The Shailesh Haribhakti Doctrine: Reimagining India's development beyond Nehru's legacy for sustainable abundance
Drawing on Arvind Panagariya's critique of the Nehru Development Model, this article proposes the 'Shailesh Haribhakti Doctrine' as a forward-looking framework for India's economic transformation. It synthesises liberalisation lessons with ambitious targets for a $5 trillion economy by 2030, AI-driven innovation, and sustainable abundance through renewables, green mobility, circularity, net zero pathways, and biodiversity leadership. Structured in yearly measurable outcomes up to 2035, the doctrine aligns with Government of India (GoI) commitments, including 500 GW non-fossil capacity by 2030 and net zero by 2070. By pivoting from state-heavy planning to market-led, tech-convergent growth, it addresses workforce disruptions while fostering political consensus for deregulation and global integration. Implications for equity, federalism, and soft power are explored, positioning India as a sustainability exemplar.
Introduction
India's post-independence economic trajectory has long been shadowed by the Nehru Development Model, characterised by state-led industrialisation, protectionism, and bureaucratic controls. Arvind Panagariya's seminal work, The Nehru Development Model (2024), dissects this legacy, arguing that Nehru's socialist inclinations—drawn from Fabian influences and Soviet planning—prioritised heavy industries at the expense of efficiency, exports, and private enterprise. While crediting Nehru for democratic foundations, Panagariya highlights how the licence-permit raj stifled growth until the 1991 reforms unleashed market forces.
As India stands at the cusp of Viksit Bharat by 2047, the arc of progress demands acceleration beyond liberalisation. This article synthesises Panagariya's insights with a visionary doctrine named after the author, the Shailesh Haribhakti Doctrine. It charts a decade-long trajectory incorporating AI resilience, sectoral modernisation, digital public infrastructure (DPI), and exponential technologies, while embedding 'sustainable abundance'—a concept of limitless clean resources via renewables, circular economies, and biodiversity restoration. Drawing from GoI sources like NITI Aayog, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the doctrine cascades in three-year phases with yearly OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), adaptable to technological breakthroughs. This framework not only targets a $5 trillion economy by 2030 but also aligns with net zero by 2070, ensuring equitable, resilient growth.
Critiquing the Nehru Development Model
Panagariya's book structures its critique in three parts: origins, implementation, and aftermath. Nehru's model, influenced by his 1927 USSR visit and Harold Laski's socialism, manifested in five-year plans that funnelled resources into capital-intensive public sector units (PSUs), often ignoring comparative advantages in labour-intensive exports. Protectionist tariffs and quotas bred inefficiencies, with growth averaging a mere 3.5% annually from 1950 to 1980—the infamous 'Hindu rate.'
Post-Nehru, these policies persisted, delaying reforms until the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis. Panagariya quantifies the costs: India's per capita income lagged behind East Asian tigers by factors of 10 by 1990. Yet, the model entrenched welfarism and state dominance, evident in today's subsidies and PSUs. The doctrine counters this by advocating deregulation, tariff-free zones, and private R&D at 6% of GDP, echoing Panagariya's call for market-oriented correctives.
Envisioning India's trajectory in the next decade
Building on liberalisation's 'arc of progress,' India's path must integrate 15 key pillars: achieving $5 trillion GDP by 2030; reskilling for AI/RPA disruptions; modernising agriculture via natural farming and high-value crops; expanding services through global capability centres (GCCs) and generative AI; leading in quantum-safe cybersecurity; converging exponential technologies; establishing liberal trade zones; leveraging DPI for services like payments and senior concierge; providing free economic data; deploying AI mentors for health/education with DNA mapping and data privacy commons; democratising AR/VR for entertainment/learning; targeting 6% R&D spend; scaling soft power via Yoga/Ayurveda; advancing defence systems; and emerging as a sustainability leader.
This trajectory addresses Nehru-era blind spots—over-regulation and inward focus—by emphasising exports, innovation, and human capital. For instance, AI threats to a 'pampered workforce' necessitate reskilling 50% by 2028, while agriculture shifts to multi-cropping for value addition, boosting rural GDP by 20% annually. Services, already 55% of GDP, could capture 20% global AI market share via code rewriting. DPI expansions, per NITI Aayog, will universalise access, reducing inequality.
The Shailesh Haribhakti Doctrine: A phased roadmap
The doctrine operationalises this vision in three-year cascades from 2025, with yearly OKRs interpolated from GoI targets. Acceleration provisions allow 6-12 month advances for breakthroughs like affordable green hydrogen. It draws from MNRE's 500 GW non-fossil goal by 2030, NDCs' 45% emissions intensity reduction, and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)'s 23 targets.
2025-2028: Foundation building
2025: Establish baselines; 235 GW RE capacity (MNRE data); 5 million EVs (FAME scheme); 20% EPR compliance; 5% emissions intensity cut; restore 1 million hectares.
2026: 260 GW RE; 8 million EVs; 30% plastic waste reduction; 10% Scope 2 cuts; conserve 5 species.
2026: 260 GW RE; 8 million EVs; 30% plastic waste reduction; 10% Scope 2 cuts; conserve 5 species. 2027: 290 GW RE; 12 million EVs; 25% e-waste recycling; 10% overall emissions reduction; 27% protected land.
2028: 320 GW RE; 16 million EVs; 35% waste circularity; 15% intensity cut; restore 3 million hectares.
Focus: Workforce reskilling to 50%; pilot DPI concierge; launch quantum encryption.
2028-2031: Sector acceleration
2029: 360 GW RE; 20 million EVs; 45% recycling; 20% emissions reduction; 29% protected areas.
2030: 500 GW non-fossil (NDCs); 50 million EVs; 55% circular adoption; 45% intensity reduction; restore 5 million hectares.
2031: 550 GW RE; 60 million EVs; 60% recycling; 25% overall cuts; 31% protected land.
Focus: $5 trillion GDP; full AI mentors; converge technologies in defence.
2031-2034: Global leadership
2032: 600 GW RE; 70 million EVs; 65% waste reduction; 28% emissions cuts; restore 7 million hectares.
2033: 650 GW RE; 80 million EVs; 70% circularity; 30% reductions; 33% protected.
2034: 700 GW RE; 90 million EVs; 75% recycling; 32% cuts; 34% protected.
Focus: Soft power exports; net zero pilots in power/transport.
2034-2035: Sustained Innovation
2035: 750 GW RE (80% mix); 100 million EVs; 80% circularity; 35% emissions reduction; 35% protected land, meeting NBSAP fully.
Annual reviews by a GoI-tech council ensure adaptability.
Integrating sustainable abundance
The doctrine embeds 'sustainable abundance' across sectors. Power pivots to 100% renewables by 2040, per National Green Hydrogen Mission, enabling abundant grids via solar/wind (1,200 GW solar target by 2047, PIB 2024). Mobility becomes a green service through EV-based Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), targeting 30% penetration by 2030 (NEMMP). Circularity is ubiquitous via Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and National Resource Efficiency Policy (NREP), saving $300 billion by 2035 (NITI Aayog estimates). Net zero aligns with Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), focusing Scope 1-2 emissions, with 2.5-3 Bt CO2e carbon sinks by 2030 (MoEFCC). Biodiversity leadership positions India as a global model, expanding protected areas to 35% by 2035 and leading Kunming-Montreal Framework initiatives.
Sharp insights: Renewables will cut energy imports by 50%, fostering abundance; circularity in agriculture (e.g., bio-CNG) boosts farmer incomes 30%; net zero pathways, per India's LT-LEDS (2022), require $10 trillion investments, catalysed by climate finance taxonomy (DEA 2025).
Economic and political implications
Economically, the doctrine promises 8%+ annual growth, diversifying from Nehru's PSU reliance to private-led innovation. Politically, it demands federal consensus for trade zones and data sharing, potentially straining centre-state relations but enhancing equity via DPI. AI disruptions risk unemployment, necessitating universal basic services; soft power via Ayurveda could yield $50 billion exports. Challenges include funding (6% R&D requires public-private partnerships) and geopolitics (quantum defence amid US-China tensions). Success hinges on deregulation, echoing 1991, to avoid Nehru-era stagnation.
The Shailesh Haribhakti Doctrine transcends the Nehru model's pitfalls, forging a path to sustainable abundance. By 2035, India could lead in renewables, biodiversity, and tech convergence, achieving net zero milestones en route to 2070. This requires bold political will, but the rewards—equitable prosperity and global stature—are profound. As Panagariya notes, progress demands unlearning old models; this doctrine provides the blueprint.
References
Panagariya, Arvind (2024). The Nehru Development Model. Columbia University Press.
Government of India (2022). India's Long-Term Low-Emission Development Strategy. MoEFCC.
NITI Aayog (2023). India Energy Security Scenarios 2047.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (2024). Renewable Energy Roadmap. MNRE.
Press Information Bureau (2024). 'Year-End Review: Environment and Climate Change.' PIB.
Department of Economic Affairs (2025). Framework of India's Climate Finance Taxonomy. DEA.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Opinion: Moving Nuclear Submarines Isn't Something To Announce On Social Media
Over the last week, two political leaders have exchanged barbs underlining the powerful nuclear arsenals of their respective nations. It was not just a pointless demonstration of bravado - it also showed that careless words and vague military threats can move the world closer to a disastrous conflict. The first to lash out was Dimitry Medvedev, a former president and prime minister of Russia, who now serves as deputy chair of President Vladimir Putin's security council. In a social media post on July 28, he said a US ultimatum for Moscow to come to the negotiating table over Ukraine was a "threat and a step towards war." Later, he alluded to Russia's "dead hand" nuclear launch system, which automatically fires a nuclear strike if the nation is attacked with such weapons. President Donald Trump responded to Medvedev's comments by saying he had ordered two nuclear submarines "to be positioned in the appropriate regions." He concluded by saying, correctly, that "words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances." (On Monday, a Kremlin spokesman warned against "nuclear rhetoric.") Between them, the US and Russia have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. How dangerous is this war of words between the Kremlin and the White House? And what is the significance of Trump claiming to have moved nuclear submarines to new stations? I'm not a submariner - or a "bubblehead," as they are known (more-or-less affectionately) in the Navy. But I've commanded them in combat as a commodore and a rear admiral, directed the launch of their conventional Tomahawk missiles at terrorist targets in Africa and Asia, and sailed in them from time to time. I like to say these formidable warships are the apex predators of the ocean. And their locations are always kept secret. As an anti-submarine-warfare officer for three years on a destroyer early in my career, I hunted both Soviet and Chinese subs and, in exercises, American boats. ("Boats" is the colloquial term for submarines, whereas surface combatants are "ships.") We like to think of our destroyers as the greyhounds of the sea, and lethal to submarines; but truth be told, more often than not we ended up the target rather than the hunter in those drills against US boats. The US operates three types of nuclear-powered submarines, each posing a different level of threat to Russia. It is unclear which of the three types Trump claimed to have moved around; all US nuclear subs are capable of clandestine operations throughout the world's oceans. First, and by far the deadliest, are huge ballistic-missile boats: Ohio class SSBNs, which displace 20,000 tons when fully submerged. The Navy has 14 of these killer whales, each capable of carrying 24 Trident II nuclear-tipped missiles with ranges exceeding 4,000 miles. The missiles are in vertical tubes at the center of the boat, and the crew of 150 officers and enlisted men and women call that part of the warship "Sherwood Forest" - a stand of lethal tree trunks. While more than half the Ohio class are usually on patrol, it seems unlikely that Trump would have ordered changes to their movements given the extraordinary range of their missiles. The second big group of nuclear-powered submarines is the attack boats, or SSNs. The US currently operates three classes - Los Angeles, Seawolf and Virginia - totaling just over 50 warships. These are multi-mission platforms: they can hunt enemy submarines; launch long-range Tomahawk missiles at land targets with pinpoint accuracy; gather intelligence covertly; and sink enemy military and civilian surface ships. The three classes vary in size from 7,000 to 9,000 tons and their weapons and sensors vary - but all are deadly and very difficult to find through acoustic surveillance. I was glad to have two of them loosely assigned to my strike group in the early 2000s. Finally, four Ohio-class behemoths have been converted to carry more than 150 Tomahawk land-attack missiles in the tubes that formerly held ballistic missiles. These are favored by combatant commanders because of the big load of missiles, which constitute a strike group's main battery. Since the Tomahawk's range is about 1,500 miles, these would probably be the boats Trump moved, presumably closer to Russia. He may have designated the commander of US European Command, my old position, as the operational commander. These missiles could hold at risk Russian command-and-control nodes, supply routes, and military targets. That said, I've met Medvedev, and he is not a serious player in Putin's universe despite his political resume. Trump should ignore his erratic commentary and focus on putting pressure directly on the Russian economy. For that, the best weapons are not "haze grey and underway," as we say of the subs. They are economic tools, especially secondary sanctions applied to Russian oil customers, and the confiscation of Russian funds frozen in Western banks. As tempting as it is to move nuclear submarines around, the means to bring Putin to the table aren't America's killers of the deep.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Russia's Rybachiy submarine base suffers damage after massive quake last week: Report
A massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula last week appears to have damaged part of a key nuclear submarine base, the New York Times reported, citing the before and after satellite images. Russia's Rybachiy nuclear submarine base lies near the epicentre of the 8.8 magnitude Kamchatka quake, raising concerns about its resilience.(File Photo/AP) The Rybachiy submarine base used by Russia's Pacific Fleet is located on the remote Far East coast of Russia, merely 80 miles (about 120 kilometres) away from the epicentre of the July 30 earthquake. The satellite imagery of the nuclear submarine base showed visible damage to one of its floating piers, The New York Times reported citing commercial satellite photos taken by Planet Labs. The imagery showed that one segment of the pier appears to have detached from its anchor point. From the satellite perspective, the structure looks disjointed, with visible misalignment compared to its earlier state. However, the rest of the facility, including five submarines and several other vessels, appeared undamaged and securely moored. According to the NYT, international nuclear monitoring agencies reported normal radiation levels in the vicinity. Hindustan Times could not independently verify the authenticity of the claim in the report. By the time this report was filed, Russian authorities had not officially confirmed the damage. Base located close to epicentre The Rybachiy base, built during the Soviet era, is a strategically important site for Russia's naval operations in the Pacific. It has been the subject of recent military upgrades, including the installation of two new floating piers since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Earlier, The Metro reported that the base's proximity to the epicentre has alarmed military analysts and sparked questions about the facility's long-term resilience to extreme seismic events. Russia quake aftermath Despite the earthquake's powerful 8.8 magnitude, no fatalities or major injuries were reported in the Kamchatka Peninsula. The nearby city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, which shares a bay with the Rybachiy submarine base, sustained only minor damage. Tsunami warnings were sounded across the Pacific, including in French Polynesia and Chile, but the waves remained offshore and did not reach the city centre. The surrounding Kamchatka region also saw volcanic activity and multiple aftershocks in the days following the quake with a magnitude 5.0 earthquake hitting approximately 108 kilometres southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy on Tuesday. The Rybachiy base is believed to host some of Russia's most powerful nuclear-powered submarines, including the Alexander Nevsky, Vladimir Monomakh, and K-44 Ryazan. Access to the base and the surrounding town of Rybachiy is tightly restricted due to its strategic importance.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Russia earthquake: Powerful July quake appears to damage Russian nuclear submarine base- Here's what report said
A powerful earthquake with a magnitude of 8.8 that struck Russia's Far East last month seems to have damaged the Russian nuclear submarine base, according to the New York Times, citing satellite imagery 'Planet Labs,' a commercial satellite imaging firm, from Sunday showed damage to a floating pier at the Rybachiy submarine base, a crucial Pacific Fleet installation on the Kamchatka peninsula. One pier section had become disconnected from its moorings. The facility appeared largely intact, with five submarines and other vessels safely moored nearby. Neither Russian officials nor media have addressed the damage, whilst international nuclear monitoring organisations report normal radiation levels in the vicinity. The base has undergone recent upgrades, with two new floating piers installed since Russia's 2022 Ukraine invasion, according to military sources. Constructed during the Soviet era, the base's location in a sheltered cove provides natural protection from severe maritime conditions. Whilst most piers remain functional, tsunami waves from the earthquake affected one structure. The Conflict Intelligence Team told "The New York Times" that "This is unlikely to affect the battle readiness of the base -- and repairs for the pier are probably not going to be costly." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cardiologist: This Is The #1 Olive Oil You Should Be Drinking Olive Oil SuperFoods Learn More Undo On July 30, an 8.8 magnitude earthquake struck the region, generating substantial tsunami waves along the Pacific Coast and triggering worldwide alerts. The epicentre was approximately 80 miles from Rybachiy. The base shares its bay with Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, which sustained minimal damage. Whilst tsunami waves were observed offshore, they did not reach the city centre. Both the submarine base and Rybachiy town maintain strict security protocols limiting public access. Following Ukrainian drone strikes on distant targets including an eastern Siberian airfield, Russia relocated certain military assets eastward this summer. The Kamchatka region experienced multiple seismic events last week, including a significant earthquake, subsequent aftershocks and volcanic activity.
