The Decline of Indian Media: A Multifaceted Crisis

YouTube

In 2020, a case was filed in the United States against CISCO for caste discrimination. It made international headlines but was largely ignored by Indian media. That same year, the brutal gangrape and murder of a Dalit girl in Hathras saw the media initially trying to cover it up. In another case, a senior Dalit police officer in Haryana was driven to suicide after mistreatment by his upper-caste superiors, yet the incident received little attention. Across India, countless atrocities against Dalits, Muslims, and women take place, but they rarely spark serious discussion in the mainstream media.

Remember NDTV’s Big Fight Show in early 2000s? Despite its name, the host Vikram Chandra ensured that the debate maintained decorum and substance. Although, other news channels too adapted this template, things began to deteriorate when jingoism and political propaganda overwhelmed all journalistic sanity. Republic TV, Times Now, India Today etc hosted shouting matches where decorum and ethics had no place at all. The idea is to distract public attention from real issues facing them.

Interestingly, Aroon Purie, the founder and editor-in-chief of the India Today Group, recently stated that "99% of news channels lose money" and are often treated by industrial houses and billionaires as tools for influence. What else did Purie expect, when India Today itself is guilty of the same?

Senior editors provide lame excuses like political pressures, takeover by corporate bosses, and technological disruptions. But should these be the reasons for the prevalence of sycophantic tendencies, unethical practices, and  shameless compromises? Did they ever factor in the consequences like erosion of media’s credibility and public trust? India's ranking in the World Press Freedom Index has plummeted to 151 out of 180 countries in 2025. Since 2014, toxic interplay of internal and external pressures, violence against journalists, concentrated ownership, and political alignment have contributed to this dangerous state of affairs. But if there was collective resistance, things could have been different. If they crawled during the Emergency, they are licking the boots, and much else, of the powers that be today.

The once vibrant Fourth Estate has been reduced to a murky, repulsive private property. A pristine edifice of free speech and democracy  is showing all the signs of a seedy house of sin owned and run by powerful moneybags who have no stakes in the future of democracy in India.

Loss of Credibility: The Foundational Erosion

According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024, trust in news credibility in India dropped by nine points. This erosion stems from a shift away from objective reporting toward sensationalism, bias, and misinformation. A Lokniti-CSDS report titled 'Media in India: Trends and Patterns' found that 82% of media organisations blindly support the BJP out of fear of business repercussions. This figure rises to 89% when we include independent journalists' opinions. Such partisanship has transformed media from a watchdog to a lapdog. The Policy Circle states that lack of editorial oversight and Indian media's resort to partisanship and spectacle has resulted in the  deepening crisis of credibility.

We know how, during the 2025 India-Pakistan tensions, Indian TV channels amplified unverified claims of airstrikes and terror camps, using fake videos. This made a mockery of journalism. The New York Times highlighted how outlets suppress damaging news to the government's reputation, amplifying falsehoods during crises like border conflicts. This credibility loss is not isolated; it feeds into other factors, creating a vicious cycle. Moreover, trolling, fake news, and curbs on free speech by vested interests have alienated audiences.

Political Pressures Since 2014: The Shadow of Authoritarianism

The BJP’s rise in 2014 ushered in an era of intensified political pressures that have choked media’s independence. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) describes this as an "unofficial state of emergency," with the media bosses aligning with BJP to control narratives. One corporate house, aligned to BJP, controls over 70 outlets reaching 800 million people. Another BJP billionaire’s 2022 acquisition of NDTV ended one of the last bastions of pluralism. 

Colonial-era laws on sedition and defamation, alongside new legislation like the 2023 Telecommunications Act and the draft Broadcasting Services Bill, empower the government to censor content and control digital platforms. A Carnegie Endowment study notes how these tools repress social media moderation in India. Examples include the raids on BBC offices in 2023 after a documentary critical of the PM, and the 600-day incarceration of Kashmiri journalist Fahad Shah under anti-terror laws. Sedition cases shot up by 30% since 2014, as per a Berkley Center report. This political stranglehold intersects with financial woes, as government ads—worth billions—reward compliant outlets, as per RSF. In 2023, the Editors Guild of India faced charges of promoting enmity over a Manipur report, highlighting how even editorial bodies are targeted for critical work.

The Pivotal Role of Media Owners and Editors: Architects of Compromise

Media owners have turned their news outlets into extensions of their economic empires. The Media Ownership Monitor by RSF reveals that India's media is dominated by business families and investors. The ownership structures include joint stock companies, societies, and trusts that obscure true control. Two biggest corporate empires have acquired vast media portfolios, influencing content to align with their political and commercial agendas. For instance, corporate acquisition of the Network18 led to abrupt resignation of independent editors who resisted pro-government slants. This was documented in a Caravan magazine piece on the "slow disappearance of independent editors." Owners handpick pliant journalists, suppressing fearless reporting to avoid offending powerful allies. The migration of anchors from India Today to NDTV is a case in point.

After the takeover of NDTV in 2022, the channel was transformed from a critical voice to one more aligned with BJP narratives. The Stimson Centre's report on media bias highlights how government advertisements serve as a "financial lever" for influencing content. The owners direct editors to prioritise stories that secure ad revenue from state coffers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, editors at major Hindi channels downplayed government mishandling. They amplified misinformation about vaccines to align with official narratives.

The Rise of Internet-Based News Media: Disruption and Fragmentation

The proliferation of digital media has disrupted traditional channels, accelerating their decline. According to a 2024 Reuters report, over 70% of Indians rely on online sources for news, with 49% using social media. This shift has eroded traditional TV and print revenues, forcing closures or mergers. A study in the International Journal of Library and Information Practice notes a 20.81% cumulative increase in online news consumers from 2019 to 2022. 

Traditional outlets lose audiences to agile, cost-effective digital alternatives, which democratises journalism. Citizen journalists via blogs and OTT platforms have bypassed state monopolies and corporate owned entities. But they are unregulated, resulting in proliferation of fake news. Influencers conduct flattering interviews, with no accountability. For example, The Caravan reports on the Indian PM’s use of them to bolster his image. Online disinformation deteriorates discourse. Fragmentation worsens credibility, as traditional media resorts to sensationalism and succumbs to political pressures.

Sycophancy: The Culture of Flattery and Submission

Sycophancy permeates Indian media, particularly post-2014. Termed "Godi media", news outlets promote pro-BJP propaganda. According to the RSF, Hindi channels dedicate airtime to religious nationalism and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Examples include anchors hailing the PM as "King of Gods”. Thanks to competitive sycophancy among politicians, bureaucrats and corporate honchos a toxic environment has asphyxiated ethical journalism in the mainstream media. Of course, there are historical precedents from Indira Gandhi's era slogan "India is Indira”. However, today it has been institutionalised in a big way, eroding critical discourse. There is a distinct shift in the mainstream media towards "narrative-shaping" journalism. 

Unprofessional and Unethical Practices: Breaches That Betray Trust

Unethical practices, from paid news to media trials, compound the crisis. A Taylor & Francis study on media trials analyses ethical issues in cases like Siddiqui Kappan, where outlets prejudge guilt, compromising justice. The Tehelka sting "Operation West End" (2001) defended using prostitutes as ethical lapses for exposing corruption, but set precedents for sensationalism. The 2010 Radia Tapes scandal revealed top journalists crossing lines by lobbying for corporations.

The occurrence of unethical reporting on sexual violence has become commonplace. Such reporting prioritises sensationalism over truth. Government agencies can brazenly promote media trials. We witnessed that in the cases of Sushant Rajput, Aaryan Khan, and many others. Such acts raise human rights, privacy and fairness concerns. Such yellow journalism sacrifices truth for ratings, intersects with external factors like political coercion, as seen in Gujarat riots coverage fuelling communalism.

Conclusion: A Synergistic Downfall and Paths Forward

The Indian media's sorry state is a confluence of several factors. Political pressures since 2014 have concentrated ownership and enforced censorship; the roles of owners and editors have designed compromise through corporate and political entanglements; digital rise has fragmented audiences and amplified misinformation; sycophancy and unethical practices reflect internal rot; all culminating in lost credibility. Reform requires regulatory independence, ethical training, and diversified ownership. Without it, democracy suffers, as informed citizenship fades. Yet, outliers like Khabar Lahariya, The Wire, Article 14, Scroll.in, The Caravan, Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), Newslaundry, and regional stalwarts such as Malayala Manorama and Eenadu offer hope, proving resilient journalism can endure. The path to revival demands confronting this multifaceted crisis head-on.

Godi Media, NDTV, Republic TV, Aaj Tak, India Today, Reliance, Adani, Ambani, Times Now, Newslaundry, Article 14, The Wire, The Caravan, Economic and Political Weekly, Al Jazeera, The Print, Sctoll.in, Malayala Manorama, Eenadu, yellow journalism, Sushant Rajput, Aaryan Khan, Siddique Kappan, CNN18, BJP, Indira Gandhi, Emergency, Lokniti-CSDS, Reuters, RSF, Reporters Without Borders, Arnab Goswami, News-X

Peaceful Revolutions and Gandhian Philosophy

YouTube

The 20th century and early 21st century witnessed a series of transformative movements that reshaped political landscapes through non-violent means. India’s independence movement, the Philippines’ People Power Revolution of 1986, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004, Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution of 1989, and Georgia’s Rose Revolution of 2003 stand as landmark examples of “peaceful” or “democratic” revolutions. These movements were distinct in their historical and cultural contexts. But they share a common thread. They resorted to nonviolent means to cause systemic changes. Central to this paradigm is the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, whose principles of non-violence (ahimsa) and civil disobedience (satyagraha) provided a blueprint for mass mobilisation without bloodshed.

India’s Independence Movement (1915–1947)

India’s struggle for independence from British colonial rule is a cornerstone of non-violent resistance. Under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, the Indian National Congress mobilised millions through campaigns like the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922), the Salt March (1930), and the Quit India Movement (1942). His philosophy of satyagraha—truth and resistance—emphasised moral force over physical violence. By boycotting British goods, institutions, and laws, Indians exposed the economic and moral fragility of the colonial rule. The Salt March, for instance, was a symbolic act of defiance against the salt tax, which galvanised mass participation and global attention.

Gandhi’s approach was rooted in universal principles: non-violence, self-sacrifice, and the power of collective action. His strategies were deeply philosophical, aiming to transform both the oppressor and the oppressed. The movement’s success in 1947 demonstrated that non-violent resistance could dismantle an empire. This precedent inspired subsequent movements worldwide, establishing Gandhi as a global symbol of peaceful revolution.

The Philippines’ People Power Revolution (1986)

In February 1986, the Philippines underwent a dramatic transformation through the People Power Revolution. It ousted President Ferdinand Marcos after two decades of authoritarian rule. Triggered by a fraudulent election, the revolution saw millions of Filipinos gather in Manila’s Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) to demand Marcos’s resignation. Led by figures like Corazon Aquino and supported by the Catholic Church, the movement relied on peaceful protests, prayer vigils, and human chains to block military advances.

The revolution’s non-violent character was evident in its imagery: nuns kneeling before tanks, civilians offering flowers to soldiers, and mass prayers. Within four days, Marcos fled, and Aquino assumed the presidency, restoring democracy. The movement’s success lay in its ability to unite diverse groups—students, clergy, and military defectors—through a shared commitment to peaceful change.

The People Power Revolution echoed Gandhian principles. The use of mass mobilisation, symbolic acts (e.g., prayer vigils), and moral pressure on the regime mirrored Gandhi’s strategies. The Catholic Church’s role, emphasising forgiveness and non-violence, paralleled Gandhi’s spiritual approach to resistance. However, the revolution was more spontaneous and less ideologically rigid than Gandhi’s meticulously planned campaigns.

Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989)

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia was a non-violent uprising that ended four decades of communist rule in November–December 1989. Sparked by the brutal suppression of a student protest in Prague, the movement grew into mass demonstrations, strikes, and public dialogues led by figures like Václav Havel and the Civic Forum. The revolution’s name reflects its peaceful nature, with protesters using flowers, candles, and theatre performances to challenge the regime’s legitimacy.

Havel’s concept of “living in truth” emphasised moral integrity and non-violent dissent, aligning with Gandhi’s satyagraha. Within weeks, the communist government collapsed, and Havel became president, marking a transition to democracy. The revolution’s success stemmed from its broad coalition—students, intellectuals, workers, and artists—and its refusal to engage in violence despite police repression.

Havel and other dissidents were familiar with global non-violent movements, including India’s independence struggle. The emphasis on moral resistance and public truth-telling echoed Gandhi’s belief in exposing injustice through peaceful means. The use of symbolic acts, such as placing flowers at protest sites, resembled Gandhi’s use of symbolism (e.g., the spinning wheel).

Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004)

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was a response to electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential election, which favoured pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych. Led by Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, protesters occupied Kyiv’s Independence Square. They wore orange to symbolise their demand for a fair election. The movement combined mass protests, tent cities, and strikes with negotiations and international pressure. After weeks of peaceful demonstrations, the Supreme Court ordered a revote, leading to Yushchenko’s victory and a shift toward democratic governance.

The revolution’s non-violent strategy relied on public unity, media engagement, and international solidarity. Protesters used humour, music, and orange symbols to maintain morale and global attention. They avoided clashes with security forces.

Ukrainian activists were likely inspired by global non-violent movements, including those influenced by Gandhi, such as the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. The use of mass gatherings and symbolic colours (orange ribbons) paralleled Gandhi’s use of collective action and symbols like khadi.

Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003)

Georgia’s Rose Revolution ousted President Eduard Shevardnadze in November 2003, following rigged parliamentary elections. Led by Mikheil Saakashvili and the Kmara youth movement, protesters stormed parliament with roses in hand, symbolising their commitment to non-violence. The movement combined street protests, media campaigns, and international support to force Shevardnadze’s resignation. This paved the way for democratic reforms. The revolution’s success lay in its disciplined non-violence and strategic use of symbols. Roses conveyed peace while challenging the regime’s authority. Kmara’s  non-violent tactics emphasised grassroots mobilisation and public pressure.

The Rose Revolution’s leaders were influenced by modern non-violent movements, particularly Otpor, which itself drew on Gene Sharp’s theories of non-violent resistance. Sharp’s work was heavily inspired by Gandhi. The use of roses as a symbol of peaceful defiance echoed Gandhi’s symbolic acts, and the emphasis on mass participation reflected his belief in collective power. However, the revolution’s tactics were more pragmatic and less spiritually driven than Gandhi’s, reflecting a blend of influences.

Comparative Analysis

Common Features

All five revolutions share key characteristics: mass participation, non-violent strategies, symbolic acts, and a focus on systemic change. India’s independence movement set a global precedent, using boycotts, marches, and civil disobedience to challenge colonial rule. The Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and Georgia adapted these principles, employing protests, symbols (flowers, candles, orange ribbons, roses), and moral pressure to undermine authoritarian regimes. Each movement leveraged public unity and international attention to achieve political transformation without bloodshed.

Differences

The revolutions differed in their contexts, leadership, and tactics. India’s movement was a prolonged struggle against colonial rule, spanning decades and rooted in Gandhi’s spiritual philosophy. The Philippines’ revolution was swift, driven by a specific electoral crisis and religious symbolism. Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution was intellectual and theatrical, reflecting its dissident culture. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution combined grassroots protests with legal and international strategies, while Georgia’s Rose Revolution was youth-driven and influenced by modern non-violent training.

Outcomes

All revolutions achieved significant political change: India gained independence, the Philippines restored democracy, Czechoslovakia transitioned to a democratic republic, Ukraine secured a fair election, and Georgia ousted a corrupt regime. However, long-term outcomes varied. India faced partition and communal violence, the Philippines struggled with political instability, Czechoslovakia (later split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia) achieved stable democracy, Ukraine faced ongoing tensions with Russia, and Georgia’s reforms were partially undone by later conflicts. These variations highlight the complexity of sustaining revolutionary gains.

Gandhi’s Influence: Extent and Limitations

Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and civil disobedience undeniably shaped the global landscape of peaceful resistance. His success in India provided a model for mobilising masses without violence, inspiring movements across the world. The People Power Revolution, Velvet Revolution, Orange Revolution, and Rose Revolution all reflect elements of Gandhi’s approach, particularly in their use of mass protests, symbolic acts, and moral pressure.

However, the extent of Gandhi’s direct influence varies. In the Philippines, Catholic teachings and local traditions played a larger role, with Gandhi’s ideas serving as an indirect inspiration through global non-violent movements. In Czechoslovakia, Havel’s philosophy of “living in truth” aligned with Gandhi’s principles but was rooted in local dissident traditions. Ukraine and Georgia drew heavily on modern non-violent strategies, particularly from Serbia’s Otpor and Gene Sharp, who adapted Gandhi’s ideas to contemporary contexts.

Gandhi’s philosophy was deeply tied to India’s spiritual traditions, which did not always resonate in secular or Christian-majority contexts. Moreover, later revolutions benefited from modern tools—media, international NGOs, and training in non-violent tactics—that were unavailable in Gandhi’s time. Thus, while Gandhi’s ideas provided a foundational framework, each movement adapted them to its unique circumstances.

Conclusion

The peaceful revolutions of India, the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and Georgia demonstrate the enduring power of non-violent resistance to effect political change. Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha and ahimsa provided a universal template, inspiring these movements to varying degrees. While India’s independence struggle was a direct product of Gandhi’s vision, the People Power, Velvet, Orange, and Rose Revolutions adapted his principles to their contexts, blending them with local traditions and modern strategies. The versatility of non-violent resistance and the nuanced legacy of Gandhi’s thought continues to inspire transformative movements worldwide.

Endnotes

1. Judith Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
2. Bipan Chandra et al., India’s Struggle for Independence (New Delhi: Penguin, 1989).
3. Raymond Bonner, “The Philippine People Power Revolution,” The New York Times, 1986.
4. James Krapfl, Revolution with a Human Face: Politics, Culture, and Community in Czechoslovakia, 1989–1992(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013).
5. Lincoln A. Mitchell, Uncertain Democracy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia’s Rose Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
6. Taras Kuzio, Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2015).
7. Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy (Boston: Albert Einstein Institution, 1993).
8. Václav Havel, Living in Truth (London: Faber & Faber, 1986).

Philippines’ People Power Revolution of 1986, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004, Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution of 1989, Georgia’s Rose Revolution of 2003, India’s Independence Movement (1915–1947), boycotts, marches, civil disobedience, nonviolence, civil disobedience, Ferdinand Marcos , Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Mikheil Saakashvili, Kmara youth movement, Shevardnadze, Viktor Yushchenko , Yulia Tymoshenko, Viktor Yanukovych, Prague, Václav Havel, Civic Forum,

Evolution of Indian Politics: From UPA 1 to NDA 3

YouTube

The Indian politics has undergone stunning changes since 2004, when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) under Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was in power. There have been ideological pivots, policy innovations, and institutional realignments. The coalition-driven era of inclusive welfarism and cautious liberalisation has morphed into a more centralised, nationalist paradigm under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments since 2014. Today, this evolution reflects not just a change in leadership styles but a profound reconfiguration of power dynamics. Domestic policies have shifted from consensus-based social equity to executive-led infrastructure surges; foreign relations have transitioned from multilateral balancing to assertive bilateralism even as global realignments are happening; economic strategies have veered from export-oriented openness to "self-reliance" amid trade frictions; defence priorities emphasise indigenisation against persistent border threats; educational reforms prioritise holistic skilling over rote learning; and the political culture has intensified from deliberative pluralism to polarised majoritarianism. These shifts have sparked debates on democratic erosion and equity gaps. As historian Ramachandra Guha observes, "India's democracy is resilient, but its soul is tested by the temptations of strongman rule." 

Domestic Policies: Coalition Governance and Policy Continuity

The UPA's inaugural term (2004-2009) epitomised coalition's virtues and vices. It forged a rainbow alliance of 13 parties that prioritised social justice amid the ashes of the BJP's 2004 electoral defeat. Landmark legislations like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) of 2005, guaranteed 100 days of wage employment to rural households. The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 empowered citizens against bureaucratic opacity. Such legislations underscored a commitment to inclusive growth. According to the World Bank estimates, these measures lifted over 271 million out of poverty between 2005-2016 by channeling resources to the marginalised. However, economist Jean Drèze, a key MGNREGA architect, noted that the scheme’s success lay in its federalism but also revealed coalition fragility because while states innovated, corruption siphoned funds. UPA-II (2009-2014) grappled with this inertia, as allies like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) stalled reforms. This caused policy paralysis amid scams like the 2G spectrum allocation, which eroded public trust and fiscal discipline.

The 2014 BJP landslide heralded a rupture: NDA, with its absolute majority until 2024, centralised decision-making. Coalition partners were ignored. Domestic policies pivoted to "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas" (development for all), manifesting in schemes like Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), which reportedly banked 500 million unbanked by 2025, and Swachh Bharat, which claimed to have constructed 110 million toilets to combat open defecation. Infrastructure boomed—capital expenditure surged from 1.5% of GDP under UPA to 3.3% by 2025—building 50,000 km of highways and 200 airports. Critics, however, decry this as "welfare populism masking cronyism," with Aadhaar-linked direct benefit transfers (DBT) saving ₹2.7 lakh crore in leakages but raising privacy fears after the 2018 Supreme Court ruling. BJP's seats dipped to 240 in the 2024 elections.  The NDA-III was forced to give concessions like restoring state funding shares, hinting at a partial return to federal bargaining. Analytically, UPA's coalition fostered equity but bred inefficiency; NDA's model accelerates delivery but risks authoritarian overreach, as evidenced by the 2020 farm laws' rollback amid protests. In a nation of 1.4 billion, this tension between inclusion and efficiency will define governance resilience.

Foreign Policy: Strategic Alignments and Regional Dynamics

UPA-I's foreign policy was a masterclass in pragmatic non-alignment, navigating post-9/11 realpolitik with élan. The 2008 Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, clinched despite Left Front opposition, ended India's nuclear isolation, unlocked civilian technology and elevated its global heft. Singh's administration deepened ties with Russia (via energy pacts) and China (border confidence-building measures), while bolstering SAARC and ASEAN forums. As former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran reflected, "UPA's diplomacy was consensus-driven, yielding stability but lacking boldness in a unipolar world."

The NDA era, by contrast, exudes "multi-alignment with agency," projecting India as a vishvaguru through personalised summitry, with the PM making over 100 foreign visits by 2025. Neighbourhood First faltered with Nepal's 2015 blockade and Pakistan's post-Pulwama intransigence, yet Act East deepened Quad synergies against Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. The 2020 Galwan clash spurred border infrastructure investments, doubling troop deployments. By 2025, amid Trump's second term, Indo-US ties strained under 25% reciprocal tariffs imposed in August, which targeting India's $45.7 billion trade surplus. Additional 25% tariffs were later imposed to punish India for buying crude oil from Russia. Yet, a new 10-year defence framework pledges $500 billion bilateral trade by 2030, including GE F-414 jet engine co-production. As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar quipped in a June 2025 interview, "In a G20 world, India doesn't choose sides; it shapes the board." This assertiveness—evident in G20's 2023 African Union inclusion—has burnished India's stature, but tariffs and Russia oil sanctions expose vulnerabilities in strategic autonomy. UPA's caution built bridges; NDA forges alliances, but sustaining them demands deft navigation of US-China bipolarity, lest India becomes a pawn in great-power games.

Economic Policies: From Liberalisation to Protectionism

UPA's economic stewardship rode a global boom, clocking an average GDP growth of 7.7% (2004-2014), peaking at 9.3% in 2007. This growth was fuelled by FDI liberalisation and SEZ proliferation that drew $305 billion inflows. Per capita income surged 2.64 times, outpacing NDA's 1.89-fold rise. Yet, UPA-II's 5.5% average masked inflation spikes to 11.9% post-2008 crisis and subsidy burdens at 2.5% of GDP, as global headwinds exposed over-reliance on services exports.

NDA recalibrated toward atmanirbharta (self-reliance), with GDP rebounding to 8.2% in FY24 post-COVID, though 2025 projections hover at 6.8% amid tariff shocks. "Make in India" lured $667 billion FDI by 2025, but production linked incentive or PLI schemes yielded mixed results—electronics exports doubled to $25 billion, yet manufacturing's GDP share stagnates at 17%. Protectionism, via 100% local sourcing mandates, shields jobs but invites WTO disputes; Trump's August 2025 tariffs on steel and pharmaceuticals could shave 0.5% off growth, as per IMF estimates. Economist Kaushik Basu argues, "NDA's reforms turbocharged infrastructure, but inequality widened." Analytically, UPA's openness catalysed scale; NDA's inward tilt fosters resilience, but in a fragmenting global order, hybrid strategies—blending FTAs with the EU and UK—may reconcile growth with sovereignty, averting a "lost decade" of stagflation.

Defense Policy: Modernisation and Self-Reliance

UPA's defence budgets rose 50% to ₹2.53 lakh crore by 2014. This went into the procurement of C-17 Globemasters and raising mountain strikes corps against China. There was emphasis on development of Tejas fighters. But scams like the 2012 AugustaWestland helicopters hampered efficacy, resulting in 60% import dependency.

NDA's FY26 defence budget rose by 13% to ₹6.81 lakh crore. Production soared  90% to ₹1.51 lakh crore in FY25. The August 2025 Defence Procurement Manual streamlines acquisitions, prioritising MSMEs and AI integration. Exports hit $2.5 billion, which included drones to Armenia, and BrahMos to Philippines. The Indo-US defence pact included lease of Predator drone. It also bolsters maritime domain amid Red Sea disruptions. Yet, as strategic analyst C. Raja Mohan points out, "Self-reliance is aspirational, but border standoffs reveal tech gaps—India's R&D spend lags 0.7% of GDP." UPA laid modernisation foundations; NDA's indigenisation accelerates deterrence, but fiscal trade-offs—defence at 2.4% GDP—could strain welfare, underscoring the need for balanced securitisation in an era of hybrid threats.

Education and Skilling: Policy Evolution and Implementation

UPA's 2009 National Skill Development Policy targeted 500 million trainees by 2022. This complemented the Right to Education (RTE) Act's enrolment push, which boosted gross enrolment ratios (GER) to 96% in elementary schools. Yet, quality lagged—Annual Status of Education Report showed 50% Grade 5 students unable to read Grade 2 texts—exposing urban-rural divides.

NDA's "Skill India" (2015) and National Education Policy 2020 institutionalised vocationalism. It restructured curricula to 5+3+3+4 and embedded skilling from Class 6. By 2025, foundational literacy and numeracy covers 80% of Grade 3 students in pilot states, Common University Entrance Test (Postgraduate) admissions digitise 2025 entries, and DIKSHA platforms train 2 million teachers. Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education hits 28%, with multidisciplinary universities rising 20%. NEP's equity focus—50% GER by 2035—aligns with Viksit Bharat, but implementation gaps persist. According to the Ministry of Education’s 2025 report, only 30% states fully adopt multilingualism. To take advantage of the demographic dividend it is essential to bridge 250 million unskilled youth. Otherwise, India's human capital risks obsolescence in AI-driven economies.

Political Culture: From Consensus to Confrontation

UPA's ethos was coalitional conciliation, with secularism tempering majoritarian impulses. This became evident in Sachar Committee affirmations for Muslims. Yet, minority appeasement tropes fuelled BJP's 2014 surge. NDA's tenure has amplified Hindutva. Article 370's abrogation in 2019 and CAA-NRC 2019 polarised electorates along religious lines.

By 2025, post-2024 polls where BJP relied on TDP and JD(U), polarisation has peaked. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project shows 30% rise in communal violence, driven by Ram Temple mobilisation. V-Dem, aka Varieties of Democracy, indices rank India a "closed autocracy" contender, citing media curbs and ED raids on the opposition. Congress's Shashi Tharoor observes, "Polarisation turns adversaries into enemies, eroding debate for dogma." UPA's inclusivity bred gridlock; BJP's majoritarianism delivers but at democracy's cost. However, 2024’s coalition revival may temper extremes, fostering hybrid federalism.

Conclusion: Navigating the Future

From UPA's welfare webs to NDA's muscular mandates, Indian politics has traversed inclusivity to indigenisation. Yet, tariffs, polarisation, and inequities portend perils. Amartya Sen urges, "Democracy thrives on argument, not assent”. Hopefully, this will forge a sustainable all-round development. India's genius lies not in rupture, but renewal.

NDA, UPA, Politics, NEP, GER, demographic dividend, unemployment, foundational literacy, CET, DIKSHA,  Skill India, Article 370, COVID, BJP, Congress Party, MSME, AI integration, Inclusivity

Was Mahatma Gandhi a Hypocrite and Casteist?

 YouTube

Albert Einstein once said about Mahatma Gandhi, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." Indeed Gandhiji is celebrated across the world for not just leading a nonviolent struggle against British rule. He is considered an icon of political, social and personal morality that has inspired millions across the world. However, his legacy is also the subject of serious debate. Many Dalit activists, historians, and thinkers have called out Gandhiji for his earlier views on caste and his inconsistent actions. Some have accused him of being a casteist and a hypocrite. 

Gandhiji and the Caste System

Early Views (1890s–1920s)

In his early writings, Gandhiji supported the varna system, which divides society into four broad occupational groups: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (labourers). He believed that this system, if practised correctly, could provide social stability without creating inequality.

In 1921, Gandhiji wrote in his newspaper Navajivan, “If Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system.” He also argued that varna was not meant to be based on hierarchy and that all occupations were equal in dignity—even those involving manual scavenging.

However, Gandhiji also believed that children should follow the occupation of their parents and supported restrictions on inter-caste marriage. Critics like B.R. Ambedkar saw this as reinforcing caste boundaries and social inequality.

Dalit writer Sujatha Gidla, at the 2018 Jaipur Literature Festival, claimed Gandhiji supported caste to keep Dalits within the Hindu fold and to maintain Hindu unity, especially during British rule. Arundhati Roy, in her 2014 essay and lectures, also criticised Gandhiji for defending a “brutal” caste system under the mask of nonviolence. She accused him of romanticising manual scavenging and failing to challenge caste hierarchies directly.

Evolution of Gandhiji’s Views (1930s–1940s)

Over time, Gandhiji's position began to change. The influence of Dalit leaders like B.R. Ambedkar and social reformers like Gokaraju Ramachandra Rao played a key role in shaping his thinking.

In the 1930s, Gandhiji started promoting inter-caste dining and marriages—something radical at that time. Between 1933 and 1934, he travelled over 20,000 kilometres in a campaign against untouchability. He raised money for the Harijan Sevak Sangh, which aimed to support Dalits (whom he called Harijans, or “children of God”).

In 1935, he clearly wrote in Harijan, “Caste has to go.” By 1945, he openly rejected the idea of hereditary occupations and encouraged inter-caste marriage. He even proposed that the first President of India after independence should be a Dalit—an idea meant to break caste hierarchies.

Gandhiji also supported the Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–25), a protest in Kerala demanding Dalits be allowed to walk on public roads near temples. He compared untouchability to the violence of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, showing how seriously he took the issue.

Gandhiji’s Actions Against Caste

Gandhiji tried to live out his anti-caste beliefs in his personal life. In his ashrams, caste barriers were removed. He ate with people from all castes and even did manual scavenging himself to show there was dignity in such work. He gave scholarships to Dalit students so they could study medicine, engineering, and other modern fields.

These were significant efforts for the time. Gandhiji's actions did not only target attitudes but also aimed to create practical change.

Criticisms of Gandhiji's Approach

B.R. Ambedkar's Critique

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who led the movement for Dalit rights in India, strongly disagreed with Gandhiji. In his 1945 book What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done to the Untouchables, Ambedkar said Gandhiji’s reforms were superficial and mainly focused on maintaining Hindu unity rather than empowering Dalits politically.

Ambedkar especially criticized Gandhiji for opposing separate electorates for Dalits in 1932. Ambedkar had negotiated with the British for a separate political representation for Dalits, but Gandhiji went on a fast-unto-death, leading to the Poona Pact, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats within the general Hindu electorate. Ambedkar felt this robbed Dalits of independent political power.

Other Critics

Critics like Sujatha Gidla and Arundhati Roy argue that Gandhiji’s use of the term “Harijan” was patronising. They also say his focus on moral reform—like asking upper castes to share meals with Dalits—did not address deep economic and political inequalities. They claim Gandhiji’s push for cleaning and scavenging work to be seen as noble simply reinforced the traditional roles assigned to Dalits.

Scholar Vladan Lausevic argues that Gandhiji’s early support for varna reflected a collectivist worldview that went against the idea of individual rights and freedom. Gandhiji’s reluctance to break fully from Hindu orthodoxy, they say, limited the effectiveness of his reforms.

In Defence of Gandhiji

Evolution and Reform

Not all scholars agree with the view that Gandhiji was casteist. Historian Ramachandra Guha says Gandhiji changed over time through engagement with critics like Ambedkar. He points out that Gandhiji always opposed untouchability, even if he was slow to oppose caste more broadly.

Nishikant Kolge, in his book Gandhi Against Caste, argues that Gandhiji’s early views were tactical. Gandhiji, he says, was trying to win over conservative Hindus so he could push gradual reforms without splitting Hindu society. Kolge also highlights Gandhiji’s consistent support for Dalits' dignity and education.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, said that Gandhiji focused on untouchability because it was the weakest and most inhumane part of the caste system. Gandhiji believed that breaking untouchability would eventually destroy caste itself.

Was Gandhiji a Hypocrite?

Gandhiji was full of contradictions. He preached nonviolence but supported the British war effort. He opposed caste but supported varna for many years. He claimed to treat women as equals but made choices that many today find troubling.

Critics like Justice Markandey Katju argue that Gandhiji’s position on caste was inconsistent. In the 1920s, he supported *varna* and hereditary jobs, yet in the 1930s, he claimed to oppose caste. Katju said this was deliberate obfuscation.

Gandhiji’s early writings from South Africa also raise questions. In the early 1900s, he referred to Black Africans using derogatory terms like kaffir, and he lobbied for Indian rights without defending African rights. Critics say this shows a racial bias and contradicts his later universalist views.

There are also questions about Gandhiji’s personal behaviour. His experiments with celibacy included sleeping next to young women without physical contact to “test” his self-control. While these were consensual within the ashram, many now view them as inappropriate and exploitative. His advice to women facing sexual violence—to rely on ahimsa (nonviolence)—has also been seen as unrealistic and patriarchal.

However, hypocrisy usually implies bad faith or deception. Gandhiji was open about his beliefs, his mistakes, and his evolving thoughts. He often acknowledged that he had changed his mind. He invited criticism and often responded to it publicly. That makes it hard to call him a hypocrite in the usual sense.

Gandhiji lived in a deeply divided society and tried to unite it while pushing for reform. His compromises were often strategic rather than dishonest. His actions were not always perfect, but they reflected a constant effort to balance ideals with reality.

In Defence of Gandhiji’s Actions

Historians like Rajmohan Gandhiji and Mridula Mukherjee argue that Gandhiji's contradictions should be seen as part of a learning journey. His early views were shaped by his time and upbringing in a conservative society. Over time, he changed because he listened to others and rethought his ideas.

Kolge and others say that Gandhiji’s compromises—such as the Poona Pact or support for World War I—were tactical choices. He was trying to achieve independence for India and make progress on social reform without dividing society further.

As for his personal conduct, defenders argue that Gandhiji lived a life of discipline and honesty. He did not hide his unusual practices; in fact, he wrote about them openly. His lifestyle was simple, and he tried to embody the values he preached.

Gandhiji’s global influence also supports his credibility. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Barack Obama have all cited Gandhiji as an inspiration for their nonviolent struggles. Mandela once said Gandhiji’s early views should be judged in the context of colonial South Africa and acknowledged that Gandhiji eventually worked toward universal justice.

Conclusion

Nelson Mandela once said, we must judge Gandhiji in the context of his era, not ours. And when we do, we see a flawed reformer—not a saint, not a villain, but someone who struggled to align his ideals with his actions, and left behind a powerful legacy of change.

Mahatma Gandhi was not a perfect figure. His early views on caste and race were flawed and, by modern standards, deeply problematic. But over time, he learned, adapted, and took brave steps to fight inequality. He faced enormous social and political pressures and still managed to push boundaries through peaceful means.

The label of “casteist” applies to his early writings but not to his later life. The charge of hypocrisy oversimplifies a life full of inner struggle, public accountability, and genuine growth. Gandhiji’s legacy is complex—he was not just a man who evolved with time but who tried to change his time. And that requires robust moral calibre and unflagging courage of conviction.

Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, South Africa, Poona Pact, World War 1, Rajmohan Gandhi, Mridula Mukherjee, Dalits, Harijans, Untouchability, Caste System, Justice Markandey Katju, Jawaharlal Nehru, Nishikant Kolge, Ramachandra Guha, Vladan Lausevic, Sujatha Gidla, Arundhati Roy