that we should be proud of our heritage. This assumes that currently we are not proud. It also assumes that there is agreement on what heritage means. Is the Taj Mahal our heritage? Is the Victoria Memorial our heritage? Are mutton biryani, qawwali, Deobandi scholarship, Naga pork curry and Urdu poetry our heritage? If the answer is mostly no, as appears to be the case from the tone and thrust of India’s ruling party, then it is not a question of taking pride in our heritage. The task is then to reject parts of our heritage, perhaps violently, so that we can be proud only of what remains. Again, this is not going to happen and so this outcome will remain unfulfilled.
A united India is a function in many ways of what the State does. Unlike some of the other outcomes on this list, the State has genuine agency here and can act effectively. There are two ways in which this can be examined. The first is cartographically. The second is through India’s people and federalism. The interest of the BJP and its sister organisations has been on the integrity of the anthropomorphic idea of nation (‘Bharat Mata’). It has not been very much on the people, especially minorities, and we have seen what the BJP thinks of federalism. The BJP/Jana Sangh has been suspicious of constitutional federalism and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya wanted the states to be abolished.
The BJP is unlikely to leave behind an India more united. It is likely that if the BJP remains in power for most of the time to 2047, things will deteriorate on this front.
The last outcome sought to be achieved is that citizens be forced to put “duty above all”. What are these duties? We are told this by Article 51A in the Constitution. A few are easy to enforce: for instance, respect flag and anthem. Most are vague: “cherish noble ideals”; “strive towards excellence”; “preserve rich heritage”. Some run antithetical to Hindutva ideology: “promote harmony”; “develop scientific temper” and so on. It is not that difficult to see that none of this is going to happen.
Jaishankar followed up his summation of the five outcomes by saying that “India’s foreign policy in future will fully reflect these (five) commitments”. How would this happen and what would he change to current foreign policy to align with these outcomes? How would it materially show? This he did not say. Jaishankar will look at that list and see it for what it is. Economically, it is the kicking down the road of the can of ‘development’. It is abdication of any responsibility to discuss the present condition. The rest of it is meaningless but in our part of the world if something is said with passion and earnestness, it becomes wisdom.
(Aakar Patel is a writer and columnist)
