Content

1. India’s presence amid a broken template of geopolitics
2. The technocratic calculus of India’s welfare state

India’s presence amid a broken template of geopolitics

Background: Geopolitics in Flux

• Post-COVID, Post-Ukraine, Post-Gaza world is no longer defined by a unipolar U.S.-led order. The multipolar reality is fractured, transactional, and interest-driven.
• Major realignments are occurring:
  • Russia-China entente vs. NATO-EU-U.S. bloc.
  • Global South asserting independence (e.g., BRICS+).
  • Institutions like the UN, WTO, and IMF increasingly marginalised or bypassed.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)

Practice Question : “In a world of fractured alignments and shifting power centres, India’s passive strategic posture risks geopolitical marginalisation.” Examine this statement in light of Operation Sindoor and recent global developments. Suggest a roadmap to recalibrate India’s foreign policy doctrine.(250 Words)

Operation Sindoor: The Strategic Reality Check

• Operation Sindoor (April 2025): India’s retaliatory strike after the Pahalgam terror attack.
• Key Data Points:
  • 3 terrorists killed were Pakistani, affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba.
  • The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility — now designated as FTO & SDGT by the U.S.
• Geopolitical Fallout:
  • U.S. President Trump hosted Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir post-strike — a diplomatic snub to India.
  • Despite decisive military response, India struggled to control the narrative internationally.

Strategic Imbalance: India vs. Major Powers

India-U.S. Relations: Allies or Unequals?

• Trump’s Policies:
  • Imposed 25% tariffs even as NISAR satellite (India-U.S. venture) launched.
  • Threatened more tariffs on Russian oil imports, despite U.S. itself buying:
    • $1.2B in Russian uranium
    • $1.6B in Russian fertilizers in 2024.
  • Called for U.S. firms to leave India and hire only Americans.

• Growing Insensitivity:
  • U.S. praised Pakistan’s counter-terror efforts despite cross-border terrorism.
  • Backed regime change in Bangladesh, targeting pro-India Sheikh Hasina.
  • In Myanmar, U.S.-EU support to anti-junta forces is destabilising India’s northeast.

EU’s Contradictions: Rules for India, Exemptions for Itself

• Sanctioned India’s Vadinar Refinery (Rosneft-linked) for importing Russian oil.
• Yet, Europe imported 51% of Russian LNG in 2024 (Hungary, Slovakia, Belgium, Spain — all continued imports).
• India-EU FTA (BTIA) talks suffer due to:
  • Carbon Border Tax (CBAM)
  • Digital services restrictions
  • Stringent IP demands

China’s Assertiveness in the Neighbourhood

• China’s Trilateral Proposal (June 2025):
  • Attempted to formalise China-Pakistan-Bangladesh alliance in Kunming.
  • Bangladesh refused, but India alerted.

• Strategic Moves:
  • Reopening of WWII airbase at Lalmonirhat near Siliguri Corridor.
  • Support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor.
  • Mandarin renaming of Arunachal Pradesh locations.
  • Control bid over Dalai Lama succession.
  • Construction of mega dam on Yarlung Zangbo (Brahmaputra headwaters).
  • Squeezing of Indian supply chains (e.g., APIs, rare earths, fertilizers).

Strategic Resets Needed

• India’s “Wait and Watch” stance is obsolete.
  • Post-Galwan and Pahalgam, India must recalibrate strategic assumptions.
  • Need to act in global conflicts if it expects reciprocity (e.g., Israel-Gaza, Ukraine, Iran).
• Silence on global crises leads to marginalisation. Assertive diplomacy is necessary to punch India’s weight.

Institutional Responses & Multilateral Leverage

What India Is Doing:

• Bilateral push:
  • Seeking a U.S.-India trade deal to salvage ties before Quad Summit.
  • India-UK CETA concluded, pressurising EU.

• Multilateral outreach:
  • BRICS 2026 hosted by India – platform to reclaim leadership of the Global South.
  • SCO, East Asia outreach – necessary after missing RCEP.

What India Must Do:

• Use platforms to:
  • Advocate for multipolarity.
  • Promote global South cooperation (e.g., G-20, BRICS).
  • Challenge Western double standards on sanctions and trade.

Why Passive Economic Focus Alone Is Risky

“In a fragmenting world, geopolitics shapes economics, not the other way around.”

• MYTH: Staying neutral and growing economically will insulate India.
• REALITY:
  • Tariffs, sanctions, tech restrictions, supply chain dependencies will increasingly be dictated by political alignments.
  • Countries must invest geopolitically to secure economic and technological growth.

Road Ahead: Strategic Recommendations

Conclusion:

India can no longer afford strategic reticence in a recalibrated global order shaped by coercion, alignments, and transactional diplomacy. To protect its core interests and secure a rightful place on the global stage, India must match economic ambitions with assertive, value-driven, and multi-aligned geopolitical engagement.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.

The technocratic calculus of India’s welfare state

Understanding the Indian Welfare State

• Definition: A welfare state seeks to protect and promote the economic and social well-being of its citizens, guaranteeing minimum standards of income, health, housing, education, and employment.
• Constitutional Backing: Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) — Articles 38, 39, 41, 42, 47.
• Historical Context:
  • 1950s–1990s: Rights and entitlements were moral claims; delivery was bureaucratic.
  • Post-2000s: Rights-based legislations (e.g., MGNREGA 2005, NFSA 2013).
  • Post-2014: Rise of digital-first, DBT-based targeted welfare — Aadhaar-led.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Schemes)

Practice Question : “The transition from rights-based entitlements to algorithm-driven welfare reflects a deeper technocratic shift in India’s welfare state.” Critically examine this shift in light of its implications on democratic accountability, transparency, and citizen agency.(250 Words)

India’s Digital Welfare Infrastructure: The Scale

The Technocratic Shift: Key Features

• What is Technocracy?
  • Rule by experts, data, and algorithms rather than elected representatives or deliberative processes.
  • Emphasises efficiency, auditability, and scale over empathy, context, or participation.

• Manifestations in India:
  • Aadhaar-based Identification: Biometric verification replaces local knowledge.
  • DBT Architecture: Transfers funds directly to beneficiaries via Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts.
  • Centralised Grievance Portals: CPGRAMS and state variants handle complaints algorithmically.
  • Welfare Portals: E-SHRAM, Jan Soochna, PM-SYM work with predefined data filters.

What Are We Losing? The Democratic Costs

• From Rights to Metrics:
  • Shift from “who needs help and why” → “how do we reduce leakage and maximise speed”.

• From Citizens to Beneficiaries:
  • Homo Sacer (Agamben): Citizens reduced to biometric identities devoid of agency.
  • Auditable Beneficiary: Human suffering becomes measurable data, not deliberative input.

• From Political Accountability to Algorithmic Insulation:
  • Technocratic tools obscure who is responsible for exclusion errors, beneficiary fraud, or denied entitlements.

Game-Theoretic Insight: Why Politicians Love Algorithms

• Theory: In polarised systems, politicians avoid blame by offloading tough decisions to neutral-seeming systems.
• Implication in India:
  • Cross-party consensus on DBT expansion.
  • No significant opposition to Aadhaar, despite SC’s dissenting voices (e.g., Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, 2018).

Fiscal Contraction and Policy Hollowing

• Social Sector Spending:
  • Dropped from 21% (2014–2024 avg) → 17% in 2024–25 (BE).
• Impact on Key Sectors:
  • Welfare for minorities, nutrition, employment, labour dropped from 11% pre-COVID → 3% post-COVID.
• Contradiction:
  • Rhetoric of “socialistic state” vs. rollback in funding.

RTI Regime in Crisis: A Democratic Red Flag

• Pending RTI Cases: 4.1 lakh+ (as of June 2024)
• Vacancies: 8 posts of Chief Information Commissioners unfilled.
• Impact:
  • Weakens transparency.
  • Shields technocratic decisions from scrutiny.
  • Undermines citizens’ right to know and appeal.

Conceptual Anchors: Key Thinkers to Understand This Shift

Problems of Over-centralisation

• CPGRAMS:
  • 30+ lakh grievances resolved (2022–24) — but often visibility without accountability.
  • Converts citizen voice into a ticket, not a political challenge.
• Erosion of Frontline Discretion:
  • Field workers (ASHA, anganwadi, panchayat officials) have reduced decision-making roles.
• Loss of Local Reflexivity:
  • Gram Sabhas, traditional deliberative forums side-lined.

Path Forward: Towards Democratic Antifragility

A. Short-term Measures

• Bias audits of algorithms in DBT and grievance redress.
• Codify “Right to Explanation” — per UN Human Rights Council recommendations.
• Offline fallback mechanisms for citizens without digital access.

B. Medium-term Reforms

• Platform Cooperatives: Local SHGs and panchayats as tech intermediaries (e.g., Kudumbashree model, Kerala).
• Community-based Audits: Institutionalise social audits, local feedback loops.

C. Long-term Vision

• Democratic Anti-fragility:
  • Build systems that absorb feedback, accommodate dissent, and evolve under stress.
• Citizen as Co-Governor:
  • Not a data-entry, but a voice in shaping welfare.

Conclusion: A Caution and a Call

• India’s digital welfare revolution is impressive in scale, but risks producing a silent, depoliticised, audit-friendly citizen.
• For Viksit Bharat, welfare must be participatory, accountable, and resilient.
• Efficiency must not replace empathy, and data must not erase deliberation.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes