SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES

India’s electricity crisis does not begin at the turbine hall or the coal pit; it begins at the socket on your wall. The flick of a switch activates not just a fan or a bulb but an entire fiscal illusion built around state-owned distribution companies. DISCOMs, meant to be the last-mile custodians of power delivery, have instead become the weakest and most distorted link in the electricity value chain. By 204-25, their accumulated losses crossed ₹7.08 lakh crore, growing at roughly 7 percent annually since 2015, while outstanding debt ballooned beyond ₹7.5 lakh crore. This mountain of red ink did not emerge from consumer excess or market failure; it was engineered through decades of political mandates, rigid contracts, and regulatory indulgence. Yet none of this appears on the electricity bill. The consumer pays a clean number, silently absorbing the cost of a system designed to defer accountability.

The deepest fault line runs through power procurement, which consumes nearly 70 percent of a DISCOM’s expenditure and remains largely outside its effective control. Long-term power purchase agreements signed for 20 to 25 years were meant to guarantee energy security in an era of projected demand growth. Instead, they locked utilities into expensive capacity payments that must be honoured whether power is drawn or not. As demand repeatedly underperformed projections and renewables became cheaper, DISCOMs found themselves paying for idle thermal plants while low-cost solar and wind remained underutilized. Fuel price pass-throughs and inflated capital costs further tightened the noose. What was once prudent planning ossified into a financial trap, converting procurement from a market choice into an inherited liability.

Tariff design has ensured that this trap never springs visibly. India’s cost-plus regulatory framework calculates expenses and promises a return, but it also institutionalizes inefficiency. Losses are not eliminated; they are warehoused as regulatory assets—future claims on consumers. Political reluctance to approve timely tariff revisions, especially near elections, pushes these assets into the future, creating the comforting illusion of cheap power today. Across states, such deferred liabilities have quietly reached lakh-crore proportions. Electricity appears affordable not because it is cheap to produce, but because its true cost has been postponed, turning today’s relief into tomorrow’s shock.

Federal politics further distort the grid. Electricity’s placement on the concurrent list allows states to shape outcomes even as regulators are nominally independent. Free or subsidized power promises to farmers and low-income households are routinely announced without timely budgetary support, forcing DISCOMs to borrow simply to function. Cross-subsidies were meant to bridge this gap, with commercial and industrial users paying ₹10–12 per unit against an actual cost of ₹7–8. But this model is breaking down. High-paying consumers are exiting the grid through captive generation and open-access renewables, with captive capacity already nearing 79 GW. Every factory that disconnects shrinks the subsidy pool, intensifying pressure on remaining consumers and accelerating the financial spiral.

Into this impasse enters the draft Electricity Amendment Bill, carrying the promise of a federal reset. It does not tinker at the edges; it targets structural contradictions. By allowing multiple distribution licensees to operate on the same network, it seeks to inject competition into procurement and service quality. It pressures regulators to revise tariffs on schedule, curbs the indefinite roll-over of losses, and proposes phasing out industrial cross-subsidies by shifting welfare subsidies directly onto state budgets. Renewable procurement obligations, energy storage recognition, and standardized service benchmarks signal a future-oriented grid. The strengthened role of the Centre through an Electricity Council aims to reduce Centre–State friction, even as it raises concerns about over-centralization.

The bill is bold, and therefore unsettling. Distribution competition has delivered uneven results globally, often triggering fears of cherry-picking profitable consumers while universal service obligations weaken. Cost-reflective tariffs could also raise prices in the short term, testing political patience. Yet the alternative is worse. The existing model—where governments mandate inefficiency, regulators defer costs, DISCOMs borrow to survive, and consumers quietly pay—has exhausted its credibility. Reform is no longer optional; it is inevitable. Whether this legislation becomes genuine correction or another layer of control will depend on execution. But one reality is unavoidable: India’s electricity bills already carry the price of delay. The choice now is whether inefficiency is confronted openly, or continues to arrive discreetly, month after month, through every switch we turn.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

Walk into one of India’s many half-forgotten malls and the silence feels louder than the air-conditioning. The escalators still move, lights obediently flicker on, and a stubborn café survives on nostalgia rather than footfall. Yet the crowds are gone. No families wandering aimlessly, no teenagers killing time, no weekend buzz. These are India’s “ghost malls” — structures that function mechanically but have lost their social meaning. Globally, this is a familiar story. The United States has tracked dying malls for years; China has entire districts of underused commercial space. What makes India’s case intellectually intriguing is that these ghost malls are not merely symbols of failure. They are frozen repositories of land, capital, and urban potential, waiting for a decision rather than demolition.

A recent India Thinker report by a global real estate consultancy urges a shift in perspective: stop treating dead malls as embarrassments and start seeing them as underperforming assets. Before declaring anything dead, the report maps India’s entire organized physical retail universe. It counts 365 operational malls housing around 22,400 stores, alongside 58 major high streets such as Connaught Place, MG Road, and Park Street with nearly 7,900 outlets. Add retail embedded in 17 airports and about 340 stores inside five-star and heritage hotels, and a fuller anatomy of Indian retail emerges. Malls are only one organ in a much larger body, not the body itself.

Once mapped, the consultants applied a ruthless filter. Malls were evaluated on construction quality, tenant mix, management capability, ownership fragmentation, age, and occupancy. Those that were old, poorly managed, over-divided in ownership, and visibly under-occupied were classified as ghosts. A second, more hopeful test followed: could they be fixed? Location, surrounding purchasing power, and the physical adaptability of the structure determined whether revival was realistic or whether the building should be written off entirely.

One counterintuitive finding stands out. Malls dominate organised retail space but not necessarily retail life. Of India’s roughly 105 million square feet of organised retail, nearly 80 million square feet sits inside malls. Yet everyday consumption rhythms still favour streets. High streets thrive on impulse buying, social wandering, and cultural familiarity. India never abandoned the street; it simply layered malls on top of it. Where malls work best is not just commerce but comfort — climate control, cinemas, predictable brands, and curated leisure.

This explains city-level contradictions. In Mangaluru or Lucknow, mall occupancy is high because malls double up as the safest and cleanest public spaces available, functioning almost as civic infrastructure. In contrast, Surat and Ludhiana — wealthy, entrepreneurial cities — appear weak on mall metrics because their traditional markets outperform enclosed retail. Meanwhile, large metros such as Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Chennai are not actually mall-saturated when adjusted for population. They are polarised. A handful of elite malls thrive relentlessly, while a long tail of mediocre centres quietly hollow out.

Technically, any mall older than three years with vacancy above 14% begins sliding toward ghosthood. India today has around 15.5 million square feet of such ghost retail, largely concentrated in metro regions rather than small towns. Anyone who has lived in Gurgaon, Noida, or Ghaziabad has watched this slow decay — a cinema or supermarket anchor exits, footfall drops, smaller tenants flee, and the mall collapses inward like a punctured lung.

Why did they die? Rarely for a single reason. Some were built too far from genuine catchments. Others were crippled by fragmented ownership — hundreds of individual shop owners, no unified decision-making, no brand coherence. Competition killed many; a newer mall with better food and design can drain loyalty overnight. Retail is emotional, not rational. Once consumers mentally delete a mall from their routine, revival becomes brutally hard. Overcapacity, a lesson China learned painfully, looms in the background.

Yet the decline is no longer accelerating. Between 2022 and 2024, occupancy improved modestly as some malls were actively repositioned. Bengaluru’s Central Mall was revived through re-anchoring. In Mumbai, dead malls were converted into offices and educational hubs. Of the 15.5 million square feet of ghost space, about 4.8 million square feet — nearly a third — is considered genuinely worth reviving. Reimagined, this could generate roughly ₹357 crore in annual rental income, with South India accounting for nearly two-thirds of the potential.

Zoom out further and the lesson becomes philosophical. Buildings do not die mysteriously; they fall out of sync with how people live. Ghost malls are not urban curses but early warning signals of growth pains — reminders that cities evolve faster than concrete. The real question is not whether these malls failed, but what we choose to do next. Let them rot as monuments to miscalculation, or bend them into offices, campuses, healthcare hubs, logistics centers, cultural spaces, or hybrid community anchors. In that choice lies the future texture of India’s cities — not gleaming and perfect, but adaptive, honest, and alive again.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

The introduction of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin), 2025—popularly called the VBG–Jeevika Bill—marks not a rupture but a historic reset in India’s rural policy architecture. Much like 2005 reimagined employment as a right, 2025 reimagines it as a pathway. The Bill does not merely replace MGNREGA; it redefines the purpose of public employment in a growing economy. Anchored in the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision, it seeks to move rural India from episodic distress management to structured livelihood creation. By guaranteeing up to 125 days of work, strengthening durable asset creation, and integrating employment with Jeevika-led livelihood missions, the State signals a philosophical shift: rural labour is no longer treated only as a buffer against poverty, but as an engine of productivity, resilience, and long-term growth.

One of the most consequential yet underappreciated aspects of the new framework is its sharper emphasis on productive rural capital. MGNREGA, despite its undeniable social impact, often faced criticism for fragmented works with limited economic returns. VBG–Jeevika consciously addresses this gap by embedding employment within agriculture, water management, climate adaptation, rural infrastructure, and self-employment ecosystems. At the field level, this transforms the meaning of a workday. Labour invested today builds irrigation tomorrow, improves soil health, strengthens village connectivity, or supports income-generating assets. The poor are no longer compensated merely for time spent; they participate directly in constructing the economic foundations of their own communities. This reframing—from relief work to growth-enabling work—may prove to be the Bill’s most enduring contribution.

The revised funding pattern of 60:40 between the Centre and States, while politically contentious, introduces a layer of fiscal realism long missing from rural employment design. Under the earlier regime, excessive centralisation often led to payment delays, mounting arrears, and diffused accountability. By mandating state co-investment, VBG–Jeevika pushes ownership closer to the ground. States now have stronger incentives to plan viable works, align employment with local strengths, and monitor outcomes more rigorously. At the field level, this can translate into fewer token projects and more region-specific interventions—whether in agriculture-dominated belts, fisheries clusters, craft economies, or rural enterprises. Where governance capacity is strong, the multiplier effects could exceed what the earlier, more uniform model delivered.

Equally significant is the Bill’s attempt to manage rural labour markets rather than inadvertently distort them. MGNREGA, in certain regions, created seasonal labour shortages and wage pressures disconnected from productivity, hurting small and marginal farmers. The provision allowing calibrated pauses during peak agricultural seasons reflects a macroeconomic correction rather than a withdrawal. When employment support is better synchronised with cropping cycles, farm operations stabilise, cost pressures ease, and output improves. At the aggregate level, this has implications far beyond villages—food supply becomes more predictable, inflationary spikes moderate, and distress migration driven by misaligned incentives declines. A smoother rural labour market ultimately benefits labourers and farmers alike.

Technology and governance reforms further distinguish VBG–Jeevika from its predecessor. The emphasis on real-time monitoring, digital workflows, and outcome tracking aims to address chronic issues of leakages, delayed payments, and weak accountability. Importantly, technology is positioned as an enabler, not an end. Faster wage credits, clearer audits, and transparent dashboards can rebuild trust at the village level, reducing disputes and uncertainty. When integrated with Jeevika Mission structures, the scheme also nudges workers beyond perpetual manual labour towards skills, self-help groups, and sustainable livelihoods. Employment becomes transitional rather than terminal—a bridge to economic independence rather than a permanent destination.

Ultimately, VBG–Jeevika represents a coherent economic worldview rather than an incremental tweak. It reflects the belief that while the State must guarantee protection against distress, it cannot anchor a growing economy indefinitely around emergency employment. Democratically and institutionally, the government is within its mandate to replace a framework it ideologically disagrees with, especially after over a decade of continuity. The real test lies in implementation—sensitivity to local realities, responsiveness to distress, and administrative discipline. If executed with balance, VBG–Jeevika can transform rural India from a recipient of guarantees into a generator of growth, converting public employment from a last resort into a launchpad for prosperity.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

It is past midnight. A phone lights up, a thumb scrolls, and within seconds an order is placed—chips, a soft drink, perhaps something sweet. Ten minutes later, the doorbell rings. In a quarter of an hour, three metabolic crimes are committed with surgical efficiency: sleep is delayed, fatigue is ignored, and ultra-processed food is consumed at the worst possible hour for the body. This is no longer an occasional lapse in self-control; it is a structurally enabled behaviour. Across urban India, quick commerce has built an ecosystem where unhealthy choice is the default choice, and convenience has quietly replaced intention in how food enters daily life.

Evidence now confirms what intuition has long suspected. A recent nationwide analysis   shows that nearly half of all packaged food items listed on quick-commerce and online grocery platforms fall into the junk, ultra-processed, or HFSS (high fat, sugar, salt) category. On some platforms, this figure climbs to 62 per cent; even the “healthier” ones hover around 47–48 per cent. This skew is not accidental. These platforms are designed around discretionary, impulse-driven consumption—ice cream at 9 pm, noodles at midnight, chips because they are one tap away. When speed meets craving, nutritional value becomes collateral damage. The architecture of these apps rewards immediacy, not mindfulness.

More disturbing is who is consuming this food and how frequently. Parents in Delhi NCR, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and other metros report children and teenagers placing two to four orders a day, often late at night, and rarely for household groceries. The data is stark: 39 per cent of households now report family members regularly ordering ultra-processed foods, up from 23 per cent just two years ago. This is not indulgence; it is habit formation at scale. Quick-commerce platforms are not passive mirrors of demand. Through notifications, discounts, flash deals, and algorithmic ranking, they actively train young users to associate hunger, boredom, stress, and reward with instant, ultra-processed calories.

Predictably, platforms defend themselves with the language of neutrality. “We are just marketplaces,” they claim. “We merely respond to consumer demand.” But neutrality collapses under scrutiny. In a physical store, a consumer might see five chocolate brands. Online, they see fifty, promoted, ranked, and nudged through algorithms optimised for conversion. Choice is never neutral when it is curated. The deeper failure is not the presence of junk food, but the invisibility of healthier alternatives. Platforms could easily rebalance design—pairing chips with healthier snacks, clearly flagging HFSS items (High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt ), or nudging even a fraction of users toward better options. If just three out of ten orders shifted away from ultra-processed foods, the public-health gains would be immense. But such nudges slow volume growth, and in the quick-commerce economy, volume is king.

This brings regulation—or the absence of it—into sharp focus. India has debated front-of-pack labelling for over a decade. Public-health advocates argue for simple, visible warnings—red labels for HFSS foods, as intuitive as veg and non-veg symbols. Industry prefers star ratings buried on the back of packs, knowing well that no tired consumer at midnight deciphers nutrition stars. The resistance is not technical; it is commercial. Brands fear revenue loss, platforms fear friction, and regulators move cautiously, trapped between health mandates and corporate pressure. Ironically, digital platforms could implement clear nutritional warnings far more easily than physical packaging, yet even this remains stalled.

The health consequences, meanwhile, are brutally real. Ultra-processed foods are linked to obesity, type-2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney disorders, and even depression. The harm extends beyond sugar, salt, and fat to additives, emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, and the addictive design of these products. India’s ultra-processed food market is growing at over 13 per cent annually—one of the fastest rates globally. The danger lies not in an occasional snack but in diet displacement, where ultra-processed foods replace real food entirely. For children and adolescents, this sets lifelong risk trajectories that no fitness app or late-life discipline can reverse.

Quick commerce, like physical retail, cannot and should not be dismantled. But it must be governed. Clear HFSS definitions, mandatory digital warnings, advertising restrictions, and algorithmic accountability are no longer optional. Voluntary restraint has failed worldwide. The conflict is stark and unresolved: public health versus profit. Food companies invest heavily in celebrity endorsements and health-washing narratives because they work. Platforms shape taste, loyalty, and habit at the most vulnerable ages because they can. The cost of inaction is generational. Convenience may deliver food in ten minutes, but its consequences will linger for decades. If India does not intervene now, it will wake up to a future where speed won the market—and quietly lost the nation’s health.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

India’s development imagination still operates on a perilous belief: that once an industrial project is approved on paper, people on the ground will eventually fall in line. Hanumangarh, in Rajasthan, has shattered that illusion with force and clarity. The recent violent clash between farmers and police over a proposed ethanol plant was not a spontaneous breakdown of order; it was the predictable outcome of ignoring consent, ecology, and lived realities. Development does not descend on blank spaces of a map. It arrives on fields that feed families, aquifers that sustain generations, and communities that remember past betrayals. When policy treats land as vacant and people as obstacles, conflict is not an exception—it is the design flaw.

The farmers of Hanumangarh were not resisting progress; they were resisting dispossession disguised as green transition. The irony is sharp: the ethanol plant was promoted precisely because the region is groundwater-rich. Yet that “abundance” is the very reason farmers objected. Ethanol production is among the most water-intensive industrial processes. In Rajasthan’s so-called green bowl, where cotton, grains, fruits, and vegetables thrive, groundwater is not excess—it is survival capital. For over sixteen months, farmers warned that daily extraction of millions of litres would drain aquifers, degrade soil quality, and destabilise agriculture permanently. When tempers finally exploded, it was not ideology that breached factory boundaries, but exhaustion at being systematically ignored.

What followed exposed a deeper governance failure. The state treated the crisis as a law-and-order problem, not a legitimacy crisis. Lathi charges, tear gas, FIRs against hundreds, burnt vehicles, injured farmers and policemen, and officials rescued from balconies painted a picture of administrative collapse. Security reinforcements arrived faster than environmental answers. Yet no amount of policing can answer the central question haunting the protest: why place a water-guzzling, pollution-prone industry in one of the most fertile agricultural belts of the state? When force replaces dialogue, the state may regain control of territory, but it forfeits moral authority.

The fears driving the protest are neither emotional nor speculative; they are grounded in precedent. Across North India, ethanol and distillery units have repeatedly violated environmental norms. Groundwater contamination, toxic effluents, foul odours, and unbreathable air are not hypothetical risks; they are documented outcomes. Regulatory interventions have often come only after irreversible damage—polluted tube wells, abandoned farmland, and collapsing rural economies. Ethanol plants emit volatile organic compounds, generate hazardous waste, increase heavy truck traffic, and rely on zero-liquid-discharge systems that frequently function better in reports than in reality. For villagers living next door, pollution is not a metric—it is a daily assault on lungs, soil, and water.

Economically, the ethanol promise also rings hollow at the local level. These plants are capital-intensive, automated, and generate limited long-term employment relative to the land and water they consume. The supposed trade-off—industrial investment versus agricultural continuity—is bad economics masquerading as progress. Fertile land converted to industrial use is rarely restored. Depleted aquifers may take decades to recharge, if they recover at all. In districts like Hanumangarh, farming is not merely an occupation; it is identity, inheritance, and insurance. The fear is existential: today ethanol, tomorrow unproductive land.

The December 17 Mahapanchayat, expected to draw nearly 20,000 farmers, confirms that this is no longer about one factory. It has become a referendum on India’s version of the green transition. The interim halt to construction and the promise of a joint committee offer temporary relief, but they cannot substitute for trust. Environmental impact assessments conducted after land allocation and political signalling are widely perceived—often correctly—as procedural rituals rather than genuine safeguards. Consent obtained after decisions are made is not consent; it is compliance theatre.

Hanumangarh delivers an uncompromising lesson. Industries that threaten air, water, and soil cannot be socially engineered into acceptance, especially on fertile land. Biofuel policy may be national, but its consequences are brutally local. If ethanol plants are to exist, they must be located on non-fertile land, governed by strict water caps, transparent monitoring, and genuine community approval—not persuasion enforced by police presence. Development that silences farmers may boost balance sheets, but it erodes democracy. And when people who live off the land decide it is worth defending, no factory wall—temporary or permanent—can contain the resistance.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

India today is not short of ambition, slogans, or spectacle. It is short of something far more elemental: political accountability. For the Indian middle class, the feeling of being a stakeholder in the republic is steadily eroding. Taxes rise with clockwork precision, compliance tightens through digital surveillance and procedural rigidity, yet public returns diminish year after year. What once resembled a social contract—contribute to the state and receive basic services—has quietly mutated into a one-sided extraction. Citizens increasingly feel less like participants in governance and more like passive subjects, trapped in systems they neither control nor can meaningfully challenge. Accountability, the invisible spine of democracy, has weakened, leaving institutions upright in form but hollow in function.

Nothing captures this collapse more viscerally than the air in Delhi. Breathing should be the most apolitical human act, yet in the national capital it has become a health hazard shaped almost entirely by policy failure. Politicians blame geography, weather patterns, or seasonal stubble burning—factors that existed decades ago without producing today’s near-toxic permanence. Since the 1990s, expert committees, court directives, action plans, and emergency measures have accumulated like bureaucratic sediment, yet enforcement remains selective and hesitant. The reason is rarely technical; it is political. Meaningful solutions inconvenience powerful lobbies—construction interests, transport unions, industrial operators—who fund campaigns and shape electoral arithmetic. Accountability dissolves the moment policy begins to hurt donors. Governance responds by explaining endlessly but acting reluctantly, while citizens inhale the consequences without consent.

This pattern is not confined to environmental collapse; it extends seamlessly into economic regulation. India’s aviation sector offers a textbook case of regulatory indulgence disguised as market efficiency. Repeated airline failures have left the country with dangerously concentrated market power, yet political silence remains deafening. Chronic understaffing, capacity mismanagement, passenger distress, and systemic fragility provoke no serious parliamentary scrutiny. Not a single senior political voice speaks consistently of compensation frameworks, regulatory accountability, or structural reform. When businesses know they are “too dominant to fail,” governance quietly shifts from oversight to indulgence. Accountability dies not only in corruption, but in complacency—when regulators forget that they exist to protect citizens, not to preserve balance sheets or investor optics.

Tourism and urban development reveal the same pathology with even graver human costs. Goa, once a carefully balanced destination, is being hollowed out by unplanned construction, ecological damage, and regulatory compromise. Illegal structures proliferate, licenses multiply, and environmental norms bend—provided the price is right. When disasters strike, whether through collapsing infrastructure or deadly fires in illegally operated establishments, the script is depressingly familiar. Lives are lost because safety norms were optional, exits were blocked, and inspections were ceremonial. Responsibility dissolves into committees, inquiries, and compensation announcements, but no enduring accountability follows. In such a system, human life becomes collateral damage in a transactional state.

The deeper tragedy is psychological. Citizens slowly internalize helplessness. Roads decay, public transport deteriorates, pollution worsens, and corruption normalizes as ambient background noise. Elections come and go, yet governance failures persist regardless of party labels or ideological packaging. Parliamentary time is consumed by symbolic outrage, performative disruption, and cultural skirmishes, while the unglamorous work of service delivery, regulatory reform, and administrative responsibility remains untouched. Accountability is sacrificed at the altar of sentiment, identity, and noise. Politics becomes theatre, governance an afterthought, and the voter is remembered during campaigns but forgotten during crises.

Political accountability is not about perfection; it is about consequence. Democracies endure not because leaders never fail, but because failure carries cost. In India today, that cost is conspicuously absent. Ministers rarely resign, regulators rotate quietly, and institutions absorb blame without reform. Until accountability is restored—through transparent regulation, independent oversight, enforceable standards, and voter insistence on performance—the republic will continue to suffocate, both literally and metaphorically. The greatest loss is not polluted air or broken infrastructure, but the erosion of citizen agency itself. When a democracy cannot guarantee clean air, safe travel, or basic dignity, it is not merely misgoverned. It is unaccountable. And that, more than any slogan or spectacle, should alarm us all.

visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

The Children Who Forgot How to Breathe: India’s Silent Teen Crisis in a Screaming Digital Age

India is confronting a psychological emergency hiding in plain sight—an adolescent crisis unfolding behind school walls, inside bedrooms, and across the glowing surfaces of a billion screens. The death of a Class 10 student at Delhi’s St. Columba’s School was not an isolated tragedy but a stark rupture that exposed the fractures widening beneath India’s teenage landscape. In the days that followed, Jaipur saw fresh suicides, Delhi recorded rising self-harm, and counsellors described children who walked in sleeved, bruised, breathless, and emotionally numb. These are not abstract data points—they are young lives crumbling under humiliation, algorithmic pressure, and unprocessed turbulence. Teenagers today speak fluently in the vocabulary of despair—“panic attack,” “burnout,” “boundary,” “trauma”—yet cannot recognise or articulate their own hurt. They are emotionally raw, digitally drenched, and frighteningly fragile, collapsing under pressures no generation has ever been forced to confront.

The crisis is not a product of one overwhelming force but a convergence of multiple shocks—emotional vulnerability, digital acceleration, and deeply disrupted development. Today’s children spend nine or more hours online, absorbing hyper-sexualised content, curated perfection, body-shaming cues, and the addictive machinery of comparison. Even eight-year-olds speak of weight loss and irrelevance, parroting insecurities crafted by algorithms rather than real experiences. Social cues have eroded—teasing turns into bullying in seconds, conflict escalates instantly, and identity is shaped by digital choreography rather than lived interactions. Algorithms now manufacture aspirations, self-worth, and attention long before identity has fully formed. The result is a generation whose minds develop at high speed while emotional maturity crawls painfully behind, leaving them unprepared for distress they cannot name, process, or regulate.

Home, which should have anchored children, has instead become another storm zone. Terrified of provoking emotional backlash, many parents have surrendered authority altogether. The post-pandemic child is articulate but unanchored—accustomed to negotiating with adults, detached from routine, and hyper-reactive to structure. A reprimand becomes a crisis, a confiscated phone becomes a threat, and a boundary becomes an attack. Nuclear families, guilt parenting, and overprotection have created children unfamiliar with limits and parents who no longer know how to impose them. The pandemic erased two years of peer interaction, stripping children of basic skills—conflict resolution, patience, empathy, and emotional self-regulation. Many adolescents today struggle not because they are defiant but because they genuinely do not know how to navigate friction, boredom, or disappointment.

Layered onto this emotional disarray is the technological rupture shaping modern distress. Teenagers now arrive in counselling “pre-diagnosed” by Google searches, reels, or AI summaries, reciting psychological jargon without understanding the roots of their pain. They are over-informed yet under-supported—emotionally literate but emotionally unstable. A 15-year-old in Delhi recently revealed months of self-harm hidden under full sleeves, unnoticed by parents drowning in their own pandemic fatigue. Some adolescents mimic online suicide scripts; others punch walls, snap rubber bands against their skin, or retreat silently into digital voids. Pandemic trauma—loneliness, grief, parental stress—still leaks through their behaviour, hidden like cracks beneath a freshly painted wall. The contradictions are heart breaking: children who appear confident yet crumble under pressure, who call themselves “burnt out” yet cannot articulate why, who seem connected yet feel unbearably alone.

Yet from within this heartbreak emerges a fragile but unmistakable hope. Teenagers, for the first time in India’s social history, are actively seeking help. Counselling rooms have become safe harbours where stigma dissolves and vulnerabilities breathe. Adolescents are speaking, crying, confessing panic, and asking for emotional rescue. Schools are listening; counsellors are trusted; confidentiality provides a refuge adults often cannot. For all their digital armour, teenagers still crave the most ancient human comfort: a space where they are heard without judgment, held without pressure, and understood without conditions. This quiet shift signals that the crisis, though urgent, is not insurmountable—provided we move with intention, empathy, and structural clarity.

The way forward is neither abstract nor unreachable—it requires rebuilding the emotional ecosystems that children depend on. Psychologists insist that parents must reclaim gentle authority: consistent routines, rational boundaries, structured screen time, and the courage to say “no” without guilt. Homes must become environments where emotional conversations are normal and the pressure to perform is secondary to the freedom to fail. Schools must scale counselling systems, integrate emotional-literacy curricula, and rebuild weakened social skills.

Policymakers must recognise this not as a behavioural issue but a systemic fallout demanding integrated mental-health frameworks, digital-safety protocols, and accessible youth-support mechanisms. The goal is not to shield children from discomfort but to equip them to face it.

India’s teenagers are speaking in the loudest silence society has ever heard. They are overwhelmed, overstimulated, and dangerously under-supported. Their distress may not always look like tears—it may appear as withdrawal, anger, defiance, isolation, or addiction to screens. Our responsibility—as families, institutions, and a nation—is to listen before headlines replace conversations. Because when a child becomes a statistic, the failure is not theirs—it is ours. And the question confronting India today is simple, urgent, and unforgiving: will we hear them before the silence becomes permanent?

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

India’s economy is undeniably expanding. GDP curves climb confidently, global capital keeps flowing in, and the country is routinely hailed as the fastest-growing major economy on earth. But growth, it turns out, is not the same as progress. Beneath the celebratory numbers lies a far more troubling reality laid bare by the World Inequality Report 2026: India is not merely growing—it is concentrating. Wealth and income are accumulating at the very top, while insecurity hardens below. Inequality is no longer a side effect of development; it is becoming its operating system.

The first mistake we make is treating income and wealth as interchangeable. They are not. Income is a flow—wages, salaries, profits earned in a year. Wealth is a stock—what accumulates over time as land, housing, financial assets, and business ownership. Wealth determines power, resilience, and future opportunity. Across the world, wealth is always more unequal than income. In India, both are sharply tilted upward. The top 1% now control around 40% of national wealth. The top 10% together hold nearly 65%. On the income side, the richest 10% capture about 58% of all earnings, while the bottom half of the population survives on just 15%. These are not transitional gaps caused by rapid growth. They are structural outcomes of how India’s economy now distributes rewards.

The distance becomes even more surreal when one looks at the summit. In 2025, India’s 100 richest individuals reportedly lost about $100 billion in combined wealth due to a weak rupee and softer markets. Mukesh Ambani still tops the list at roughly $105 billion, followed closely by Gautam Adani at about $92 billion, despite double-digit declines. Most billionaires “lost” money last year—and yet together they still command nearly $1 trillion in wealth. Even loss, at this level, is an abstract concept. The scale itself reveals the chasm between India’s elite and everyone else. When the richest stumble, they land on mattresses of capital; when ordinary Indians fall, they hit concrete.

Globally, inequality is severe and worsening. The richest 10% of the world receive 53% of global income and own roughly 75% of all personal wealth. The poorest half of humanity—about 2.8 billion adults—own just 2% of global wealth and earn only 8% of income. The top 1% alone controls 37% of global wealth, more than 18 times what the bottom half owns combined. This is the grim global baseline. Yet India still manages to stand out. India’s richest 10% now hold an estimated 77% of national wealth—placing the country among the most unequal societies on the planet, despite its democratic framework and development ambitions.

The reasons are familiar but intensifying. A massive informal workforce suppresses wages and job security. Unequal access to quality education locks millions out of high-paying sectors. Weak social protection systems mean that a single illness or accident can erase years of savings. In fact, an estimated 63 million Indians are pushed into poverty every year due to healthcare costs alone. But these long-standing fault lines are now being widened by a powerful new force: India’s shift toward capital-intensive growth.

Indian companies are adopting automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced digital systems at remarkable speed. According to global employment studies, Indian firms are among the fastest adopters of these technologies. Productivity and profits are rising—but jobs are not. Capital increasingly rewards capital. High-skilled workers and asset owners benefit disproportionately, while millions compete for fewer, lower-quality jobs. Labour-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, construction, and low-end services have not grown fast enough to absorb the workforce entering the economy each year. The result is a widening paradox: strong macroeconomic growth alongside fragile household realities.

This dynamic explains why wealth inequality is accelerating even faster than income inequality. Those who already own assets—land, shares, businesses—see their wealth compound through markets and technology. Those dependent on wages struggle to save, let alone invest. Over time, inequality becomes self-reinforcing. Advantage multiplies quietly; disadvantage hardens into permanence. Geography deepens the divide. States like Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu surge ahead, powered by investment and skilled labour, while Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh lag far behind. Bihar’s per capita income has fallen to just 29.6% of the national average. Growth, even within India, is profoundly uneven.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is that inequality is no longer an accidental outcome—it is becoming a policy choice. India could prioritize growth models that generate mass employment, broaden asset ownership, and invest heavily in healthcare, education, and social protection. It could strengthen progressive taxation and curb excessive concentration of economic power. Or it can continue celebrating headline growth while quietly accepting that its benefits will narrow.

This is not merely an economic concern; it is a social and political one. Extreme inequality erodes trust, weakens social cohesion, and amplifies polarization. When large sections of society feel excluded from progress, consumption weakens, resentment grows, and institutions lose legitimacy. Ironically, excessive concentration of wealth can destabilize the very system that enables wealth creation in the first place.

The pattern is already repeating in new sectors. As traditional industries consolidate, digital markets—from platforms to OTT services—are showing early signs of monopoly and dominance by a few deep-pocketed players. Growth followed by concentration has become the default script.

India is producing more than ever before. The unanswered question is who gets to own this production, who benefits from it, and who is left reading inequality reports while prosperity passes overhead. Inequality is not destiny. But ignoring it is a decision—and one that will shape India’s future far more profoundly than any GDP milestone ever could.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

 Rebuilding Governance in an Age of Distraction

India today finds itself caught between spectacle and survival, a nation of extraordinary promise wrestling with an extraordinary contradiction. Televised debate rooms crackle with intensity over historical semantics, ideological symbolism, and political point-scoring, while the real scaffolding of everyday life creaks under the pressure of unattended problems. Parliamentary hours drain away in theatrical duels as Manipur continues to smoulder, borders remain tense, and millions of young Indians wait in quiet frustration for concrete answers. The choreography of public discourse dazzles, but the script forgets the audience. What emerges is not mere distraction but a structural misalignment—a system where noise overwhelms nuance and optics overshadow outcomes, creating a democracy rich in decibels but poor in prioritisation.

Beneath this dramatic surface, the lived economic crisis cuts sharply across households. Unemployment—especially among the educated—has taken the shape of a generational anxiety, reducing degrees to fragile assurances and futures to uncertain wagers. Inflation has become the silent intruder at every dining table, where rising prices of essentials destabilise budgets far more violently than any headline index suggests. Farmers continue to navigate debt traps, climate-related crop failures, and volatile markets. And although GDP numbers offer celebratory headlines, they obscure the widening chasm where billionaires soar while the informal workforce—the backbone of India’s economic engine—grapples with precarious livelihoods, absent safety nets, and limited mobility. The pandemic’s deep scars still pulse beneath the glossy narrative of post-crisis recovery.

This economic fragility is mirrored by the strain on social infrastructure, which remains India’s most under-discussed fault line. Public healthcare, stretched far beyond its intended capacity, leaves the poor jostling for basic treatment and the middle class slipping into medical debt. Education, once the ladder that lifted entire families into prosperity, now risks entrenching inequality through learning losses, digital divides, and uneven quality. Generations of children carry weakened foundational abilities that could slow India’s demographic dividend. Social cohesion itself grows vulnerable as caste tensions flare, communal anxieties simmer, and gender-based violence remains distressingly routine. Meanwhile, everyday urban crises—water scarcity, toxic air, broken drainage, congestion, sinking infrastructure—are overshadowed by ribbon-cutting ceremonies and headline-friendly mega-projects.

At the heart of these intertwined challenges lies a deeper governance crisis, defined by the gradual weakening of institutions. Corruption continues to function as both lubricant and poison—speeding up administrative processes while simultaneously corroding public trust. Judicial delays, with over fifty million pending cases, stretch justice into multi-decade ordeals. Environmental governance has all but collapsed, with cities suffocating under hazardous air, rivers turning into industrial drains, and natural ecosystems sacrificed for unregulated expansion. In this vacuum, polarised politics thrives. Debates shift from accountability in the present to grievances from the past, turning identity and history into perpetual political weapons. It is easier to argue about centuries-old events than to address today’s urgent failures.

The emerging threats only intensify this fragility. Climate change is no longer a looming future risk but a present force—manifesting in unlivable heatwaves, crop-destroying droughts, and floods that erase neighbourhoods. The brain drain of talented young professionals reflects a troubling vote of no confidence in domestic fairness and opportunity. The digital divide grows wider as millions remain technologically excluded while those online face surveillance, misinformation, and algorithmic manipulation. Adding to this, a silent mental-health crisis spreads across age groups, under-recognised and under-resourced. These are not peripheral challenges; they define what state capacity must look like in the 21st century.

Yet the Indian story remains one of divergence rather than despair—a widening gap between what is celebrated and what is essential. The real question is not whether the problems are known; they are widely documented and intimately felt. The real test is whether political leadership can shift from symbolic theatrics to structural transformation. While ideological debates dominate Parliament, citizens crave livelihood, dignity, and breathable air. The young Indian is not searching for patriotic choreography; he is searching for a fair opportunity. Farmers do not need cultural commentary; they need predictable prices and institutional support. Urban residents gasping through pollution are unmoved by rhetorical triumphs.

Nationhood, ultimately, is measured not by the loudness of speeches but by the quiet efficiency of institutions. India must transition from performance governance to problem-solving governance, from symbolic assertions to systemic action. This demands transparency, accountability, and a political culture that rewards competence over spectacle. It requires policymakers to confront reality, not perform around it.

The larger lesson is both cautionary and hopeful: democracies do not collapse because of noise—they collapse when the noise replaces substance. India now stands at such a crossroads. The country does not need louder slogans; it needs deeper listening. It does not need more dramatic narratives; it needs disciplined, evidence-based governance. The future will belong not to those who dominate the microphone but to those who strengthen the foundations. If India can reclaim seriousness in governance, prioritise citizen well-being, and resist the seduction of political theatre, the nation will move beyond the crisis of noise. It will rise with a quiet strength that no spectacle can overshadow.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

A Trump Outburst Accidentally Unmasked India as the Quiet Giant Feeding the World

When U.S. President Donald Trump recently thundered that India was “dumping rice in America,” the comment sparked laughter, raised eyebrows, and sent Indian exporters scrambling to double-check their shipment logs. Trump’s signature style—“people are telling me… I heard…”—may have fueled the moment, but it inadvertently triggered something far more useful: a long-overdue national reminder that India is, in fact, the world’s largest producer and the world’s largest exporter of rice. In a world where rice feeds more than half of humanity, India stands at the epicentre of global food security, quietly commanding a position most Indians underestimate and few global leaders fully grasp.

The numbers tell a remarkable story. India contributes over 28% of global rice production, edging past China’s 27% and harvesting nearly 150 million tonnes every year. On the export front, India dominates with a 30% global market share, shipping over 20 million tonnes last year alone. The USDA expects this to touch 22 million tonnes soon, while Indian exporters predict an astounding 30 million tonnes by 2026–27. This is no accidental surplus from a lucky monsoon. It is the product of expanded acreage, resilient farmers, strong procurement systems, MSP-driven incentives, and decades of agricultural reform. India isn’t just growing rice—it is sustaining a global staple with a consistency unmatched by any other nation.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s claim of “dumping” is not only incorrect—it is mathematically impossible. The U.S. produces just 7.5–9 million tonnes of rice annually, around the world’s 11th or 12th position. It both exports and imports rice, mostly specialty varieties it does not grow. India’s rice exports to America amount to a tiny 2.74 lakh tonnes of Basmati and an even smaller 60,342 tonnes of non-Basmati—so negligible that statisticians might label it a rounding error. Thailand, Vietnam, and even smaller exporters supply the U.S. in much larger quantities, yet rhetoric in Washington rarely points their way. The truth is simple: what India sells to America is economically trivial—just $337 million out of India’s $13 billion rice export universe.

But the controversy has generated an unexpected benefit: it has spotlighted the sheer scale and sophistication of Indian agriculture. In the last decade, India’s food grain output has catapulted from 251 million tonnes to 357 million tonnes, including a record 7.65% increase last year alone. Rice, wheat, soybeans, and groundnuts all touched historic peaks. Agricultural GDP remains strong at 3.5–4%, exceptional for a sector employing over half the population. And within rice exports, the story becomes even more impressive: 70% of export volume is low-cost non-Basmati feeding poor nations, while 52% of total export value comes from premium Basmati, whose loyal markets span West Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.

This agricultural dominance gives India enormous global leverage. When India imposed export restrictions in 2022–23 to stabilize domestic prices and support its massive 800 million–beneficiary free-food grain program, global rice prices spiked sharply. Several nations complained of supply shocks. The episode exposed a new geopolitical reality: the global rice market pivots on Indian policy choices. A slight shift in India’s sowing patterns—from rice to oilseeds or pulses—would trigger immediate crises across Asia and Africa. India supplies lifelines to some of the world’s most vulnerable economies—Benin, Togo, Senegal, Somalia, Liberia, Bangladesh, and Nepal—many of which rely on India more than on any other exporter.

Set against this massive canvas, Trump’s remark collapses into irrelevance. India is not dumping rice—not in the U.S., not anywhere. India is exporting reliability, quality, heritage, and food security. It exports premium Basmati that America cannot grow, and it exports non-Basmati that sustains populations in dozens of developing nations. Even if tariffs doubled or tripled, American consumers who crave Basmati would still reach for Indian bags, just as they always have. India’s rice story is not about undercutting markets; it is about filling plates across continents.

The larger message, however, goes beyond fact-checking a political soundbite. It is about India rediscovering its own agricultural transformation. A country once dependent on foreign grain under PL-480 now shapes global food grain flows. A sector often criticised for low productivity is delivering the world’s largest rice harvests and the world’s largest rice exports. Indian farmers—frequently portrayed as distressed—are simultaneously powering a global food-security architecture.

Sometimes it takes a wildly inaccurate accusation to reveal an extraordinary truth. And the truth is this: the world eats because India grows.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights