
India's decade of vulnerability: Modi must build consensus
Russia will remain in China's suffocating embrace as long as the Ukraine war continues, and the US, under Donald Trump's transactional, sound-byte-led politics, is deeply divided and unlikely to be a reliable friend to anybody, leave alone India.
Thanks to a downward spiralling global order, India faces a decade of economic and security vulnerability. The China-Pakistan revisionist front is now a much bigger threat, and Bangladesh could join this anti-India alliance, either covertly or overtly, after the next general elections.
India's vulnerabilities
One, unlike post-war Europe, Japan, the Asian tigers, and China, which became economic powerhouses with the blessings of the US, India will not have any of that advantage. In fact, both the US and China will do many things to slow down India's growth and rise in global stature. Until we become a $10 trillion economy, and generate lots of quality jobs, we will be both internally and externally under pressure. However, reaching $10 trillion may take us a decade, if not more, even under the best of circumstances.
Two, while our defence capabilities are improving and increasingly based on internal capabilities, high-tech war-making machines like the AMCA (advanced medium combat aircraft with stealth capabilities), may take 10 years to develop and deploy, not to speak of warships and nuclear submarines to guard the Indian Ocean Region. And that is an optimistic scenario. But China is accelerating the rearming of Pakistan with stealth fighters—leaving us vulnerable in the short-term.
The purpose here is to not just emphasise the challenges, but make a broader point on how they can be overcome by sheer political will: India cannot do this without greater political consensus. Without consensus, the reforms needed to speed up growth and achieve atmanirbharta (self-reliance) in defence will remain stalled, as political parties stay busy spending taxpayer resources on freebies just to get elected. Government and opposition will be working at cross-purposes. Our 0.5 front is not only about secessionist forces, but any debilitating political opposition that could thwart forward movement on reforms. Calling the opposition anti-national serves no useful purpose.
Our internal ruptures are not always the result of policy disagreements; they have an intractable edge because of political ego clashes and deep personal animosities. This is epitomised by the deep distrust Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi have for one another, even though they will probably end up doing the same things when in power. Under Modi, there is practically no Congress initiative—direct benefit transfers, Aadhaar, MGNREGA, etc—that the Modi government has not carried forward with minor tweaks. This is unlikely to change much even if the roles were reversed in any future election, though that seems unlikely right now.
Also read: Modi vs non-BJP CMs: When most popular isn't all-powerful & why Centre-state ties will worsen
How do we build a consensus?
As always, the initiative lies with the Modi government, as was amply demonstrated recently when it constituted and dispatched all-party delegations to multiple countries to canvas support for India's stand on terrorism after Operation Sindoor. The only sour note was struck by the Congress party, whose members were a major part of these delegations.
The Congress was distinctly uncomfortable with the government's choice of delegates, especially Thiruvananthapuram MP Shashi Tharoor. A simple phone call from the Prime Minister to Rahul Gandhi could have resolved the issue. Instead, the government chose—wisely, in the end—an articulate Tharoor, despite the Congress's objections.
India needs reforms and deregulation in many areas, including defence, agriculture, land and labour laws, and in the police-legal-judicial system, which is neither capable of delivering speedy justice nor maintaining law and order without draconian laws. These non-economic reforms are what will enable us to become a $10 trillion economy faster.
Even with a political consensus, these reforms will take three to five years to start delivering, and so we need a Prime Minister fully engaged with this effort—not one distracted by short-term political compulsions.
The good news is that Modi has ample political capital. The big question is whether he will use it sparingly, more to win elections than to build consensus. For example, whenever all-party meetings are called, he leaves it to his lieutenants to manage, and seldom makes a personal appearance. Trying to stay so far above the battle and not be willing to spend some of his political capital to ensure consensus is not a healthy sign.
Most of Modi's policies are broadly in the right direction—barring the rapid expansion of freebie culture—but given India's forthcoming decade of vulnerability, he must consider focusing primarily on meeting those threats, and devolve more power to states and local bodies.
Political stalemate
India's diplomatic and security challenges are great, and tackling them needs extreme political focus. How can you be building India's defence capabilities and global alliances—which require considerable attention—when you also have to deal with angry farmers landing up on Delhi's doorstep and blocking the roads? Should agriculture not be left fully to states to handle, with the Centre only focused on building national buffer stocks in crucial food grains and critical commodities like petroleum products or rare earths?
How can you evolve a sensible strategy to attract manufacturing if you are busy dealing with intractable law and order issues, a dilatory judicial process, and a restive minority population—especially when land and labour laws remain unreformed? How can you manage fiscal and monetary policy effectively if states are constantly cribbing about the lack of resources, and power subsidies and other freebies are draining exchequers? How can you create good jobs if urban areas are so poorly governed, and the infrastructure needed to enable orderly growth is pathetic?
The Modi government lost its reform mojo in its second term, even though it had a parliamentary majority. After he was forced by street pressure to reverse three farm laws in 2019 and put the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in abeyance until election time in 2024, the reform agenda took a back seat. The P word—privatisation—has gone missing after Air India was handed over to the Tatas.
Forget opposition obstructionism. Can Modi get even his own BJP-ruled states to deregulate, reform and make the changes needed to force competitive reforms in other states? Paradoxically, Modi's political capital may also be hindering reform, for his own partymen may think political survival only needs them to sing Modi's praises instead of doing the hard work on reforms. The opposition also believes that defeating Modi needs excessive spending on freebies.
The way out is clear
Modi has to use his political capital to push all kinds of reforms forward, in both BJP-ruled states and those governed by the opposition. If that needs the Centre to shed some of its excess powers, so be it. If Governors need to be reined in, jolly good. If delimitation is on the table, Modi must again step up to the plate personally. He cannot leave these jobs entirely to his ministers, who may not have the political heft to swing the deals needed to move India forward.
As for China, Modi has the difficult task of both engaging Beijing for equitable trade deals and building up military muscle to deter any adventurism on its part. A tough balancing act, which would be easier if the opposition were not constantly carping about his weakness, including levelling the preposterous allegation that Modi gave in to Donald Trump's pressure during Operation Sindoor, as encapsulated in Rahul Gandhi's 'Narender, Surrender' jibe. In the short post-Pahalgam conflict with Pakistan, China's hand-holding of Islamabad's armaments was unmistakable.
PM Modi must ask himself a simple question: what is the use of all my prestige and political capital if it ultimately does not get things done for the country? He has to get his politics right. This means his 56-inch chest must disclose an open heart to win over the opposition in the interests of the country. He can leave the task of winning elections to his second-in-command and state satraps, who must be allowed to grow in stature and do the job he is trying to do when he has other things to worry about. India does not need double-engine sarkars; it needs three engines firing in sync—at the central, state, and local levels—to boost growth.
In short: India's decade of vulnerability needs a Prime Minister fully engaged with the threats and challenges it faces—both globally and at home. He cannot afford to be distracted by the need to pander to narrow politics.
R Jagannathan is the former editorial director, Swarajya magazine. He tweets @TheJaggi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Gazette
6 minutes ago
- India Gazette
MP: Case filed against Cong chief Jitendra Patwari for allegedly bribing villager to allege being fed human excreta
Ashoknagar (Madhya Pradesh) [India], June 28 (ANI): Madhya Pradesh Police, on Saturday, filed a case against state Congress President Jitendra Patwari for bribing a villager to make false allegations about being fed human excreta, Superintendent of Police (SP) Vineet Kumar Jain said. According to police, Jitendra (Jitu) Patwari asked villager Gajraj Lodhi to make allegations against Mungaoli village Sarpanch. SP Vineet Kumar Jain told ANI, 'Yesterday, Gajraj Lodhi met the collector of Ashoknagar personally and handed him an affidavit stating that some Congress leaders took him to Orchha, where he met Jitu Patwari. Jitu Patwari told him to allege about being fed faeces (by Mungaoli village sarpanch) and bribed him for it.' He added that the police found the allegations to be false and registered a case against the Congress leader. 'Later, he said that the allegations about this were false, and he made this allegation on Jitu Patwari's demand... Based on this, a case has been filed against Jitu Patwari and his aids under various sections of BNS,' SP Kumar said. Earlier on Wednesday, Patwari shared an X post, where he made the above allegations and said that the accused were supporters of BJP leader Brijendra Yadav. Addressing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi he wrote, 'Prime Minister Ji, @BJP4MP The jungle rule of power is crossing the limits of anarchy! A youth from the Lodhi community had 'human excrement' stuffed in his mouth just because he asked for a 'ration slip'! It is alleged that since the accused are supporters of @BJP4India MLA Brijendra Yadav, that's why @DGP_MP and @CMMadhyaPradesh are not allowing any action to be taken?' Referring to a previous incident of a man urinating on a tribal youth, he questioned law and order in Madhya Pradesh. 'In this same Madhya Pradesh, a shameful incident of urinating on the head of a tribal youth has already taken place! Why does #BJP consider Dalits, backward classes, and tribals as its enemies in Madhya Pradesh? The law and order in Madhya Pradesh have completely collapsed, yet @DrMohanYadav51 remains the Home Minister with arrogance! Meanwhile, the people of Madhya Pradesh now want freedom from this jungle rule,' the X post further read. (ANI)


Time of India
7 minutes ago
- Time of India
India grateful to former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao for effective leadership in crucial phase: PM Modi
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday paid tributes to former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao on his birth anniversary, saying India is grateful to him for his "effective leadership" during a crucial phase of its development trajectory. His intellect, wisdom and scholarly nature are also widely admired, PM Modi said on X. Rao's premiership during 1991-96 is considered the most defining period in the country's economic journey as, with India facing a serious balance of payment crisis , he unshackled the state control on economy and opened it to private players. This paved the way for a long era of growth better than what was seen in the past. He was given the country's highest civilian honour, Bharat Ratna , posthumously by the Modi government last year.


Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'