The Risk Averse State, Can India’s Economic Policy Meet Its Existential Challenges?
The annual Union Budget presentation is more than a fiscal accounting exercise; it is a statement of political priorities, a reflection of economic philosophy, and a litmus test for a government’s willingness to confront structural demons. As the nation awaits the next budget, a piercing question hangs in the air, posed succinctly in a recent commentary: “Nirmala ji, are you willing to take risks?” This query, directed at Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, cuts to the heart of India’s current economic paradox: impressive macroeconomic aggregates coexisting with profound microeconomic distress, global recognition juxtaposed with dismal human development rankings, and ambitious rhetoric often unmatched by transformative action on the ground.
The commentary, echoing a Chanakya-like strategic view, argues that navigating a volatile world order and unlocking India’s true potential requires not cautious tinkering but bold, politically risky structural reforms. The central thesis is that India’s greatest impediment is a mismatch—between skills and opportunities, between subsidies and productivity, and between ambition and execution. Addressing these divides demands a budget that is less an account of expenditure and more a blueprint for courageous change.
The Global Chessboard: Competing in an Age of Uncertainty
The global economic environment is in a state of flux. Geopolitical tensions, fractured supply chains, and a shift towards “friend-shoring” and strategic autonomy have redrawn the map for investment and production. India positions itself as a stable, democratic alternative to China—a “plus-one” in global supply chains. However, as the commentary notes, this role is not guaranteed. To be an attractive destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and migrating production lines, India must offer more than just demographic heft. It requires a “competitive, safer and easier business environment.”
This necessitates a relentless pursuit of second-generation economic reforms. While the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were monumental steps, the ease of doing business at the state and municipal levels remains mired in red tape, inspector raj, and judicial delays. The budget must signal a renewed federal push to dismantle these last-mile barriers. Furthermore, India’s standing in the Global Innovation Index (a cited 33rd out of 133) is a glaring weakness in a knowledge-driven century. The commentary’s metaphor is apt: in a hostile world, India must “invent the wheel itself instead of being a cog in that of somebody else’s.” This demands a quantum leap in R&D investment, moving from the current ~0.7% of GDP towards 2%, with clear focus areas in green tech, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and defence.
The Political Economy of Subsidies: Springboards vs. Sustenance
One of the most politically sensitive risks involves the government’s welfare architecture. In an unequal society, direct income support (like PM-KISAN) and massive subsidies (on food, fertilizer, fuel) are essential social safety nets. The question, however, is one of design and outcome. As the commentary argues, the challenge is to convert these supports into “springboards,” not permanent crutches.
The real risk lies in weaning the system off blanket subsidies and redirecting that capital towards creating “production and employment pathways.” This could mean coupling cash transfers with mandatory enrolment in skill development programs, or redirecting fertilizer subsidies towards investments in precision agriculture and soil health management. It involves risking short-term political unpopularity for long-term economic empowerment. A budget that merely increases the outlay for existing schemes without a transformative redesign perpetuates dependency. One that dares to link welfare to productivity and training could ignite a virtuous cycle of aspiration and mobility.
The Employment Crisis: Skilling, AI, and the Manufacturing Conundrum
India’s demographic dividend is poised to become a demographic disaster if employment generation does not keep pace. The problem is two-fold: quality and quantity. Automation and Artificial Intelligence are displacing routine labor across sectors, from manufacturing assembly lines to backend service operations. Simultaneously, as the commentary highlights, a paddy farmer cannot magically transition into an AI trainer. The “mismatch between skills and opportunities” is crippling.
The budget must, therefore, undertake a radical reimagining of education and vocational training. This goes beyond allocating funds to the Ministry of Skill Development. It requires a national mission to integrate digital and AI literacy into school curricula, create industry-apprenticeship hybrids at scale, and establish a dynamic framework for lifelong learning and re-skilling. Concurrently, the government must take the “risk” of aggressively incentivizing labor-intensive manufacturing. India’s manufacturing share in GDP has stagnated at 15-17% for decades, held back by logistical inefficiencies, high compliance costs, and power quality issues. A bold budget would announce a 10-year fiscal and policy holiday for strategic labor-intensive sectors (textiles, footwear, electronics assembly, food processing), coupled with a war-like effort to build logistics corridors and industrial clusters. In the age of AI, betting on job-creating manufacturing is a counter-intuitive but necessary risk.
The Anxious Middle Class: The Engine of Demand Needs Fuel
Often overlooked in populist narratives, the Indian middle class is the bedrock of domestic consumption, savings, and aspiration. Yet, as the commentary notes, this class is “anxious”—beset by job instability, soaring education and healthcare costs, unaffordable housing, and retirement insecurity. Token tax concessions do little to assuage these deep-seated vulnerabilities.
A risk-taking budget would address these structural anxieties head-on. This could involve:
-
A credible roadmap for universal healthcare coverage beyond Ayushman Bharat, reducing out-of-pocket expenses.
-
Tax incentives for long-term retirement savings and revamping the pension system.
-
A major push for affordable urban housing through innovative public-private models and rental housing reforms.
-
Substantial reforms in education financing, including income-contingent student loan schemes.
A secure, confident middle class spends and invests, fueling the aggregate demand necessary for sustained growth. Ignoring its distress is an economic misstep as much as a political one.
Agriculture and Inequality: The Twin Peaks of Distress
Two stark statistics define India’s enduring challenge: agriculture employs nearly half the workforce but contributes less than a fifth of GDP, and India ranks 102nd on the Global Hunger Index despite being the world’s third-largest economy. This is the starkest manifestation of the mismatch problem.
Tinkering with Minimum Support Prices (MSP) and existing schemes will not trigger the required transformation. The budget must herald a “concrete plan for a second Green Revolution.” This revolution would be climate-smart, focusing on drought-resistant seeds, micro-irrigation, solar-powered cold chains, and digital marketplaces that connect farmers directly to consumers and exporters. It requires massive public investment in rural infrastructure and a courageous move towards empowering Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) to bypass entrenched middlemen. Similarly, addressing inequality requires policies that go beyond headline-grabbing freebies. A progressive wealth tax, a serious attempt to expand the direct tax base, and significantly enhanced public spending on quality health and education for the bottom 50% are risky but essential measures to “lift all boats.”
Conclusion: The 1991 Moment Revisited?
The commentary ends by invoking the landmark liberalization of 1991—a moment of profound risk that redefined India’s destiny. The current juncture demands a similar courage. The risks are clear: political backlash from subsidy reforms, implementation hurdles in skilling missions, fiscal pressures from increased social spending, and resistance from status quo interests.
However, the risk of inaction is far greater. It is the risk of a demographic dividend squandered, of middle-class stagnation, of agricultural distress boiling over, and of India missing its historic opportunity to establish itself as a self-reliant, innovative economic power. The upcoming budget is thus a critical test. Will it be a document of incrementalism, balancing figures on a page? Or will it be a visionary charter that takes calculated risks to bridge the fatal mismatches in the economy? The question for the Finance Minister and the government remains: Is the comfort of short-term stability worth the cost of long-term stagnation? The nation awaits an answer not just in words, but in the boldness of the numbers and policies presented. India’s future trajectory depends on the willingness to embrace the risks of today to secure the rewards of tomorrow.
Q&A: The Imperative for Risk-Taking in India’s Economic Policy
Q1: What is the core “mismatch” identified as India’s key economic challenge, and how does it manifest?
A1: The core mismatch is between skills and opportunities. It manifests in multiple ways: a large workforce trained in outdated or agrarian skills unable to access jobs in a modernizing, tech-driven economy; welfare subsidies that provide sustenance but don’t create pathways to productive employment; and an education system that does not equip youth for the demands of industries being reshaped by automation and AI. This disconnect results in stagnant wages, underemployment, and an inability to fully capitalize on demographic or economic potential.
Q2: Why is increasing India’s innovation capacity framed as a strategic imperative beyond just economic growth?
A2: In a volatile, “hostile world” defined by geopolitical rivalry and supply chain reconfiguration, technological dependence is a strategic vulnerability. The commentary argues India must “invent the wheel itself” to avoid being a perpetual “cog” in systems designed by others. High innovation capacity (measured by India’s middling 33rd rank in the Global Innovation Index) ensures strategic autonomy, creates high-value jobs, and allows India to set standards in emerging fields like green tech and digital infrastructure, rather than just adopting them.
Q3: What political risk does the government face in reforming the subsidy and welfare system, and what is the proposed alternative approach?
A3: The political risk is severe short-term backlash from constituencies that have come to rely on direct transfers and price supports. The alternative, riskier approach is to redesign welfare as a “springboard” rather than permanent “sustenance.” This means linking benefits like cash transfers or subsidies to enrollment in skill development programs, supporting micro-entrepreneurship, or investing in productivity-enhancing assets (e.g., shifting fertilizer subsidy to precision irrigation tools). The goal is to use welfare expenditure to catalyze a transition from dependency to secure employment or enterprise.
Q4: How does the anxiety of the middle class pose a macroeconomic problem, and what bold budgetary measures could address it?
A4: An anxious middle class curtails consumption and investment due to fears over health, education, housing, and retirement costs, thereby suppressing the aggregate demand essential for growth. Bold measures to address this include: enacting a credible universal healthcare roadmap to reduce out-of-pocket expenses, creating tax-efficient long-term retirement savings vehicles, launching a major affordable housing initiative, and reforming education financing with income-contingent loans. These would reduce precautionary savings, boost spending, and strengthen human capital.
Q5: Why is a “second Green Revolution” needed, and how would it differ from current agricultural policy?
A5: A second Green Revolution is needed because the first one has plateaued, and the sector suffers from a crippling structural imbalance (high employment, low GDP contribution) and climate vulnerability. It would differ from current piecemeal scheme-based policy by being a concerted, mission-mode investment in climate-resilient foundations. This includes R&D for drought/flood-resistant seeds, large-scale adoption of precision irrigation and solar-powered cold chains, digital market platforms to bypass middlemen, and capitalizing Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs). The budget must signal this shift from income support to productivity revolution.
