India's Leadership Crisis

The humbling and cheerful former Indian president, Abdul Kalam, inspired a crowd at the South Asia Initiative’s Harish C. Mahindra lecture, held on September 27th. His talk centered on steps to develop the rural expanse of the world’s largest democracy. Once his talk ended and questions began, it became clear that Indians in the audience were disenchanted with current political leadership and uncertain how they could play a constructive role in helping to close the gap between rural and urban India.
The general plan outlined by President Kalam, boldly named Providing Urban Amenities to Rural Areas (PURA) aims to bring wealth to India’s rural sector through entrepreneur-led development centers. Over 50 percent of the population works in the agricultural sector, and yet it accounts for only 18.5% of GDP, while services accounts for half of the country’s output with only a third of the workforce. India has experienced rapid growth over the last decade, thanks to massive industrial and IT service companies like TATA, Infosys, Wipro, but wealth has become even more, concentrated in the large urban areas. The government has lagged in its ability to bring development and education to Indians relying upon traditional forms of sustenance. As Kalam emphasized, the agricultural sector needs the resources, technology, and education of the cities in order to develop.
Those who have lived in rural regions move to urban areas, become more educated, and tend not to return since opportunities only flow in one direction. Additionally, those who pass through India’s elite higher institutions have historically found their skills in higher demand in countries with capacities for R&D and larger industries. India, for instance, only spends 1% of its GDP on R&D. This historical trend has begun to reverse – a concrete sign of optimism and a signal of new faith of the wealthy in the country. The audience at President Kalam’s lecture, through their questions, seemed to express their simultaneous doubt and eagerness regarding returning.
This created an interesting dynamic during the Q&A. Questions reflected the frustration of an Indian youth eager for the types of changes outlined by Kalam, but uncertain of how to enact them given the Indian government’s sluggishness and corruption. One student asked how the youth could access Indian government to thereby enact top-down change. President Kalam answered the youth must simply “throw themselves into the government system.” However, his answer ignores the hierarchical nature of India’s government. In other words, the protections of entrenched leaders is preventing the change needed to create jobs outside of industries that rose by themselves. Reasons to return have not been created by the government, but by self-made industry.
Given that India has a median age of 26, opportunities to create employment must arrive now. The crisis of Indian leadership is set to become critical if plans like Kalam’s are not enacted.