SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES

If history ever needed a single word to describe Indian politics in 2025, it would be personality. Not ideology, not coalition arithmetic, not even policy architecture—this was the year when individuals towered so decisively over institutions that parties, elections, and narratives seemed to revolve around human gravity rather than organisational logic. Narendra Modi, Arvind Kejriwal, Nitish Kumar, Shashi Tharoor, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra did not merely act within the political system; they bent it, stretched it, and in some cases revealed its limits. Their parallel journeys, contradictions, and recalibrations collectively reshaped the national mood and quietly redrew the balance of power for the decade ahead.

At the epicentre stood Narendra Modi, whose 2025 unfolded like a carefully scripted resurrection. After the 2024 Lok Sabha elections punctured the myth of invincibility, Modi responded not with defensiveness but with methodical reconstruction. State victories in Haryana, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Bihar were not random wins; they were stepping stones in a larger political reassertion. The BJP’s return to Delhi after three decades carried symbolism far beyond administrative control. It marked the closure of a narrative that had cast the capital as the citadel of disruption and restored Modi as the uncontested axis of national politics. The India–Pakistan crisis management, followed by confident global outreach through multi-party delegations, projected authority without theatrical nationalism. Equally critical was the reconciliation with the RSS, which restored organisational sinew that had visibly loosened in 2024. By the end of the year, Modi was no longer explaining his third term—he was already shaping the road to 2029.

Delhi, however, told the inverse story through Arvind Kejriwal. Once hailed as the most credible post-Congress challenger to the BJP and a potential national disruptor, Kejriwal’s 2025 was defined by contraction. The loss of Delhi after repeated landslide mandates signified more than electoral defeat; it marked the shrinking of a political imagination that failed to evolve beyond protest-era charisma. Legal entanglements, interrupted campaigning, and an overestimation of sympathy politics exposed the limits of personality unbacked by deep organisation. AAP still governs Punjab and remains relevant, but Kejriwal’s arc in 2025 shifted him from inevitability to uncertainty, from national speculation to questions about survival beyond 2027.

Bihar offered a different lesson altogether—one of endurance rather than expansion. Nitish Kumar’s victory, achieved in alliance with the BJP, was widely read as a sympathy verdict and a recognition of legacy. Frail in health yet formidable in symbolism, Nitish appeared to embody continuity in a state fatigued by political volatility. Voters seemed to acknowledge that this was likely his final act, and the verdict carried a quiet dignity. Yet beneath the surface lay a sharper message: the Nitish–Modi combination succeeded where opposition chemistry failed. Massive rallies by Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav did not translate into power, and Prashant Kishor’s disruption never crossed the threshold from experiment to force. Nitish’s triumph thus became both an ending and a beginning—his personal swansong and the BJP’s consolidation of long-term advantage in Bihar.

If Modi represented consolidation and Nitish continuity, Shashi Tharoor thrived as contradiction. Officially a Congress leader yet politically autonomous, Tharoor’s elevated role during the Pakistan crisis lifted him beyond party boundaries. His nuanced, occasionally appreciative assessment of government decisions unsettled the Congress and delighted the BJP—without him crossing over. His power lay precisely in this ambiguity. For the BJP, Tharoor weakened the opposition by refusing reflexive opposition. For the Congress, he exposed an enduring discomfort with intellectual independence. In a year dominated by loud certainties and binary politics, Tharoor flourished in the grey zones, proving that relevance need not always align with loyalty.

The Congress’ most intriguing internal shift, however, came through Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. Long confined to campaign trails and background roles, her parliamentary performance in 2025 altered perceptions almost overnight. Calm, articulate, and politically instinctive, Priyanka emerged as the most compelling Gandhi family speaker in recent years. Crucially, her rise did not trigger open sibling rivalry; instead, it appeared to strengthen collective leadership, at least temporarily. Yet her emergence also sharpened the Congress’ central paradox: its dependence on the Gandhi family remains absolute, even as clarity on leadership succession remains elusive. Priyanka’s ascent reassured supporters while simultaneously postponing difficult structural reforms.

Beyond individuals, 2025 was marked by governance conducted with visible confidence. Controversial legislative moves—spanning welfare restructuring, cultural rebranding, and polarising amendments—reflected a BJP convinced that political capital could absorb social resistance. Welfare schemes were repackaged in culturally resonant language, blending reform with symbolism. Critics warned of exclusion and polarisation; supporters praised decisiveness and clarity. What mattered more was the signal: this was not a government hedging its bets, but one operating from a position of self-assured dominance.

In the final accounting, 2025 will be remembered as the year Indian politics turned decisively personal again. Institutions still mattered, policies still mattered—but personalities mattered more. Modi reclaimed centrality, Kejriwal receded, Nitish exited with dignity, Tharoor complicated binaries, and Priyanka re-entered the stage with quiet force. Together, they demonstrated a recurring truth of the Indian republic: history here often advances not merely through elections or laws, but through individuals who, for a moment, come to embody the nation’s anxieties, aspirations, and contradictions.

VISIT ARJASRIKANTH.IN FOR MORE INSIGHTS

A Tale of Two Strategies — One of Discipline, One of Drift

China’s dramatic transformation from some of the world’s most polluted skies to one of the fastest air-quality improvements in modern history has reignited a difficult but necessary debate in India. A recent comment from a Chinese Embassy spokesperson offering China’s “air-quality experience” to India underscored a stark reality: China has achieved what India continues to struggle with—despite India having greater funding access, advanced technology, and rising public awareness. Between 2014 and 2023, China slashed PM2.5 levels by an astonishing 41%. In contrast, India spent nearly 20% of its days with pollution levels ten times above WHO limits, while Delhi endured toxic concentrations six times worse for over 60% of the year. Air pollution now cuts the life expectancy of the average Indian by 3.5 years, and a Delhi resident by 8.2 years, reflecting not a financial deficit but an execution deficit.

The paradox confronting India is not one of resources but of governance. From 2019 to 2023, India received $19.8 billion in air-quality management grants—more than any other country. Yet, according to the Foundation for Ecological Governance, only 52% of NCAP (National Clean Air Programme) funds were utilised, and over half of the states failed to spend even 80% of their allocations. Action plans stalled, monitoring systems expanded without enforcement, and critical interventions remained trapped in administrative slow lanes. Meanwhile, China’s success came from a disciplined governance model anchored in accountability, central coordination, and strict compliance. Its 2013 Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan reshaped energy policies, industrial norms, vehicle standards, and local governance mandates. Bureaucrats were given measurable PM2.5 reduction targets, and non-compliance carried career consequences—a level of administrative seriousness entirely absent in India’s system.

China’s turnaround was not a spontaneous pivot but the result of long-term preparation. As noted by CEEW researchers, Beijing had invested in public transportation since the late 1990s, creating a foundational infrastructure that would later enable its decisive pollution-control push. By 2023, Beijing possessed extensive metro networks, an expanding electric bus fleet, and workable mobility alternatives. When the action plan rolled out, its execution was swift and seamless. India’s NCAP, launched in 2019, aimed for a 20–30% pollution reduction by 2024. Yet, by 2023, average reductions across non-attainment districts stood at just 10.7%. Of 130 districts, only 64 achieved reductions above 20%. India did not lack ambition—only the administrative cohesion required for delivering results.

The most troubling aspect of India’s struggle lies in its pattern of expenditure. CREA data shows that 64% of NCAP spending went to dust mitigation—road sweeping machines, sprinklers, and dust suppression systems—while industrial pollution control received a mere 0.61%. This approach ignores scientific evidence. Dust is visible but not the primary killer; the real threat comes from combustion sources—coal power, biomass burning, diesel generators, transport emissions, and brick kilns. India continues to disproportionately target what is easy and visible rather than what is hard and deadly.

China, by contrast, directly confronted the politically sensitive sectors: shutting down coal plants, relocating steel and cement industries, enforcing ultra-low emissions standards, and restricting vehicle flows in and around major cities. Its approach was uncompromising because the stakes were high—and the political system demanded results.

China’s decade-long transformation proves that a large developing economy can clean its air quickly without stalling economic growth. Its success did not arise from extraordinary technology or vast new funding; it came from governance discipline, clear accountability, and strong institutional backing. India, by contrast, has the scientific expertise, funding, and institutional frameworks but struggles with administrative fragmentation and political hesitation. Air pollution in India is not an environmental mystery but a management failure—a solvable problem allowed to persist because urgency has never matched severity. While Delhi’s recurring smog crises continue to dominate global headlines, the deeper issue is India’s inability to operationalise its own policies at the scale and speed required.

For India to reclaim its air and protect public health, it must draw the strongest lesson from China: air-quality improvement is not merely an environmental programme—it is a governance revolution. India needs an integrated national airshed management authority, strict accountability for state-level implementation, decisive action against combustion sources, and a reorientation of policy away from cosmetic visibility to scientific prioritisation. The nation has the money, expertise, and public alarm; what it needs is the administrative discipline to act with urgency. China has demonstrated that cleaning the air is not about miracles, but about management. India must decide whether it wants clearer skies—or familiar excuses.

visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

For most of the twentieth century, “cool” was a gated estate with security guards. You entered through money, manners, and the quiet performance of having arrived. It was polished, distant, and expensive. Advertisers defined it, institutions sanctified it, and society rewarded those who mastered its choreography. Millennials and Gen Z did not politely ask for membership. They questioned the gate, exposed the illusion, and then walked away. What many elders misread as disengagement or fragility is, in truth, a recalibration of aspiration itself. These generations are not lowering the bar; they are changing the measurement. Status is giving way to substance, perfection to honesty, and accumulation to meaning. This is not cultural decline. It is cultural correction.

The rupture began with economics, not rebellion. Millennials came of age during the Great Recession, inheriting debt instead of dividends and volatility instead of stability. Gen Z followed, watching their older siblings grind without reward, only to be handed a pandemic, inflation, and climate anxiety as default settings. The promise that hard work would lead to comfort collapsed in real time. Home ownership became a gamble, luxury consumption a liability, and linear careers a fantasy. Under these conditions, aspiration shrank from abundance to survival. Security replaced spectacle. Experiences replaced assets. Success became less about “having it all” and more about staying afloat with dignity. This pragmatism is not pessimism; it is realism shaped by broken guarantees.

Simultaneously, these cohorts became fluent in digital illusion. Growing up online taught them that perfection is manufactured and proximity to it is performative. Filters, influencer scripts, and brand storytelling are decoded instantly. Gloss lost credibility; relatability gained power. Platforms that reward rawness—unedited videos, candid confessionals, ordinary moments—signal a rejection of overproduction. Authenticity is no longer a branding strategy; it is a defence mechanism. Anything that feels overly curated triggers suspicion. Today’s “cool” is specificity, vulnerability, and genuine competence within a niche, not mass appeal or corporate polish. The audience has learned to see through the set.

Consumption, too, has been morally reprogrammed. Millennials and Gen Z expect institutions and brands to stand for something beyond quarterly profits. Silence on social issues reads as irrelevance; performative activism reads as deceit. Sustainability, equity, and mental health are not marketing extras but baseline expectations. Thrifting, resale, renting, and upcycling are not just economic adaptations; they are ethical statements. Fast fashion and conspicuous consumption increasingly feel outdated, even embarrassing. Ownership has yielded to access, and permanence to flexibility. A thoughtfully assembled second-hand wardrobe or a carefully curated digital identity can now carry more cultural capital than a closet of logos ever could.

The most radical shift, however, is psychological. Millennials were raised on hustle culture, where burnout was worn as a badge of honor. Gen Z watched the damage and refused to inherit it. Boundaries, therapy, emotional literacy, and the pursuit of a “soft life” are not indulgences; they are acts of resistance against a system that normalized exhaustion. Work is valued less for prestige and more for how little it invades personal life. A job that ends at five is more aspirational than a title that never sleeps. This explains the rise of portfolio careers, passion-driven side projects, and micro-entrepreneurship. Stability no longer means hierarchy; it means adaptability.

Culturally, cool has decentralized. Mass trends have fractured into micro-communities—Discord servers, fandoms, gaming clans, hyper-specific online subcultures. Identity is fluid, expressive, and self-authored. Pronouns, aesthetic mashups, and personal narratives override rigid templates. Even the much-ridiculed “millennial cringe” reveals something important: a generation shaped by body shaming, magazine ideals, and early social media pressure to perform perfection. Gen Z’s apparent nonchalance is not superiority; it is timing. They arrived after the illusion cracked. Both generations are responding to the same forces, just from different positions on the timeline.

What emerges is not a colder world stripped of ambition, but a warmer one grounded in authenticity, ethical awareness, and psychological safety. The future will favour brands that act before they speak, institutions that trade control for trust, and individuals who measure success beyond income alone. Millennials and Gen Z are not rejecting aspiration; they are humanizing it. They are insisting that the goal is not to look successful, but to live sustainably—economically, emotionally, and socially. Cool is not dead. It has simply stopped pretending.

Visit arjasriknath.in for more insights

India’s recent governance story is increasingly defined not by what is decided, but by what is undone. Across agriculture, land, taxation, digital governance, education, and rural employment, a strikingly similar pattern has emerged: bold announcements followed by hurried retreats. These reversals are often framed as proof of democratic sensitivity, as evidence that the state listens. Yet their growing frequency tells a less flattering story. It reveals a reform process that repeatedly underestimates the social, political, and emotional terrain on which policy operates. The result is a damaging cycle of announcement, resistance, and withdrawal that erodes state credibility, generates uncertainty, and weakens institutional authority.

The rollback of the three farm laws remains the most emblematic episode of this governance failure. Conceptually, the laws sought to liberalize agricultural markets, attract private investment, and give farmers greater choice beyond state mandis. Politically and socially, however, they collided with deep anxieties over minimum support prices, bargaining power, and livelihood security. Agriculture in India is not merely an economic sector; it is a cultural identity and a historical fault line shaped by decades of state protection. Earlier attempts to amend the Land Acquisition Act failed for similar reasons. By prioritizing economic efficiency while neglecting trust deficits, historical memory, and power asymmetries, the state misread the battlefield. The reforms may have had economic logic, but they lacked social legitimacy—and legitimacy, not logic, ultimately determines survival.

This pattern has not remained confined to agrarian policy. Abrupt changes to capital gains taxation on property, especially the removal of indexation benefits, triggered sharp middle-class backlash, forcing reconsideration.

Digital governance initiatives such as the mandatory Sanchar Saathi app, designed to improve cybersecurity, were rolled back amid fears of surveillance, privacy violations, and the absence of a credible data protection framework. Education reforms, including revisiting the no-detention policy under the Right to Education Act, encountered resistance from states and parents who saw abrupt shifts as disruptive rather than corrective. Even proposals to restructure MGNREGA through alternative employment schemes ran into stiff opposition, driven by fears of diluting a legally guaranteed social safety net. Across sectors, the pattern repeats: speed over sequencing, intent over inclusion.

At the heart of these reversals lies a top-down policy culture that privileges signalling over deliberation. Major reforms are often conceived within narrow technocratic or political echo chambers, with inadequate stakeholder mapping and weak pre-legislative consultation. Parliamentary scrutiny is frequently bypassed, with bills rushed through without standing committee examination, white papers, or structured public feedback. This haste breeds suspicion. When stakeholders encounter a finished policy rather than a draft, opposition narratives fill the vacuum before the state establishes credibility. Once trust collapses, even well-designed reforms become politically radioactive. Resistance hardens, and withdrawal becomes the only exit.Communication failures deepen this institutional weakness. Governments have struggled to articulate reform benefits in clear, empathetic language or to acknowledge legitimate fears upfront. Engagement typically begins only after protests escalate, by which point positions are entrenched. In the absence of trusted intermediaries—farmer unions, civil society organizations, professional bodies—official assurances ring hollow. In the digital age, mobilization is instantaneous; grievances can morph into mass movements within days. The unintended message to society is corrosive: sustained agitation, not institutional dialogue, becomes the most effective tool to influence policy outcomes.

The long-term consequences of this governance style are severe. Policy uncertainty discourages long-term investment, especially in sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, and real estate that depend on regulatory stability. Institutional credibility erodes as the state appears decisive in announcement but fragile in execution. Legislative processes are weakened, protest politics is incentivised, and governance becomes increasingly polarised. Perhaps most damaging is reform fatigue—within the bureaucracy, which grows risk-averse, and among citizens, who begin to distrust any reform as temporary or reversible. Necessary changes become harder to attempt precisely because past ones collapsed.

Yet rollbacks are not failures of democracy; they are symptoms of a democratic deficit in policymaking. Durable reform requires legitimacy alongside intent. That legitimacy can only be built through institutionalized deliberation: mandatory social impact assessments, structured stakeholder consultations, and serious parliamentary scrutiny for all major reforms. Policies must be piloted, phased, and reviewed, with feedback loops and sunset clauses built in from the start. Communication must precede implementation, grounded in empathy rather than explanation after unrest. Independent expert commissions and genuine federal dialogue can help build consensus before political capital is spent.

India’s problem is not a lack of reform ambition, but the absence of reform architecture. Unless the state moves from an “announce and defend” model to one of “co-create and adapt,” the cycle of rollback will persist. The true test of governance is not how boldly reforms are declared, but how resiliently they are designed to survive public scrutiny, political contestation, and social reality.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

Few policy debates in contemporary India expose the fault lines between ideology, administrative capacity, and fiscal necessity as sharply as the storm now raging in Andhra Pradesh over new government medical colleges. What appears on the surface as a partisan shouting match between the ruling Telugu Desam Party–BJP combine and the opposition is, at its core, a far more serious question: how should a fiscally constrained state expand medical education without hollowing out its public character? Chief Minister’s decision to operationalise ten of the remaining eleven sanctioned medical colleges through a Public–Private Partnership has triggered accusations of “backdoor privatisation.” Yet the intensity of the backlash reveals not just political anxiety, but India’s deep historical distrust of private capital in social sectors where equity, access, and accountability are emotionally charged and constitutionally sensitive.

To understand why medical colleges provoke such visceral reactions in Andhra Pradesh, one must revisit the trauma of bifurcation. When Telangana was carved out in 2014, Andhra Pradesh lost Hyderabad—its academic, medical, and technological spine in one stroke. What remained was a residual state forced to rebuild higher education almost from scratch. For medical aspirants, this translated into fewer colleges, tighter domicile quotas, and migration to distant states at enormous personal and financial cost. The previous government’s sanctioning of seventeen new medical colleges in 2021 was therefore politically potent and socially reassuring. But by 2024, only six had become operational; the rest existed as skeletal structures or files stalled by regulatory hurdles, funding gaps, and National Medical Commission scrutiny. The new government’s argument is blunt and uncomfortable: promises without operational capacity are political theatre, not public service.

The controversy erupted when the state announced that ten of these unfinished colleges would be developed under PPP, with one advanced project retained under full government control. The opposition’s fear is intuitive—once private players enter, profit motives inevitably follow. Indian experience lends weight to this suspicion. Karnataka’s Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences collapsed under land disputes and financial mismanagement. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh announced ambitious PPP colleges that never took off due to opaque bidding and weak risk-sharing. Punjab’s experiments descended into litigation over fees and seat-sharing. Andhra Pradesh itself has seen PPP attempts marred by political interference and allegations of compromised service obligations. These failures are not ideological myths; they are documented cautionary tales that explain why “PPP” triggers alarm bells in public healthcare.

Yet equating PPP automatically with privatisation is analytically lazy. Ownership, admissions, reservations, fee structures, faculty recruitment, and clinical access are the true tests—not the mere presence of private capital. In Andhra Pradesh’s proposed framework, land ownership remains with the government, admissions are routed through state counselling, reservation policies continue, and fees for government quota seats remain regulated. On paper, private partners are confined to infrastructure creation, equipment, hostels, and non-academic facilities. This model is not unprecedented. Tamil Nadu has quietly operated managed-contract hospital systems where ownership and policy control remain public while operations are outsourced. Karnataka’s hub-and-spoke model links private colleges to district hospitals, ensuring patient load without surrendering oversight. Even AIIMS functions on a hybrid logic—public funding paired with operational autonomy. PPP, in itself, is not the sin; poor design is.

The real danger lies in badly drafted contracts and weak governance. Indian healthcare is littered with PPPs where vague exit clauses, asymmetric risk allocation, and unenforced social obligations allowed private partners to extract value while the state absorbed reputational damage. If Andhra Pradesh’s colleges permit differential facilities between government and management quota students, dilute free treatment obligations, manipulate faculty norms, or use regulatory arbitrage to prioritise profit over care, the opposition’s fears will be vindicated. Medical colleges are not degree factories; they are anchors of district healthcare ecosystems. Any model that compromises affordable access to healthcare undermines the very rationale for public investment, no matter how impressive the infrastructure.

At the same time, ideological rigidity carries its own costs. A fully state-funded medical college today demands ₹700–1,000 crore, years of gestation, and relentless compliance with NMC norms on faculty, infrastructure, and patient load. Fiscal realism cannot be wished away. States like Rajasthan have adopted hybrid faculty pools; internationally, countries such as the Philippines mandate private medical colleges to reserve seats for disadvantaged students through subsidised PPP frameworks. The real policy question is not whether the private sector should be involved, but under what rules, with what safeguards, and to whose ultimate benefit. Efficiency without accountability is predatory; public control without capacity is performative.

Andhra Pradesh now stands at a policy crossroads whose implications will travel far beyond its borders. The collection of over a crore signatures against PPP reflects genuine public anxiety, but anxiety alone cannot substitute for governance design. The state’s credibility will rest on radical transparency—placing contracts in the public domain, enforcing social audits, guaranteeing common infrastructure for all students, and binding private partners to measurable public health outcomes. If done right, this experiment could demonstrate that private efficiency and public accountability need not be adversaries. If done poorly, it will confirm every fear about the slow marketisation of public health. In the end, the white coat must remain a public trust, even if the bricks behind it are privately financed.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

The Indian rupee’s recent slide—nearly 4.8% in weeks, breaching the psychologically bruising ₹91-to-a-dollar mark—has crowned it Asia’s worst-performing currency this year. What makes this unsettling is not collapse but contradiction. India’s macro indicators look reassuring on paper: GDP growth around 6–7%, comfortable forex reserves, and a current account deficit that is hardly alarming. Yet markets do not trade on balance sheets alone. Nearly $18 billion has exited Indian equities as foreign portfolio investors retreated, spooked by global risk aversion, stalled India–US trade talks, and renewed tariff anxieties under a resurgent Trump narrative. For the Indian middle class, this is not a remote macroeconomic drama. It is a slow leak in household certainty—felt first as unease, later as arithmetic.

Currency weakness rarely announces itself with shock therapy. It works by stealth. Prices do not spike overnight by double digits; they seep upward through imported inputs—crude oil, cooking oils, pulses, electronics components, machinery, pharmaceuticals—quietly lifting the cost base of daily life. A 10% depreciation typically transmits only partially into consumer prices, around 4–5%, but even this “moderate” pass-through can nudge the Consumer Price Index up by 0.3–0.5 percentage points. For households juggling EMIs, school fees, healthcare costs, and urban rents, this incremental inflation compounds month after month. Salaries do not keep pace. The result is not crisis but compression—real disposable income thinning without any single bill screaming alarm.

The pain sharpens where aspirations intersect with the dollar. Overseas education, foreign travel, imported gadgets, and international medical care—once symbols of upward mobility—suddenly demand recalibration. A $100,000 university course feels stable until the rupee slips from 85 to 91, quietly converting a ₹85 lakh plan into a ₹91 lakh reality before living expenses. Education loans denominated in rupees shift currency risk squarely onto families; those funding from savings confront an uncomfortable question: is this ambition still rational, or merely habitual? Travel follows the same delayed logic. Airfares and packages may be temporarily insulated by hedging and contracts, but the repricing arrives eventually. The shock is postponed, not cancelled.

Monetary policy adds a layer of confusion that often misleads the middle class. When the RBI cuts rates to support growth, the assumption is relief—lower EMIs, more breathing room. But currency depreciation scrambles this equation. If interest savings are offset by higher prices for imported goods and services, the net benefit evaporates. Worse, rate cuts redistribute stress unevenly. Borrowers gain; savers lose. Fixed-income households and retirees watch real returns erode while their cost of living inches higher. The rupee’s weakness thus creates a paradox of policy optics: support on paper, pressure in practice.

Investment behaviour, too, is being reshaped under this currency shadow. With foreign investors pulling back and markets turning volatile, middle-class investors navigate uncertainty with limited information and heightened emotion. Global assets beckon with diversification and potential returns, but currency risk cuts both ways. For most retail participants, diversified mutual funds remain the most rational hedge—professionally managed and less dependent on guessing the rupee’s next move. Yet the psychological impact of watching portfolios sway alongside a weakening currency fuels anxiety about 2026 and beyond. The fear is not merely loss, but drift—an erosion driven as much by sentiment as by fundamentals.

Looking ahead, the rupee is likely to remain volatile rather than catastrophically weak. India’s structural strengths—growth, reserves, domestic demand—argue against free fall. But global forces will continue to intrude: US interest rates, trade tensions, capital flows, and inflation expectations abroad. For the middle class, the lesson is sobering. A weaker rupee rewards exporters and dollar earners, but it taxes consumption-led aspiration. Financial planning now demands scenario thinking—hedging education costs, pacing foreign exposure, diversifying investments, and accepting that global ambition carries a visible currency price. The rupee may stabilise in time, but the middle class will remember the year it learned a hard truth: national growth does not automatically translate into personal financial comfort.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

Cities Without Commanders: India’s Urban Engines Became Political Orphans in a Global Age of Mayors

India’s booming cities today resemble high-performance engines built for speed but stripped of steering mechanisms. They generate wealth, create jobs, absorb millions of migrants, and anchor national productivity, yet they remain structurally incapable of delivering the most basic citizen-centric services. Water arrives unpredictably, drainage systems fail seasonally rather than exceptionally, sidewalks disappear without explanation, and no single elected authority carries visible, enforceable responsibility. This is not simply administrative inefficiency; it is structural design failure. While global cities amplify the power and visibility of their mayors, Indian cities operate under a strange political invisibility, where leadership is dispersed, diluted, and deliberately weakened. The urban crisis unfolding today is not rooted in lack of technology or funds, but in a systematic dismantling of municipal authority.

Historically, this collapse was neither natural nor inevitable. India inherited a formidable municipal tradition that preceded many Western systems. The Madras Municipality, established in the seventeenth century, emerged before several celebrated European urban institutions. Bombay’s municipal corporation grew into one of the richest urban bodies in Asia, sometimes commanding budgets larger than those of Indian states. In those early eras, mayors were not ornamental figures but public leaders and political pipelines to national prominence. Over time, however, power migrated steadily from cities to state capitals. Chief ministers became the de facto mayors of every major city, while elected municipal heads were reduced to symbolic placeholders, indirectly elected, frequently replaced, and politically subordinate.

Ironically, the 74th Constitutional Amendment, designed to empower urban local bodies, coincided with their weakening, as political practice overwhelmed constitutional aspiration.

At the heart of the problem lies a culture of structural humiliation. Municipal elections are routinely delayed despite constitutional obligations, and judicial interventions remain inconsistent. Parallel institutions have fragmented governance: development authorities, water boards, transport corporations, housing agencies, and “smart city” SPVs now exercise real power, while elected municipal bodies are left with ceremonial responsibility. Roads, housing, water networks, and infrastructure decisions are designed and executed by state-level bureaucracies rather than city governments. Financial flows are routed through state-controlled entities, bypassing the elected corporation. The city, as a political unit, exists only in fragments. Accountability dissolves into overlapping jurisdictions, and citizens are left navigating a maze where everyone is in charge and no one is responsible.

The contrast with global cities is not aesthetic but constitutional. In New York, Chicago, Tokyo, Copenhagen, and Seoul, the mayor is not a ribbon-cutter but the embodiment of the city’s executive authority. Strong-mayor systems allow leaders to appoint teams, control budgets, raise resources, and articulate long-term urban vision. Citizens know exactly who to reward or punish. Elections are fought on transport, housing, water, and safety, not on distant ideological abstractions. Singapore treats water, waste, housing, and transport as a single urban metabolism governed by empowered institutions.

Curitiba reshaped mobility through mayor-driven policy. Barcelona redesigned urban life through accountable local leadership. These cities do not function well because they are wealthier; they function well because power is clearly located and politically respected.

India does possess islands of success, but they thrive in spite of the system, not because of it. Surat transformed itself into a sanitation model after collapse through empowered professional leadership.

Indore pioneered behavioural and institutional reform in waste management. Pune experimented with participatory ward committees. Ahmedabad and Pune tapped municipal bonds, while Hyderabad and Delhi built advanced digital governance platforms. These examples prove that capacity exists within Indian cities. The deeper defect lies in financial and political design. Municipalities depend on discretionary transfers from state and central governments. Property tax systems remain weak, valuation is politicised, and independent taxation powers are almost non-existent. Without financial autonomy, political autonomy cannot exist; without political autonomy, accountability becomes fiction; without accountability, citizen-centric service delivery becomes impossible.

The solution is not a romantic search for heroic mayors but the restoration of cities as real governments rather than administrative departments. Power must decisively shift downward, which necessarily reduces the informal dominance of chief minister offices over city affairs. Municipal bodies must control funds, staff, and functions in practice, not merely in constitutional schedules. Direct election of mayors with five-year, stable terms is not decorative reform but structural necessity. Parallel entities such as SPVs and development authorities must be folded back into transparent municipal accountability. Citizens, too, must be educated to recognise that local government is not ornamental but foundational. Until voters demand empowered cities as a political right, legislatures will never voluntarily surrender control.

India’s urban future will not be determined by taller skyscrapers, faster metro lines, or more sophisticated sensors. It will be determined by whether cities are allowed to become real political entities again. Today, Indian cities are economically powerful but institutionally powerless, wealthy in appearance but hollow in authority. The tragedy is not only administrative but democratic. A civilisation that built some of the world’s earliest municipal traditions now treats its cities as managerial outposts of state politics. Unless this inversion is corrected, India will continue to produce megacities without mayors, infrastructure without accountability, and citizens without a visible government to question, challenge, or believe in.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

India’s oldest mountain range has suddenly become the country’s newest political battlefield. The Aravallis—older than the Himalayas, quieter than election rallies, yet more consequential than many policy debates—now sit at the centre of an unusually fierce confrontation over how ecology is defined, governed and, ultimately, exploited. What appears outwardly as a technical dispute over geological criteria has morphed into a full-blown ideological clash, with one side accusing the state of environmental liquidation and the other claiming scientific precision. The intensity of protests and counterclaims reveals something deeper: a growing anxiety over whether environmental governance in India is being driven by ecological wisdom or administrative convenience.

At the heart of the controversy lies a deceptively simple question: what exactly qualifies as part of the Aravalli range? The newly approved framework relies on an elevation-based threshold tied to “local relief,” a term that sounds neutral but carries immense political and ecological consequences. In practice, this method risks excluding vast stretches of low-lying hillocks, valleys and ridges that have historically functioned as an integrated ecological system. Critics argue that the range is being reduced from a living landscape into a fragmented cartographic abstraction. Supporters insist the definition is more scientific and uniform. The paradox is striking: the same formula is being read by rival political camps as guaranteeing protection for most of the range by one, and stripping protection from most of it by the other.

This is not merely an argument about percentages; it is about scale and consequence. When governments speak in decimals, ecosystems respond in hectares. Even a fraction of land opened up in an ecologically sensitive zone can translate into tens of thousands of acres exposed to mining, construction and speculative development. The Aravalli’s are not decorative hills; they are a critical ecological buffer. They recharge groundwater in one of India’s most water-stressed regions, slow the eastward creep of desertification, shelter biodiversity and act as a natural dust barrier protecting densely populated urban corridors. Fragmentation at this scale is not reversible damage—it is structural harm.

What fuels political suspicion is history. The Supreme Court had earlier expressed discomfort with similar elevation-based benchmarks, precisely because they were seen as inadequate to protect the range. Past mapping exercises had identified large contiguous stretches as bearing Aravalli characteristics, and those findings were intended to curb illegal mining, not facilitate its re-entry through definitional loopholes. Former administrations point to aggressive enforcement regimes—satellite monitoring, dedicated funds, and thousands of police cases against illegal operators—as evidence that strong protection was both possible and effective. Against this backdrop, any redefinition that coincides with reduced enforcement intensity is bound to appear suspect, regardless of official assurances.

The confrontation has therefore spilled out of courtrooms and committees into the streets. Mass mobilisations and protests signal that this is no longer a niche environmental issue but a politically resonant symbol. For the opposition, the Aravallis have become shorthand for a larger critique: that economic growth is being privileged over ecological survival, and that regulatory language is being weaponised to benefit entrenched interests. For the government, the counter-narrative is equally emphatic: that environmental protection must be grounded in clear, standardised criteria rather than emotional appeals or ambiguous geography. The result is an unusually polarised debate in which compromise seems elusive.

What makes this moment especially significant is that it exposes a deeper fault line in India’s development model. Is sustainability a living principle rooted in landscape-level thinking, or a compliance exercise managed through definitions and percentages? Hill ranges like the Aravallis do not function as isolated peaks; they operate as interconnected systems of slopes, forests, wetlands and human settlements. Their value lies precisely in what rigid metrics struggle to capture—continuity, resilience and cumulative impact. Reducing such systems to narrow thresholds risks hollowing out protection while preserving its appearance.

In the end, the Aravalli dispute is less about geology than governance. It is about who gets to define nature, whose knowledge counts as “scientific,” and how the costs of development are distributed across generations. A mountain range that has survived millions of years of climatic upheaval now finds its fate hanging on administrative language and political will. If sustainability is treated as a box to be ticked rather than a system to be safeguarded, the consequences will not remain confined to Rajasthan’s hills. They will be felt in falling water tables, rising dust storms, vanishing biodiversity and an increasingly uneasy relationship between the Indian state and its ecological inheritance.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

At lunchtime in Greater Noida, the doors of a fast-food outlet barely close between orders. Auto drivers queue beside college students, factory workers scroll phones while waiting for takeaway, and delivery bikes idle outside industrial gates near Surajpur Ecotech. Five years ago, this stretch was largely empty. Today it hums with assembly lines, shift sirens, and cafeteria crowds. The work is precise, repetitive, and relentless—electronics manufacturing built on speed and scale. This scene is often celebrated as proof that a once-reluctant industrial state has finally found its manufacturing moment. But look closely and a deeper truth emerges: this success exists almost entirely within the gravitational pull of the metro. The factories did not arrive because the state transformed everywhere; they arrived because this belt sits next to the national capital.

The turnaround did not happen by accident. Policy timing mattered. Global supply chains began searching for alternatives after pandemic disruptions, and India responded with production-linked incentives that rewarded incremental output. The state already had an electronics policy in place, later sweetened with capital subsidies, electricity duty waivers, stamp duty exemptions, and easier land access through expressway-linked authorities offering plug-and-play parcels. A long-delayed airport near the expressway promised global connectivity. Administrative reforms followed: a single-window clearance system cut approvals from months to weeks, pushing the state sharply up national ease-of-doing-business rankings. On paper, this looked like a comprehensive industrial leap. In reality, almost all of it condensed into a narrow corridor—Noida, Greater Noida, and the Yamuna Expressway—a tiny slice of one of India’s largest states.

Geography did as much work as policy. This corridor already had roads, power reliability, logistics, housing, schools, hospitals, and instant access to the capital’s airport and managerial talent.

Manufacturers did not need to bet on unknown terrain; they simply extended the metro’s ecosystem outward. That distinction matters. Industrial transformation did not radiate inward from infrastructure; it clung tightly to what already worked. Even firms operating in this belt for a decade hesitate to expand deeper into the state. Executives privately admit that beyond the NCR shadow, confidence drops—about power reliability, social infrastructure, professional housing, and talent retention. The numbers reveal the imbalance: nearly half of the state’s GDP comes from its western UP region, while the eastern districts contribute far less. What looks like state wide industrialisation is, in fact, metropolitan spill over.

This pattern is not unique. Across India, industrial success repeatedly stops where the metro ends. From the western coast to the southern peninsula, manufacturing clusters concentrate within 50–70 kilometres of major cities, where productivity can be three to five times higher than in interior districts. Metros dominate organised employment, manufacturing output, exports, and access to finance. Beyond them, infrastructure thins, approvals multiply, and transaction costs rise. Logistics alone can eat up 14–18% of revenue outside metro regions, compared to under 10% within. Industrial parks, waste treatment, testing facilities, and supplier ecosystems are overwhelmingly urban-adjacent. The result is a national map where growth is intense but narrow, efficient but unequal.

Human capital exposes the fault lines even more sharply. Electronics manufacturing globally depends on women for precision assembly, yet female workforce participation in this state remains among the lowest in India—barely a fraction of what southern manufacturing states achieve. Thousands of industrial training institutes exist, but outdated curricula and weak industry linkages leave graduates underprepared. Companies recruit across multiple states and retrain at their own cost. On the shop floor, wages remain low—often ₹10,000–₹11,000 a month—with little growth despite promotions. Migrant workers crowd into rented housing near factories, while their families and children remain disconnected from the promise of industrial prosperity. Sunrise industries rise, but social mobility lags behind.

Underlying these human constraints are structural weaknesses that metros quietly mask. Power distribution losses remain high state wide, even if pockets near cities enjoy relative reliability. Law-and-order perceptions, though improving, still shape investor caution beyond urban belts. Financial ecosystems cluster tightly around metros: credit, venture funding, export facilitation, and professional services thin out rapidly elsewhere. Foreign investment and exports tell the same story—states may boast manufacturing headlines, but capital and global market access remain stubbornly urban-centric. Industry may assemble products near highways, but its confidence rarely travels inland.

The lesson from Noida—and from every major metro—is uncomfortable but necessary. Limiting industrial success to the boundaries of cities is not transformation; it is concentration. Sustainable manufacturing requires ecosystems, not enclaves. That means power that does not flicker outside privileged zones, skills that are built district by district, towns where professionals want to live, and institutions that function without proximity to a capital. Until policy shifts from celebrating corridor-led optics to building state-wide capability, factories will keep stopping at the metro’s edge. India will continue to count output and rankings while quietly exporting opportunity inward, leaving the vast spaces beyond the city gates waiting for a growth story that actually reaches them.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights

Bangladesh today resembles less a sovereign democracy finding its equilibrium and more a political fault line that keeps rupturing under pressure, sending shockwaves far beyond its borders. The violence and instability following the ousting of Sheikh Hasina in August 2024 were not just another South Asian episode of street politics overwhelming institutions; they marked a structural rupture with direct consequences for India. What began as student protests over job quotas rapidly mutated into a regime-changing upheaval, exposing how fragile democratic legitimacy becomes when institutions fail to absorb dissent. For New Delhi, this is no distant spectacle. Bangladesh’s turmoil has seeped into India’s diplomacy, border security, electoral calculations, and regional strategy, transforming a neighbour’s crisis into a domestic political variable.

At the geopolitical level, India has lost something far more valuable than a friendly government: predictability. Under Sheikh Hasina, bilateral relations had reached a rare maturity—counter-terrorism cooperation was robust, insurgent sanctuaries were dismantled, and India’s northeastern states were stitched closer to the mainland through Bangladeshi transit and connectivity projects. Her removal shattered this equilibrium overnight. The interim administration in Dhaka appears ideologically fragmented, procedurally uncertain, and politically susceptible to anti-India sentiment. This ambiguity weakens India’s “Neighbourhood First” doctrine and exposes the limits of relationship-building that hinges excessively on individual leaders rather than institutional depth.

The security implications are immediate and unsettling. The 4,096-kilometre India–Bangladesh border, already porous, has become more volatile amid reports of violence against Hindu minorities and the breakdown of local order. For India’s northeastern states and West Bengal, the spectre of refugee inflows is not theoretical—it is politically combustible. Border instability also revives older anxieties: smuggling networks, illegal migration, and the potential reactivation of extremist groups that had been largely neutralised through bilateral cooperation. Indian security agencies are acutely aware that instability creates opportunity, and that Islamist networks with anti-India orientations—sometimes linked to Pakistan’s ISI—thrive in precisely such conditions. Years of quiet counter-terror gains now stand at risk.

The unrest in Bangladesh is also echoing loudly within India’s domestic politics. Attacks on Indian diplomatic missions, assaults on newspapers perceived as pro-India, and public demands for Sheikh Hasina’s extradition have fed nationalist rhetoric across the Indian political spectrum. These developments acquire sharper edges as West Bengal moves toward elections, where narratives of border security, illegal migration, and minority protection already dominate political discourse. What unfolds in Dhaka is increasingly being interpreted through electoral lenses in Kolkata and Delhi, forcing Indian policymakers to manage not only foreign policy but also its domestic reverberations.

Economically, Bangladesh’s instability threatens to undo years of incremental integration. Indian investments—particularly in textiles and manufacturing—face uncertainty, while negotiations for a bilateral Free Trade Agreement remain stalled. Connectivity projects central to India’s Act East policy and the development of its north-eastern region risk delays or renegotiation under a less cooperative dispensation in Dhaka. Such setbacks carry political costs at home, where promises of regional development and integration have been tied to these cross-border initiatives. Strategic geography, once leveraged for mutual benefit, is now entangled in political flux.

Overlaying all this is the unmistakable return of the China factor. Political uncertainty in Dhaka opens doors for Beijing’s cheque-book diplomacy and infrastructure outreach, echoing patterns seen in Sri Lanka and the Maldives. For India, this reinforces long-standing anxieties about strategic encirclement in its immediate neighbourhood. Anti-India rhetoric within Bangladesh, often framed as resistance to external domination, paradoxically risks replacing one perceived influence with another far more structurally entrenched. In Indian political discourse, this has strengthened calls for a firmer regional posture and greater strategic assertiveness.

Yet Bangladesh’s crisis cannot be reduced to geopolitics alone. Internally, the country appears trapped in a cycle where democratic mechanisms exist but lack trust. The assassination of a young protest leader, the spread of rumours in the absence of credible official communication, and the eruption of mob violence reflect institutional hollowness rather than ideological excess. The looming 2026 election—paired with a single, all-or-nothing referendum on sweeping constitutional reforms—has further polarised society. Asking citizens to approve a comprehensive re-engineering of the state through one binary vote risks substituting democratic deliberation with procedural compression. Method, as much as substance, determines legitimacy.
For India, the lesson is sobering. Bangladesh’s instability is not an episodic crisis to be managed until the next election; it is a structural challenge that tests India’s capacity to balance restraint with resolve. How New Delhi navigates this era of “managed instability”—protecting its security interests without appearing interventionist, supporting democratic processes without being drawn into factional battles—will shape not only bilateral relations but India’s confidence as a regional power. In South Asia, borders may be lines on a map, but political fires rarely respect them.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights