India stands at an interesting point in its economic journey. Startups are emerging, entrepreneurs are building businesses, consumption is expanding, infrastructure is developing and millions of Indians are aspiring to better lifestyles. We just lifted 400 million people out of poverty in last 14 years. There is considerable entrepreneurial energy across the country, and an increasing number of people want to participate in India’s growth story.
Of course, significant challenges remain. Employment, income inequality, agricultural productivity, education and healthcare require sustained attention. But the larger question is whether our political discourse is keeping pace with the ambitions of a changing India.
If India wants to become a developed nation over the next two decades, what is the economic and ideological vision that will take us there?
This is where I believe India’s principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress, has a fundamental problem. It appears increasingly focused on identifying what the current government is doing wrong rather than explaining what it would do differently to make India a developed economy.
And that, in my opinion, is its biggest ideological crisis.
You cannot build an ideology by opposing someone else’s
Historically, Congress was India’s big-tent political party. It accommodated different political philosophies, economic interests and social groups. Its strength came from its ability to bring diverse constituencies under a common political umbrella.
Today, however, it seems to be searching for an ideological identity.
In its attempt to challenge the BJP, Congress increasingly appears willing to engage with political personalities and movements emerging from different ideological backgrounds, including the Left.
There is nothing wrong with political engagement or bringing different perspectives into a political organisation. But there is a difference between building an inclusive political organisation and borrowing ideological identities from outside.
The BJP has spent decades developing its ideological ecosystem through the RSS, student organisations, cultural institutions and grassroots networks. One may agree or disagree with its ideology, but its institutional consistency is undeniable.
Congress cannot replicate that by assembling personalities and political movements that happen to oppose the BJP.
Ideology cannot be rented from the political marketplace. It has to be built.
And more importantly, it has to offer people a vision of the future that they can believe in.
India needs capitalism and wealth creation
Consider India’s ambition of reaching a per-capita income of $5,000 or $10,000.
Can we realistically achieve that without private investment, entrepreneurship, industrialisation, technological innovation and sustained productivity growth?
I don’t believe so.
Businesses are not merely institutions that generate profits for their owners. They create employment, develop supply chains, generate exports, introduce innovation and contribute to government revenues.
Industrialists such as Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani should not be beyond scrutiny. If there is credible evidence of corruption, cronyism or wrongdoing, investigate it and pursue legal accountability. Nobody should be above the law.
But political criticism should distinguish between genuine wrongdoing and the simple existence of successful businesses.
India needs more entrepreneurs, more industrialists, more factories and more companies competing globally.
We need capitalism governed by fair competition, transparent institutions and the rule of law, not hostility towards wealth creation.
A political party aspiring to govern India should be explaining how it intends to create an environment in which businesses can grow, investors feel confident and entrepreneurs can build globally competitive companies.
Shaming successful businesspeople from the floor of Parliament might generate political headlines, but it does not create a single job.
A story comes to my mind which I read somewhere but rightly fits here.
A $50 Lesson in Socialism
A man was talking to a little girl who said she wanted to become President.
He asked her, “If you became President, what would be the first thing you would do?”
She replied, “I would give food and houses to all the poor people.”
The man smiled and said, “That’s a wonderful idea. But you don’t have to wait until you become President. You can come to my house, mow my lawn, pull out the weeds and clean my garden. I’ll pay you $50. Then you can take that $50 and give it to a homeless person so he can buy food and get a house.”
The little girl thought for a moment and asked, “But why doesn’t the homeless person come to your house, do the work and earn the $50 himself?”
The man smiled and replied:
“That’s the difference between redistributing wealth and creating wealth. Capitalism is about creating opportunities for people to earn, prosper and build a better future.”
Economic growth and social mobility are inseparable
Social justice and economic growth should never be presented as competing objectives.
A person from a disadvantaged background needs education, healthcare and equal opportunities. But that person also needs an economy that creates better-paying jobs and opportunities for advancement.
Without economic growth, the possibilities for social mobility become severely constrained.
Capital investment allows businesses to expand. Expanding businesses create employment. Employment generates household incomes. Higher incomes improve access to education, healthcare and better living conditions.
That is how economic mobility becomes a reality across generations.
This is where I believe Congress needs to articulate a much stronger economic proposition.
There is considerable emphasis on social justice, representation and redistribution in their political messaging. These are legitimate subjects of public policy. But where is the equally compelling roadmap for economic expansion that will make these objectives sustainable?
Redistributing prosperity is not a substitute for continuously creating more of it.
A country cannot redistribute prosperity indefinitely if it does not continuously create new prosperity.
Farmers, workers and entrepreneurs are not opposing interests
Consider the makhana farmer in Bihar.
What does he need? Better market access, processing facilities, storage, transportation and businesses willing to purchase his produce.
If an entrepreneur wants to establish a makhana processing factory, that factory can create a market for farmers while generating local employment.
The same principle applies to sugarcane and ethanol production.
The development of the ethanol industry has created an additional market for sugarcane, offering opportunities to farmers and supporting industrial activity.
The larger point is simple: farmers, workers and entrepreneurs are part of the same economic ecosystem.
A farmer needs someone to buy his produce. An entrepreneur needs reliable agricultural supply chains. A factory needs workers. Workers need businesses that can employ them and provide better wages.
Why should these interests be presented as opposing forces?
This is precisely where a progressive economic ideology should differentiate itself. It should protect workers’ dignity and rights while encouraging factories, investment and industrial development.
We need more economic activity, not fewer opportunities in the name of protecting existing arrangements.
The objective should be to create an environment where farmers earn more, businesses grow and workers enjoy better livelihoods.
National security is also an economic question
Modern warfare increasingly depends on technological capabilities, intelligence, advanced equipment, missiles, aircraft, air defence and domestic manufacturing.
Operation Sindoor has brought the importance of technological preparedness and defence capabilities into public discussion.
One of the important lessons of modern military operations is that technological superiority, equipment and preparedness can significantly influence operational outcomes.
This also brings us to the debate surrounding Agniveer.
The discussion should go beyond whether India should recruit more personnel.
A modern military requires capable and adequately trained personnel, but it also requires advanced equipment, research, technological innovation and substantial investment.
Defence budgets involve difficult choices between manpower, equipment, training, maintenance and research. These choices cannot be reduced to political slogans.
The opposition should explain what kind of military India needs in the next 20 years and how it intends to finance and develop those capabilities.
National security is not just a question of manpower. It is also a question of economic strength and technological sophistication.
And technological sophistication requires capital.
The middle class wants a credible future
There is another political reality that Congress needs to understand.
The educated middle class is looking for economic opportunity, stability, employment, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, quality education and national security.
It may agree with some of the opposition’s criticism of the government. But criticism alone does not convince it that the opposition is capable of governing better.
Look at the Anna Hazare movement or Narendra Modi’s 2014 electoral campaign. Both demonstrated how powerful a positive political proposition can be in mobilising sections of the middle class.
The development agenda, governance and the promise of economic transformation were important parts of Modi’s appeal in 2014.
The middle class was attracted to the possibility of a better future.
Congress needs to understand that voters want to associate themselves with a future, not simply with dissatisfaction about the present.
And the middle class is an important bridge. When people who participate in the economy, build businesses, work in professional environments and aspire to upward mobility believe in a political vision, that vision can influence a much wider section of society.
This does not mean that political parties should ignore economically weaker communities.
Quite the opposite.
They should develop policies that address their needs while building a broader economic coalition.
From a complaining opposition to a credible alternative
Imagine if Congress approached Indian voters differently.
Instead of repeatedly telling them that the government is doing everything wrong, it presented a detailed economic roadmap.
It explained:
How it would increase manufacturing as a percentage of GDP.
How it would attract domestic and international investment.
How it would create millions of productive jobs.
How it would improve the ease of doing business.
How it would strengthen agricultural value chains.
How it would develop India’s defence manufacturing ecosystem.
How it would improve education and healthcare.
How it would accelerate India’s journey towards developed-nation status.
It identified where the current government was falling short and presented measurable alternatives.
It could acknowledge the progress India has made while arguing that the country is capable of achieving much more.
That would be a mature opposition.
There is a fundamental difference between telling voters that the government has failed and convincing them that you have a better plan.
Congress needs to move from a politics of complaints to a politics of possibilities.
India needs progressive capitalism
I believe there is an opportunity for Congress to rediscover its big-tent identity through a modern, progressive economic philosophy.
An ideology that believes in capitalism, entrepreneurship, private investment, technological innovation and wealth creation, while equally believing in workers’ rights, social mobility, individual liberty and constitutional values.
It should bring entrepreneurs, farmers, workers, professionals, students and communities together around a shared vision.
The objective should not be to choose between economic growth and social justice. It should be to create an economy in which growth generates opportunities for a much larger proportion of society.
This is not an argument for unregulated capitalism or an economy without social safeguards. It is an argument for recognising that sustainable social progress requires a productive, competitive and expanding economy.
Congress has the national presence, political history and institutional legacy to build such an alternative.
But first, it needs to decide what it stands for.
India needs a vision, not just an opposition
The BJP should be challenged wherever its policies fall short. Its economic decisions, employment record, institutional functioning, manufacturing strategy and governance deserve rigorous scrutiny.
But an opposition party cannot expect to win the confidence of voters merely by pointing out the shortcomings of the government.
It must demonstrate that it understands the aspirations of a changing India.
It must offer an economic philosophy that encourages wealth creation, creates employment, supports entrepreneurs, improves farmers’ incomes, protects workers and expands social mobility.
It must give young Indians something to aspire to, entrepreneurs something to build towards and families something to believe in.
Congress does not need to become communist to challenge the BJP. Nor does it need to imitate the BJP’s ideological architecture.
Congress needs to build its own vision.
Because voters don’t just want to know what is wrong with the present. They want to know what their future could look like.
India does not need an opposition that merely promises to do things differently.
India needs an opposition that can explain how it will make India different.