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

What if India was never colonised?

YouTube

Just imagine if India was not colonised by foreign powers - be they the Mughals, or the British. What if, like Japan and China, India had evolved on its own? What sort of India we would have had today? What would have been modern India’s trajectory had it remained free from Mughal and British colonisation?

India’s history before the British Raj (1858–1947) and Mughal rule (1526–1857) is a testament to its intellectual and technological prowess. Its genius spanned mathematics, astronomy, medicine, metallurgy, engineering, and more. Rooted in ancient and medieval traditions, these contributions shaped global knowledge systems. 

Pre-Colonial Scientific and Technological Achievements

Mathematics: The Cradle of Numerical Innovation

Indian mathematics laid foundational stones for global mathematical thought. The Sulba Sutras (c. 800–500 BCE), part of Vedic literature, detailed geometric principles for altar construction, including approximations of π (3.14) and the Pythagorean theorem, predating Pythagoras. The decimal system and place-value notation, which emerged around the early centuries CE, revolutionised numerical computation. The concept of zero, formalised by Brahmagupta in his Brahmasphutasiddhanta (628 CE), enabled advanced arithmetic and algebra, including operations with negative numbers and quadratic equations.

The medieval period saw further leaps. Bhaskara II’s Lilavati and Bijaganita (12th century) advanced algebra, geometry, and number theory. He introduced concepts akin to the derivative and infinite series. The Kerala School of Mathematics (14th–16th centuries), led by Madhava of Sangamagrama, developed early forms of calculus, including infinite series for trigonometric functions and π, centuries before Newton and Leibniz. These works, preserved in Sanskrit texts, demonstrate a sophisticated mathematical culture. They  influenced Persian and Arabic scholars, though limited textual dissemination constrained their global reach.

Astronomy: Mapping the Cosmos

Indian astronomy blended empirical observation with mathematical precision. Aryabhatta’s Aryabhatiya (499 CE) calculated Earth’s circumference (within 1% of modern values). He proposed a heliocentric model where sun is the centre of universe, challenging the prevailing geocentric views that considered earth as the centre of universe. The Surya Siddhanta (c. 400–500 CE) provided algorithms for predicting eclipses and planetary positions, used widely in calendars and navigation. Observatories, such as those built by later astronomers like Varahamihira, supported precise measurements.

By the medieval period, astronomers like Bhaskara II refined planetary models, while the Kerala School computed precise orbital parameters. These advancements, however, were often embedded in astrological frameworks, which sometimes blurred scientific and cultural boundaries. Despite this, Indian astronomical texts were translated into Arabic, influencing Islamic and European astronomy.

Medicine: The Art and Science of Healing

Ayurveda, codified in the Charak Samhita and Sushruta Samhita (c. 600 BCE–200 CE), was a cornerstone of Indian medical science. The Charak Samhita detailed diagnostics, pharmacology, and holistic health principles, emphasising diet and lifestyle. The Sushruta Samhita described over 300 surgical procedures, including cataract surgery, rhinoplasty, and bone-setting, using specialised instruments. Sushruta’s work, often considered the foundation of plastic surgery, showcased advanced anatomical knowledge.

Rasashastra, a medieval alchemical tradition, explored medicinal chemistry, using minerals and metals for treatments. Indian physicians understood concepts like digestion and immunity, and their herbal pharmacopeia was exported across Asia. However, medical knowledge was largely transmitted orally or through manuscripts, limiting standardisation and scalability.

Metallurgy and Engineering: Technological Mastery

India’s metallurgical expertise was globally renowned. The Iron Pillar of Delhi (c. 400 CE), a 7-meter rust-resistant structure, exemplifies advanced ironworking. Wootz steel, a high-carbon crucible steel, was prized for its strength and exported to the Middle East, forming the basis of Damascus swords. Chemical processes, such as zinc distillation, were documented in texts like Rasaratnakara (c. 8th century).

Engineering achievements were equally impressive. The Indus Valley Civilisation (c. 2600–1900 BCE) featured urban planning with grid layouts, drainage systems, and dockyards (e.g., Lothal). Later, temples like those at Khajuraho and Konark (9th–13th centuries) demonstrated architectural precision, with intricate stone carvings and load-bearing designs. Water management systems, including stepwells and reservoirs, showcased hydraulic engineering. However, the absence of mechanised tools limited large-scale infrastructure development.

Navigation and Trade: Connecting the World

India’s maritime expertise facilitated extensive trade networks. Ports like Lothal and Muziris connected India to Rome, Southeast Asia, and China. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (1st century CE) describes Indian shipbuilding, with vessels capable of long-distance voyages. Ancient India’s naval powers like Cholas, Pallavas, Satavahanas and Mauryas etc had advanced navigational knowledge, derived from astronomical observations. Textile production, particularly cotton and muslin, and dyeing techniques like indigo, were technologically advanced, making India a global trade hub.

Ancient Tamil Nadu’s Civilisational Contributions

Recent archaeological excavations in Tamil Nadu have revealed important discoveries about ancient civilisations, especially during the Sangam period (around 600 BCE to 300 CE). At Keeladi, near Madurai, archaeologists found well-planned brick structures, drainage systems, and pottery with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from about 580 BCE. These discoveries show that Keeladi was a well-organised urban settlement with advanced water management and literacy. A 2,600-year-old terracotta pipeline also shows their impressive engineering skills. Close by, the Konthagai site revealed burial urns containing human skeletal remains, pottery, and jewellery. Digital reconstructions of skulls from this site helped researchers understand the physical features of people from that time. At Adichaunallur, another burial site, urns with skeletal remains, iron tools, and other objects were found. These suggest that the society had advanced metalworking abilities.

Limitations and Context

Despite these achievements, pre-colonial India faced challenges. Knowledge was often siloed within caste-based guilds or oral traditions, limiting dissemination. The lack of a printing press, unlike in China or Europe, restricted the spread of texts. Political fragmentation after the Gupta Empire (c. 550 CE) and during the Mughal period disrupted patronage for scientific institutions. By the 17th century, India lagged in adopting experimental methods and mechanised technologies emerging in Europe, partly due to cultural emphasis on theoretical over applied sciences.

Speculative Analysis: Modern India Without Mughal or British Colonisation

Speculating on an uncolonised India requires careful consideration of historical trends, internal dynamics, and global interactions, while avoiding romanticisation or bias. Without Mughal or British rule, India’s trajectory would depend on its ability to overcome internal challenges and adapt to global scientific and industrial revolutions.

Political and Social Framework

Without Mughal conquest, India might have remained a patchwork of regional kingdoms, such as the Cholas, Vijayanagara, or Rajput states. However, Mauryas built the largest empire ever in the Indian subcontinent and could have set a precedent for India’s unification. A unified polity, akin to a confederation, could have emerged through alliances, as seen in the Maratha Confederacy. Such a structure might have fostered competition and innovation, but persistent rivalries could also have hindered large-scale coordination.

Socially, the caste system and Gurukul based education might have persisted, preserving traditional knowledge but potentially stifling social mobility. Without colonial disruptions, reform movements like those of the 19th century (e.g., Brahmo Samaj) might have been slower, as colonial education exposed Indians to Western ideas of equality and science. However, internal reform impulses, as seen in Jainism or Bhakti movements, could have driven gradual change.

Scientific and Technological Development

Mathematics and Astronomy: The Kerala School’s proto-calculus and astronomical traditions could have evolved further with sustained patronage. A unified India might have established observatories and academies, akin to Europe’s Royal Society, fostering global exchange. Without Mughal isolation from European scientific revolutions, Indian mathematicians might have engaged with figures like Newton, potentially accelerating calculus development.

Medicine: Ayurveda and Rasashastra could have modernised through empirical testing and integration with global medical knowledge. Without colonial suppression of indigenous systems, India might have developed standardised medical institutions, blending herbal and surgical expertise with emerging scientific methods. Vaccination, inspired by smallpox inoculation practices already known in India, could have been an early achievement.

Engineering and Industry: India’s metallurgical and textile expertise could have driven an indigenous industrial revolution, particularly if trade with Europe introduced mechanisation concepts. Water-powered looms or steam technology might have been adapted to India’s cotton industry, leveraging its global market dominance. Urban centres like Pataliputra or Vijayanagara could have become industrial hubs, supported by advanced infrastructure.

Education and Dissemination: The absence of a printing press was a significant bottleneck. An uncolonised India might have adopted movable type from China or developed its own, enabling wider dissemination of knowledge. Gurukuls could have evolved into universities, fostering interdisciplinary research. Ancient India had already established prestigious universities like Nalanda and Vikramashila of Bihar, Takshashila of Punjab, Vallabhi of Gujarat and Kanchi of Tamil Nadu. Even without colonial education systems, literacy rates might have  been high. Progressive movements would have ensured that.

Economic and Global Integration

India’s pre-colonial economy was robust, contributing 24–27% of global GDP in the 16th century (Maddison, 2001). Colonialism extracted drained India’s wealth, economist Utsa Patnaik mentions Britain’s transfer of £9.2 trillion in today’s terms. An uncolonised India could have reinvested in infrastructure, trade, and innovation. Maritime prowess might have led to an Indian mercantile empire, competing with Dutch or Portuguese traders.

Globally, an uncolonised India might have been a scientific and cultural peer to Europe, exchanging ideas via trade routes. Participation in the Enlightenment could have accelerated India’s adoption of experimental science, while its mathematical and astronomical traditions influenced global paradigms.

A Plausible Modern India

An uncolonised India in 2025 might resemble a blend of Japan and China: a modern nation with deep cultural roots. It could boast advanced industries in textiles, metallurgy, and pharmaceuticals, built on pre-colonial foundations. Scientific institutions, evolving from gurukuls, might rival global universities, with India leading in fields like mathematics, astronomy, and alternative medicine. Given the ancient Indian genius, research in other fields like space, weaponry and town planning could have become global trendsetters. Politically, a federal structure might balance regional diversity, though tensions could persist. Economically, India might remain a global trade hub, with a GDP reflecting its pre-colonial share, adjusted for modern growth.

Socially, indigenous philosophies like Buddhism or Bhakti could have driven egalitarianism. Culturally, India’s art, literature, and science would reflect a unique synthesis of tradition and modernity, unmarred by colonial erasure. However, without the unifying force of colonial resistance, could India have become a united democracy it is today? This needs to be pondered. If India had had someone with the vision and drive of Otto Von Bismarck, perhaps India today would have a different centre of power.

Conclusion

Pre-colonial India was a beacon of scientific and technological innovation, with enduring contributions in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and engineering. Its limitations—fragmentation, oral transmission, and lack of mechanisation—were significant but not insurmountable. Had India avoided Mughal and British colonisation, it could have leveraged its intellectual and economic strengths to become a modern powerhouse, blending indigenous knowledge with global advancements. While internal challenges might have slowed progress, sustained trade, patronage, and adaptation could have positioned India as a leader in science and industry. This speculative vision, while optimistic, acknowledges the complexities of India’s diverse society and the global context, offering a balanced perspective on its potential trajectory.

British Raj, Mughal Rule, Keeladi, Indus Valley Civilisation, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Gurukul, Vikramashila, Takshashila, Vallabhi, Kanchi, Cholas, Mauryan Empire, Japan, China, Brahmagupta, Aryabhatta, Bhakti, Dutch, Portuguese, GDP, Ayurveda, Arthashastra, 

भारत की दक्षिण एशिया में रणनीतिक अदूरदर्शिता का इतिहास

YouTube

बांग्लादेश और नेपाल में हाल की उथल-पुथल ने दक्षिण एशिया में चीन और अमेरिका की दखलंदाज़ी को उजागर किया है। दरअसल, अमेरिका, बांग्लादेश और श्रीलंका के बीच सैन्य अभ्यास हुए थे। चीन भी पाकिस्तान, अफ़ग़ानिस्तान और भूटान में अपनी पकड़ मज़बूत कर रहा है। क्या भारत अपने पड़ोस में अपने हितों की रक्षा करने में असमर्थ है? भारत दुनिया की एकमात्र बड़ी शक्ति है जिसने जानबूझकर अपनी वैश्विक स्थिति को कम किया है। वैश्विक दक्षिण के एक महत्वाकांक्षी नेता से, यह एक अलग-थलग विशालकाय देश जैसा दिखने लगा है। आइए देखें कि यह कैसे हुआ।

2024 की भीषण गर्मी में, बांग्लादेश में छात्रों के नेतृत्व में एक विद्रोह भड़क उठा जिसने शेख हसीना की कठोर सरकार को उखाड़ फेंका। इसने पूरे दक्षिण एशिया में खलबली मचा दी। सितंबर 2025 में तेज़ी से आगे बढ़ें। नेपाल की सड़कें जेन-ज़ी द्वारा भड़काए गए विरोध प्रदर्शनों से जल रही हैं। प्रधानमंत्री के.पी. शर्मा ओली इस्तीफा दे रहे हैं। श्रीलंका के 2022 के आर्थिक संकट के बाद भारत के निकट पड़ोस में यह तीसरा ऐसा उथल-पुथल है। ये महज़ घरेलू झटके नहीं हैं; ये एक भू-राजनीतिक बिसात को उजागर करते हैं जहाँ चीन और अमेरिका बेख़ौफ़ होकर दांव-पेंच खेल रहे हैं। और भारत का क्या? भारत—जो कभी अपने "पिछवाड़े" का स्वयंभू आधिपत्य था—अलग-थलग और अप्रभावी होकर किनारे से देख रहा है। अगस्त 2025 में अमेरिका-बांग्लादेश "टाइगर शार्क" नौसैनिक अभ्यास और श्रीलंका के साथ बहुपक्षीय "पैसिफिक एंजेल" अभ्यास, वाशिंगटन की बढ़ती पैठ को रेखांकित करते हैं, जबकि बीजिंग, मुहम्मद यूनुस के नेतृत्व वाली ढाका की अंतरिम सरकार के साथ समझौते कर रहा है। क्या भारत अपने ही दायरे में घिरा हुआ है? बिल्कुल। क्या वह अपने हितों की रक्षा करने में असमर्थ है? सबूत हाँ की ओर इशारा करते हैं—विदेश नीति की विफलताओं की एक लंबी सूची, जो अहंकार, असंगति और "बड़े भाई" के भ्रम से आगे बढ़ने से इनकार में निहित है। नई दिल्ली उस क्षेत्र में भटक रही है जिस पर कभी उसका दबदबा था।

भारत की परेशानियों की जड़ में 'पड़ोसी पहले' की नीति है। यह दूरदर्शी लगती है, लेकिन खोखली बयानबाजी करती है। यह एक और जुमला साबित हुई है। 2014 में शुरू की गई इस नीति ने कनेक्टिविटी, सहायता और आपसी समृद्धि का वादा किया था, फिर भी यह एकतरफावाद के बोझ तले दब गई है। बांग्लादेश का ही उदाहरण लीजिए: हसीना के नेतृत्व में भारत के सबसे करीबी सहयोगी को अरबों डॉलर का ऋण मिला। 2024 तक 8 अरब डॉलर से ज़्यादा की यह राशि अखौरा-अगरतला रेल लिंक जैसे बुनियादी ढाँचे के लिए थी। लेकिन जब विरोध प्रदर्शन हिंसक हो गए, तो एक संकटग्रस्त तानाशाह के प्रति नई दिल्ली की अंध निष्ठा का ज़बरदस्त उलटा असर हुआ। हसीना भारत भाग गईं, ढाका के नए शासकों को "इस्लामी कट्टरपंथी" करार दिया और भारत विरोधी ज़हर को हवा दी। आर्थिक गिरावट का सामना कर रही यूनुस की अंतरिम सरकार ने चीन की ओर रुख किया और 2025 के मध्य तक 2 अरब डॉलर का ऋण और बेल्ट एंड रोड इनिशिएटिव (BRI) का विस्तार सुनिश्चित किया। जहाँ तक अमेरिका के हस्तक्षेप का सवाल है? "शासन परिवर्तन" में USAID की भूमिका को लेकर आरोप घूम रहे हैं। बांग्लादेश को हिंद-प्रशांत आर्थिक ढाँचे में शामिल करने के वाशिंगटन के प्रयासों के बीच विपक्षी नेटवर्क को धन मुहैया कराने की खबरें आई हैं। इस बीच, भारत ने रणनीति के बजाय नाराज़गी को चुनते हुए ढाका के प्रयासों का बहिष्कार किया। नतीजा? द्विपक्षीय व्यापार, जो कभी एक आकर्षक बिंदु था, 2025 में 15% गिर गया, जबकि पायरा जैसे बंदरगाहों के माध्यम से चीन का प्रभाव बढ़ गया।

नेपाल का संकट इस मूर्खता को दर्शाता है, जो भूगोल की क्रूर विडंबना से और भी बढ़ जाता है: हिमालयी बफर राज्य दो दिग्गजों के बीच फंसा हुआ है। 2008 से, काठमांडू में 14 सरकारें आ चुकी हैं, लेकिन किसी ने भी अपना कार्यकाल पूरा नहीं किया। इससे दीर्घकालिक अस्थिरता पैदा हुई है जिसका भारत ने स्थिर करने के बजाय शोषण किया है। 2025 के विरोध प्रदर्शन, जिन्हें "हैशटैग विद्रोह" कहा जा रहा है, ओली के गठबंधन पर भ्रष्टाचार और चीन की अतिक्रमणकारी गतिविधियों का आरोप लगाते हैं—बीजिंग के जलविद्युत बांध और कर्ज अब 3 अरब डॉलर से अधिक हो गए हैं। फिर भी, अमेरिका के हाथ के निशान भी साफ़ दिखाई दे रहे हैं। विशेषज्ञ एनजीओ फंडिंग को चीन-विरोधी आंदोलन से जोड़ते हैं, जिसका उद्देश्य नेपाल को बीजिंग की गिरफ़्त से बाहर निकालना है। और भारत की प्रतिक्रिया क्या रही है? 2015 में मधेसी अधिकारों को लेकर की गई नाकाबंदी आज भी यादों में ताज़ा है। लिपुलेख में हाल ही में हुई सीमा झड़पों ने संप्रभुता संबंधी आशंकाओं को फिर से जगा दिया है। 2024 में प्रचंड का सत्ता से बाहर होना और ओली का पतन, भारत समर्थक अभिजात वर्ग को पोषित करने में नई दिल्ली की विफलता को उजागर करता है। नतीजतन, काठमांडू ने बिजली पारेषण और सड़क सुधार के लिए अमेरिकी मिलेनियम चैलेंज कॉर्पोरेशन से अनुदान प्राप्त करने में सफलता प्राप्त की है। साथ ही, वह चीन के साथ बीआरआई संबंधों को और गहरा कर रहा है। स्पष्टतः, भारत का "खतरनाक पड़ोस" स्वयं द्वारा उत्पन्न किया गया है - अस्थिरता पाकिस्तान से लेकर बांग्लादेश तक फैली हुई है, तथा नेपाल नवीनतम टकराव बिंदु है।

आर्थिक रूप से, भारत की रणनीतिक अदूरदर्शिता आत्म-विनाश का एक उत्कृष्ट उदाहरण है। चीन ने ऋण कूटनीति को हथियार बनाया है। उसने श्रीलंका के हंबनटोटा बंदरगाह से लेकर पाकिस्तान के ग्वादर तक, 2025 तक पूरे दक्षिण एशिया में 100 अरब डॉलर के बेल्ट एंड रोड (BRI) जाल में पड़ोसियों को फँसा लिया है। भारत ने ठंडे इशारों से जवाब दिया है। 2016 के इस्लामाबाद शिखर सम्मेलन के बहिष्कार के बाद से सार्क की लाश दफ़न है। बीबीआईएन (बांग्लादेश-भूटान-भारत-नेपाल) पहल कनेक्टिविटी की लालफीताशाही के कारण ठप पड़ी है। इससे भी बदतर, 2019 में, नई दिल्ली ने चीनी आयात के डर से क्षेत्रीय व्यापक आर्थिक भागीदारी (RREP) से हाथ खींच लिया। नतीजतन, उसने खुद को 26 ट्रिलियन डॉलर के बाजार से अलग कर लिया, जिससे पड़ोसियों को भारत के बिना ही एकीकृत होना पड़ा। चीन का ग्लोबल टाइम्स गर्व से कहता है: "भारत क्षेत्रीय विकास से खुद को अलग कर रहा है," एक ऐसी भूल जो बीजिंग को आर्थिक रूप से ऊँचा स्थान दे देती है। श्रीलंका में, 2022 के संकट के बाद, चीन के 2.9 अरब डॉलर के बेलआउट ने भारत के 4 अरब डॉलर के लाइफलाइन पैकेज को पीछे छोड़ दिया, जो तेल के खेतों में इक्विटी की माँगों से जुड़ा था। पैसिफिक एंजेल जैसे अमेरिकी अभ्यास अब इस कमी को पूरा कर रहे हैं, श्रीलंकाई सेनाओं को आपदा प्रतिक्रिया में प्रशिक्षित कर रहे हैं—ठीक वही सॉफ्ट पावर जिसे भारत ने गँवा दिया।

यह अलगाव एक आधिपत्य के प्रभाव से उपजा है: भारत का आकार—1.4 अरब लोग, 3.9 ट्रिलियन डॉलर का जीडीपी—उदारवाद की नहीं, बल्कि धौंस जमाने की धारणाओं को जन्म देता है। निक्केई एशिया ने इस बात पर ज़ोर दिया है: "गलत विदेश नीति ने भारत को मित्रविहीन बना दिया है," छोटे देश तटस्थता के ज़रिए बचाव कर रहे हैं; उदाहरण के लिए, भूटान की चीनी सीमा वार्ता और मालदीव का "भारत को बाहर करो" अभियान। अल जज़ीरा ने ढाका के सतर्क कदमों पर ध्यान दिया है, जो चीन-पाकिस्तान की धुरी को खारिज करता है, लेकिन नई दिल्ली की विषमता से सावधान है: "भारत की अर्थव्यवस्था और विदेश नीति मिलकर पड़ोसियों पर भारी पड़ती हैं।" यहां तक ​​कि भारत का सबसे कट्टर सहयोगी, भूटान भी डोकलाम 2.0 के दबावों का सामना कर रहा है, जहाँ 2025 के गतिरोध बीजिंग को रोकने में नई दिल्ली की विफलता को उजागर करते हैं।

चीन की सलामी-स्लाइसिंग का मुकाबला करने में भारत की असमर्थता इसे और भी जटिल बना रही है। 2020 के गलवान संघर्ष ने सैन्य कमियों को उजागर किया, लेकिन क्षेत्रीय स्तर पर, बीजिंग की मोतियों की माला—बंदरगाहों को घेरने वाली—अनियंत्रित है। अमेरिका के साथ भारत का क्वाड गठबंधन पड़ोसियों के लिए चिंता का विषय है, जिसे समावेशी सुरक्षा के बजाय चीन-विरोधी नियंत्रण के रूप में देखा जा रहा है। विदेश मामलों ने भारत की निवारक विफलताओं से प्रेरित होकर पाकिस्तान के साथ "अगले युद्ध" की चेतावनी दी है, जबकि बांग्लादेश चुनावों को लेकर अमेरिका-भारत तनाव रणनीतिक बेमेल को उजागर करता है। वाशिंगटन, जो कभी मूकदर्शक बना रहा, अब आक्रामक रूप से हस्तक्षेप कर रहा है: ट्रम्प-युग के टैरिफ बांग्लादेश पर प्रहार कर उसे चीन की ओर धकेल रहे हैं, जबकि बाइडेन का हिंद-प्रशांत क्षेत्र अभ्यास के साथ कोलंबो और ढाका को लुभा रहा है। भारत ने गठबंधन बनाने के बजाय "बाहरी ताकतों" पर बेकार की उँगली उठाकर जवाब दिया।

ये नाकामियाँ आकस्मिक नहीं हैं; ये व्यवस्थागत हैं। लालफीताशाही में फँसी नौकरशाही, दक्षिण एशिया के लिए कम कर्मचारियों वाली विदेश सेवा (200 मिशनों के लिए केवल 900 राजनयिक), और प्रधानमंत्री द्वारा कूटनीति को व्यक्तिगत बनाना—नीतिगत खामियों को छुपाने के लिए बड़े-बड़े गले लगाना—कार्यान्वयन को पंगु बना देता है। अमेरिका स्थित थिंक-टैंक, काउंसिल ऑन फॉरेन रिलेशंस, बताता है, "भारत दक्षिण एशिया को चीन के हाथों खो रहा है," जिससे सीमा सुरक्षा में संसाधनों के खत्म होने के कारण उसकी वैश्विक छवि सीमित हो रही है। अफ़ग़ानिस्तान के बाद, अमेरिका टाइगर लाइटनिंग जैसी "दीर्घकालिक साझेदारियों" से इस शून्य को भर रहा है। वार्षिक अमेरिका-बांग्लादेश मामलों की चर्चा अब "सुरक्षित क्षेत्रों" पर केंद्रित है, जिसे भारत के बिना चीन को नियंत्रित करने के एक संकेत के रूप में व्याख्यायित किया जाता है।

तो, क्या भारत अलग-थलग पड़ गया है? बिल्कुल हाँ। इसका पिछवाड़ा, जो कभी प्रभाव क्षेत्र हुआ करता था, एक बहुध्रुवीय बारूदी सुरंग बन गया है जहाँ चीन निर्माण करता है, अमेरिका अभ्यास करता है, और नई दिल्ली हिचकिचाता है। अक्षम? अपने वर्तमान अवतार में, हाँ। यह बहुसंख्यक राष्ट्रवाद और अहंकार से प्रेरित विदेश नीति के जाल में फँस गया है जहाँ विश्वगुरु का दर्जा पाने की मूर्खतापूर्ण लालसा ने पिछली सरकारों, खासकर डॉ. मनमोहन सिंह के कार्यकाल के सभी अच्छे कामों पर पानी फेर दिया है। खोई हुई ज़मीन वापस पाने के लिए, भारत को अहंकार त्यागना होगा: आर्थिक रूप से मज़बूत सार्क को पुनर्जीवित करना होगा, बिना किसी शर्त के कर्ज़ में राहत देनी होगी, और सिर्फ़ द्विपक्षीय मरहम-पट्टी नहीं, बल्कि एक सच्चा दक्षिण एशियाई सुरक्षा ढाँचा गढ़ना होगा। तब तक, ढाका और काठमांडू में उथल-पुथल कोई असामान्य बात नहीं है; ये एक ऐसे क्षेत्र के भारत की पकड़ से फिसलने के संकेत हैं। बड़ा भाई एक भ्रमित दर्शक बन गया है - अपने ही घर में एक दुखद, आत्म-प्रदत्त निर्वासन।

भारत, चीन, पाकिस्तान, अमेरिका, श्रीलंका, बांग्लादेश, नेपाल, यूएसएआईडी, विदेश नीति, दक्षिण एशिया, उपमहाद्वीप, अफगानिस्तान, क्वाड, सार्क, मनमोहन सिंह, ट्रम्प, बिडेन, विदेश संबंध परिषद, विदेशी मामले, अल जजीरा, निक्केई एशिया, डोकलाम, भूटान, ग्लोबल टाइम्स, इस्लामी कट्टरपंथी, बीआरआई, ग्वादर, हंबनटोटा