PERSPECTIVE
The current political unease in New Delhi, manifest in rising public discontent, sharpening confrontation between the Government and the Opposition, declining confidence in institutions and credibility of the ruling dispensation amidst growing recourse to street mobilization are visible symptoms of deeper underlying governance crises and institutional contradictions.
Govt of the day has every reason to suspect that global deep states may be working in collusion with an opportunist and yet not so ethical opposition, alongside a wide range of subversive elements who have perennially entrenched themselves in this country, to destabilize the ruling dispensation. Yet these must not distract us from the deeper underlying issues like serious alienation and discontent among masses, brazenly oppressive and criminal ways of working of several enforcement institutions and governance failure on multiple fronts. All round comprehensive subversion of every key institution, from the highest echelons of judiciary to media to civil service as well as inner democracy within political parties have been unmistakable reality. The objective of the same has been concentration of power in few hands for selective enrichment of few crony capitalists and complete decimation of rule of law in the country. Every sane, impartial and patriotic voice in the country has been crushed through crude forgery, criminality and brazen decimation of integrity of institutions. Our entire democracy appears to have been perverted into a vulgar contest for power between a personality cult driven ruling dispensation and dynastic entitlement based principal opposition party. Nation, people and civilization, as well as their long-term destiny have been pushed beyond the margins of fringes of political-governance priorities.
The Govt of the day, or its principal advisors appear in panic mode. They have been less than decent and polite or even efficacious towards protestors. Yet they have been far more humane in dealing with protestors compared to autocracies and authoritarian regimes and even more established and powerful democracies in some instances. Response of police has been mixed. In some cases, they have been extremely patient and considerate towards protestors. They have applied minimal force and taken care of food and water of all detainees. But in many others, they have acted with a degree of unacceptable level of unprovoked violence.
Sadly, the focus of opposition appears more on exploiting the situation rather than offering any credible commitment to transform our political system. Leader of opposition and his sister can be seen pushing around and elbowing both on duty junior cops and their own supporters, This is the biggest irony of our democracy that suggests that our entire political space has been cartelized. Dynastic entitlement to leadership roles could be the most perverse assault on democracy. But the alternative has been sustained intimidation of citizens and at times brazen brutality. These have been unmistakable feature of the working of this Government.
It is also true that a wide range of disparate forces have come together to oppose the Government. The ruling shall not struggle to not merely survive but may not emerge unscathed from the ongoing turbulence. There are reasons to believe that despite it’s electoral promise in 2014 to abolish corruption and act tough on at least the most corrupt of UPA regime, this Government ensured exoneration of all corruption accused of previous regime. Rather it normalised corruption further and ensured perpetuation of a morally weak opposition that could be easily scared by enforcement agencies. But every political tactics has a shelf life. The entire phenomenon appears to have badly boomeranged and unless the Prime Minister of India demonstrates bold statesmanship, rather than relying upon his self-seeking advisors. we appear to be staring in face of a genuine and sustained turmoil that is certain to ensure exit of the regime. This is nothing but a form of diffused, irregular but non-volent warfare where Govt appears weak.
Legitimacy of the ongoing agitations cannot entirely be dismissed. Subversion and manipulation of institutions and allegations of corruption against most incumbents of the Government are far too credible. Unrestrained police excesses shall only complicate challenges and lead to further alienation of the people against the regime. I have been expressing my pain and anguish at sustained and serious poverty of statecraft in Indian politics and this is one moment when I wish both the Govt rise beyond their partisan power games that seems to have pushed India under the yoke of an internal colonisation
THE CRISIS FACING INDIA IS NOT MERELY POLITICAL BUT ALSO INSTITUTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL AND CIVILISATIONAL
I have for some time believed that democracy, in the form in which it has evolved and the ways in which it is being practised, has already bypassed the limits of its effectiveness. This is not only in India but perhaps across substantial parts of the world. The challenges in India are far more formidable on account of our massive population, deficient governance institutions, colonial legacy, trauma of sustained foreign rule, genocidal partition and hostility of major global powers amidst sustained terrorist attacks over decades and deeper radicalization to fracture our national cohesion. Yet this is no argument for abandoning democracy. On the contrary, it is an argument for refining and evolving democracy by transforming entire governance capacities and overall institutional edifice alongside simultaneous transformation of societal-politcal-governance ecosystem. This calls for bold statesmanlyleadership that we have failed to produce despite enormous potential and promises shown by the current Prime Minister of the country who has ultimately disappointed beyond all words.
Ironically the focus of Indian democracy appears to have been perverted. Governance and security of the nation have not been completely eliminated from agenda of political parties. But these appear much lower on priority. Our democracy rather appears a mechanism for periodic transfer of power through electoral process among key competing political groups. There seems a tacit arrangement among different sets of political elites that they shall have equal opportunity to capture institutions, distribute patronage, advance sectional interests and thereafter claim democratic legitimacy through elections.
The consequences of the phenomenon are dangerous not only for people of the country but for the world at large. If world’s largest democracy and the oldest humanist civilization forfeits its moral authority and loses a strong global voice, the larger global geopolitical equilibrium shall change to disadvantage of entire humanity. Sub-optimal performance of India on all parameters of governance and national power indicate a serious underlying disorder, which none of the political and intellectual elite appear to be in a position to address or even willing to engage. There is need for serious introspection and honest discourse in this direction.
When Democracy fails to optimally deliver on governance, its procedures lose their strength and purpose.
Dissent Is Also A Feedback
Recent public mobilisations must be viewed in this larger context. The demonstrations associated with Jantar Mantar included demands for electoral accountability and systemic reform. Though I personally believe that India needs a much larger discourse on large -scale subversion of institutions and fracture of society by all political parties in name of caste and identity, rather than simple removal of a Chief Election Commissioner. On 12 October 2026, Delhi Police announced that Jantar Mantar had been de-notified as a designated protest venue and identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as alternative venues. This may be a good police tactics but shows defensive psyche of the Govt.
A government has both the right and obligation to maintain public order. But the instruments of policing cannot become substitutes for political engagement and judgment. Simultaneously, a number of protestors have been arrested in a manner that appears legally questionable.
POLICE CAN REGULATE PROTEST; BUT THEY CANNOT RESOLVE THE CONDITIONS THAT GENERATE PROTEST.
A mature state must possess the confidence to treat public discontent as feedback. This does not mean accepting every allegation made by protesters. Nor does it mean overlooking manipulation by political opportunists, vested interests, external actors or other forces seeking to exploit instability. Such possibilities are inherent in politics and geopolitics.
But precisely herein lies the distinction between administration and statecraft.
Statecraft requires the ability to distinguish genuine grievance from manufactured outrage, legitimate dissent from organised subversion, and political opposition from threats to national security. It must possess sufficient intellectual balance to accommodate the first while effectively snuff out the second.
In my conception of Indocracy, I have repeatedly stated that challenges and setbacks can serve as instruments of institutional learning. A dynamic science of statecraft must continuously evolve and adapt.
A strong state does not merely control discontent. It learns from it to get better. But more importantly, state is not merely ruling political dispensation alone. A ruling dispensation loses credibility and respect when it subverts key institutions to favour/enrich its own cronies at the cost of the nation. It permanently weakens a nation and civilisation when it undertakes large-scale de-institutionalises entire state for consolidating its own grip over state power. It sends a wrong signal and inflicts serious damage when it targets/crushes incumbents in key institutions through criminality and fraud over the latter’s most selfless services to the nation. It appears to attack sovereignty and long term security of the nation and barter national pride when it does so for the purpose of appeasing its own clandestine external and internal associates.
THE PROBLEM IS LARGER THAN THE SIMPLE FAILURES OF THE GOVERNMENT
It would nevertheless be too simplistic to place the entire responsibility for India's predicament upon the present Government alone.
Our difficulties run much deeper. Institutional subversion has built a momentum of its own over the last five to six decades.
Substantial parts of India's political space increasingly appear vulnerable to cartelisation by organised political, economic and sectional interests. Political competition consequently risks becoming less a contest among alternative visions of national advancement and more a struggle among competing caucuses for control of the state.
The distinction is fundamental.
Politics should be a contest over how best to govern a nation. It must not degenerate into a contest over who acquires the privileges of governing for enrichment of it’s own set of associates at the cost of comprehensive progress of the nation.
State power is not an entitlement. It is not the property of a political dynasty, party, bureaucracy, corporation, security establishment or ideological group. Its sole legitimacy flows from its capacity to serve the society while protecting and advancing the long-term interests of the nation.
Power without purpose degenerates into privilege. Privilege without accountability eventually corrodes the state.
NEITHER THE PRESENT NOR THE PAST IS INSPIRING
The mounting criticism of the present dispensation must not induce amnesia about the failures preceding 2014. Public concerns over corruption, policy paralysis, patronage, dynastic entitlement and privileged access to the state significantly contributed to the political rejection of that order.
India cannot return to that model and call it a renewal or progress. But equally, no government can derive indefinite legitimacy merely from the failures of its predecessors.
The present dispensation came to power carrying expectations of cleaner governance, stronger national security, patriotic purpose and decisive leadership. These expectations must ultimately be judged against performance and institutional outcomes.
Individual leaders may enjoy reputations for personal integrity. That is important. But personal financial integrity and institutional integrity cum efficacy are two different propositions.
An honest individual operating within a compromised institutional ecosystem cannot indefinitely produce honest outcomes.
Hence India's challenge is not merely to find good rulers. It is to construct institutions in which good people can excel, ordinary people are compelled to perform, and dishonest people find criminality, manipulation and corruption increasingly difficult.
I find it shocking the manner in which rival political formations have been peddling parasitism to grab power. Not a single political party has transparent funding. Bureaucracy is more about entitlement and loyalty rather than professional competence and productivity. Without patronage, our corporate class just cannot survive leave aside competing globally.
Both the Government and the opposition have been claiming good intentions but both have demonstrated extreme poverty of good statecraft or genuine commitment and capacity to optimise good of the nation.
CORRUPTION IS NOT MERELY A MORAL FAILURE
India must similarly abandon the narrow conception of corruption as bribery or theft of public money.
Systemic corruption has far more serious consequences. It can distort political funding, appointments, procurement, regulation, policing and criminal justice. It can undermine fair economic competition and preserve mediocrity while obstructing excellence. At sufficiently advanced levels it can create vulnerabilities even within institutions connected with national security.
Corruption, when institutionalised, ceases to be merely an economic offence. It becomes a strategic vulnerability.
National security therefore does not commence at the territorial frontier. It commences with the integrity of institutions.
My formulation of Indocracy places the integrity and efficiency of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary alongside human development, technological innovation, economic advancement, containment of corruption and management of security and geopolitical challenges. They are interconnected elements of national power.
A state cannot remain strategically strong for long if its institutions become internally weak.
THE OPPOSITION MUST OFFER MORE THAN AN ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT
The Opposition has both the right and responsibility to subject the Government to scrutiny. Indeed, no government committed to democracy should fear serious scrutiny.
But scrutiny is not strategy. Protest is not policy. And opposition to a government is not automatically an alternative philosophy of governance.
Recent protest organisers themselves demanded what they described as systemic electoral reform. At the same time, reporting on their press conference noted that supporting data was not provided there for their allegation concerning the removal of approximately 13 crore names from electoral rolls.
Serious assertions require credible evidence. Equally, widespread erosion of public confidence deserves serious institutional answers.
The greater question before the Opposition, however, is different. Where is the comprehensive blueprint for judicial reform, police reform, electoral reform, political-finance reform, civil-service transformation, local governance, education, healthcare, technological advancement and national security?
India does not merely need an Opposition capable of defeating a government. It requires an alternative capable of transforming governance. This is squarely missing.
Otherwise, genuine public grievances become instruments for electoral mobilisation. Power changes hands, beneficiaries change, rhetoric changes, but the institutional architecture survives substantially intact.
That is regime change. It is not national transformation. India needs transformation. Regime Change in 2014 failed to eradicate woes of corruption and mismanagement of 2004-14 era. There is no idea on the horizon for national transformation.
A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONGRESS
The Indian National Congress confronts, in this context, an important historical choice.
It can liberate itself from perceptions of dynastic entitlement and reinvent itself through internal democracy, merit, intellectual openness, institutional reform, economic dynamism, national cohesion and credible national-security thinking. Or it can remain dependent upon inherited structures, coalitional arithmetic and anti-incumbency.
A strong India requires an effective Government. But a strong India also requires a credible Opposition.
Weak opposition eventually weakens government because power deprived of serious competition loses its incentive for self-correction.
India consequently needs competition among ideas and institutions, not merely competition among personalities.
Picture is clear in this direction. People dread return of Vadranomics and Chidambarnomics.
A CIVILISATION CANNOT PERPETUALLY FRAGMENT ITSELF
India cannot indefinitely organise its political life around ever finer divisions of caste, religion, region and inherited grievance.
Historical inequities must be corrected. Discrimination must be resisted. Vulnerable communities require protection. But every citizen deserves dignity, justice and equitable opportunity. An institutional ecosystem in this direction must be backed by bold leadership driven initiatives.
But correcting disadvantage is not the same as perpetuating identity as the primary currency of political mobilisation.
A civilisation cannot endlessly subdivide itself and simultaneously aspire to greatness.
The challenge is not to erase India's diversity. Such an objective would be neither desirable nor possible. The challenge is to create a civic identity sufficiently powerful to transcend these divisions without suppressing them.
Diversity requires protection. Nationhood requires cohesion. There is no contradiction between the two when the statecraft is driven by sagacity.
A GLOBAL CRISIS OF STATECRAFT
India's predicament must also be placed within a wider global context.
On October 08, 2026, I addressed marine scientists, academics and entrepreneurs of whole of Indo-Asia and Australia in Indonesia’s Hang Tuah University at Surabaya on a topic captioned; “Maritime Innovations and Strategic Statecraft”. I called for a paradigm shift in the idea of statecraft both domestically and globally. I maintained that it was high time that developing nations, especially the larger ones demonstrated their capacity and commitment through practice and not preaching. If these states were able to optimize their comprehensive national capacities, they could collectively bridge the power asymmetry vis a vis larger powers like China. Progress in this direction called for building entire ecosystem of collaboration, competition and innovation by a process of cross domain and inter-geographical collaboration and knowledge sharing. That alone can lend greater stability to the global order and protect resilience of integrated supply chains in a hyper connected world.
Humanity has achieved astonishing technological progress. Artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum science, autonomous systems, space technology and instantaneous global communications are transforming human possibilities. Yet innovation in governance and statecraft has not kept pace.
Humanity has become extraordinarily sophisticated in its instruments and surprisingly deficient in governing their consequences.
There appears to be an intellectual sclerosis in the realm of statecraft.
While Western countries retain formidable advantages in wealth, science, technology, educational institutions and governance infrastructure, Chinese challenge is admirable. Historical processes including colonial expansion contributed to the accumulation of Western power. Yet contemporary Western societies themselves confront challenges of polarisation, institutional distrust and concentration of influence.
China represents a different trajectory. In my published formulation of Indocracy, I have discussed China's integration of economic, military, technological and governance capabilities, while also questioning important features and consequences of its model.
Yet a deficiently and sub-optimally performing India and Indo-Asia threatened larger stability and security of the global order. India must not mechanically imitate others. A civilisation of India's scale must have the confidence to innovate.
INDIA DOES NOT LACK TALENT; IT LACKS AN ECOSYSTEM
Perhaps the greatest paradox is that India does not suffer from any paucity of intelligence.
India has exceptional scientists, technologists, military professionals, entrepreneurs, administrators, doctors, academics and managerial leaders. Indians occupy positions of extraordinary responsibility in global corporations and centres of innovation. Within India too, institutions of remarkable excellence exist.
Yet these islands of excellence coexist with widespread institutional mediocrity. This contradiction is itself an indictment of our governance architecture.
India's failure is not its inability to produce excellence. It is its inability to convert scattered excellence into systemic national capacity.
Great states identify talent, protect integrity, reward competence, facilitate collaboration, ensure fair competition, punish criminality and create institutions through which individual capabilities multiply the collective strength of society.
My concept of Indocracy has consistently emphasised precisely this mutually empowering relationship between individual, society and state.
INDIA NEEDS A MORE INTELLIGENT DEMOCRACY
The answer to the present crisis is therefore neither less democracy nor authoritarianism.
It is a more intelligent, accountable and outcome-oriented democracy.
Nation must rise above faction. Institutions must rise above personalities. Merit must prevail over pedigree. Citizenship must become stronger than sectarian mobilisation. Integrity must replace patronage. Capability must replace dependency. Innovation must displace stagnation. Reform must take precedence over rhetoric. Above everything, statecraft must rise above the mere pursuit of state power.
India needs leaders of integrity. But it needs something even more enduring than good leaders.
Great leaders may initiate transformation. Only great institutions can sustain it.
NEED TO GO BEYOND COSMETIC CHANGE
India unquestionably needs change. But we have changed governments before. We have changed leaders. We have changed slogans. We have changed economic policies. Yet we have not sufficiently transformed the deeper architecture of the state.
That is the unfinished task.
India cannot police its way to greatness. Government cannot communicate its way out of institutional deficiencies. Opposition cannot protest its way into statesmanship. Business cannot substitute wealth creation with privileged access to political power. Nor can charismatic leaders, however popular or personally honest, substitute themselves for institutions.
The real contest facing India is therefore no longer simply Government versus Opposition, BJP versus Congress, Narendra Modi versus Rahul Gandhi, or Right versus Left. Those remain legitimate contests of democratic politics.
But the contest of statecraft is larger: stagnation versus transformation; entitlement versus merit; cartelisation versus citizenship; institutional capture versus institutional integrity; dependency versus capability; fragmentation versus civilisational cohesion; politics for power versus statecraft for national advancement.
If Government merely attempts to contain public anger, India will squander this moment. If Opposition merely exploits that anger to capture power, India will squander it again.
But if this moment awakens the country to the necessity of rebuilding institutions, restoring public trust, liberating human potential and reconstructing the relationship between citizen, society and state, the present turbulence could still become an opportunity for national regeneration.
India does not merely need another government. It needs a better state.
It does not merely need another political alternative. It needs an institutional alternative.
And it does not merely need stronger rulers. It needs stronger citizens, stronger institutions and a stronger relationship between society and the state.
The defining question of our time is therefore not: Who will rule India next?
It is: What kind of India are we building for those who come next?
That is the larger transition from the politics of acquiring power to the science of exercising power for a civilisational purpose.
That is the transition from mere democracy to a more evolved architecture of democratic statecraft.
That is the essence of Indocracy that I have been advocating and explaining for quite sometime.
Jitendra Kumar Ojha | Indocracy
No comments:
Post a Comment