January 22, 2026

“India is a young country. Our median age is 28. China’s is 39. The West is even older. The 21st century belongs to us.” — Indian politician, 2024

“A demographic dividend is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Without jobs, the same youth become a demographic bomb.” — Indian demographer, 2023

“We got rich before we got old. India might get old before it gets rich.” — Chinese economist comparing development models, 2024

[2024: 5th largest economy. 140th in per-capita income. 42% of workers still on farms.]

[Part 6 of 6]

New parts publish every Tuesday and Thursday at 9AM EST

At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru addressed a newly independent India with words that still echo: “At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.” Seventy-seven years later, India is awake, but to what kind of life?

The elephant is the world’s fifth-largest economy, and if current growth continues, it will pass Germany and Japan within a decade to potentially reach third place by 2030, behind only the United States and China. In absolute terms, India has arrived.

But 1.4 billion people divided by any GDP produces small numbers. India’s per-capita income is roughly $2,500, ranking approximately 140th in the world. Below Egypt. Below Bolivia. Below Libya. The world’s largest democracy is also home to the world’s largest population of poor people.

This is India’s central paradox: simultaneously a major power and a desperately poor country. The contradiction shapes everything: politics, economics, foreign policy, self-image. India at 77 is many things at once, and few of them are consistent.

The next 25 years will determine which India prevails.

The Tale of Two Indias

Drive from the Mumbai airport into the city, and you pass through India’s contradictions in physical form.

The road from the airport is world-class: elevated highway, smooth asphalt, modern signage. The airport itself matches anything in Singapore or Dubai. This is Ambani’s and Tata’s India, the India that appears in economic summit presentations.

Then look left. Dharavi spreads across the landscape, perhaps a million people in one of Asia’s largest slums. Homes made of corrugated metal and salvaged materials. Open sewers. Informal economy stretching as far as you can see. This is the India that doesn’t appear in investor roadshows.

The two Indias coexist, intersect, depend on each other. The gleaming offices employ drivers, cleaners, security guards who return nightly to informal settlements. The slum residents produce goods for formal economy supply chains. The boundary is porous but absolute: you can move between the Indias, but you always know which one you’re in.

The data confirms what the eyes see: the top 10% of Indians earn more than the bottom 50% combined, with wealth concentration exceeding even the United States as the richest 1% own 40% of national wealth while the bottom 50% own less than 6%. Urban India and rural India might as well be different countries, with per-capita income in Delhi roughly four times that of Bihar and life expectancy in Kerala exceeding Uttar Pradesh by a decade, creating gaps between states that exceed those between many countries. The organized sector and informal sector follow different rules, with formal workers receiving benefits, job security, and legal protections while informal workers, comprising 90% of the workforce, operate without contracts, without insurance, and without recourse when employers don’t pay.

India isn’t one economy. It’s several, stacked on top of each other, growing at different rates, subject to different rules, connected by nothing except geography and currency.

The Demographic Window

India’s greatest asset is its people. And also its greatest risk. The median Indian is 28 years old compared to China’s 39 and Japan’s 49, with India’s working-age population continuing to grow until at least 2040 while China’s has already peaked and Japan’s collapsed long ago.

This is the “demographic dividend”: more workers supporting fewer dependents, higher savings rates, faster potential growth. The window is open now. It won’t stay open forever.

But a dividend requires jobs, and without employment, the same youth become unemployed, frustrated, and politically dangerous. Countries with young, jobless populations become unstable, as the Arab Spring demonstrated when it began with unemployed graduates in Tunisia. India adds approximately 12 million people to its working-age population every year while the economy creates perhaps 5-6 million jobs, with the gap compounding annually.

Youth unemployment, by various measures, ranges from 10% to over 20%. Female labor force participation has actually declined over the past two decades, from roughly 30% to approximately 20%. Educated unemployment is particularly severe: engineers driving Uber, MBA graduates competing for clerk positions.

The causes are familiar by now. Manufacturing never scaled. Agriculture can’t absorb more labor. Services require education most Indians don’t have. The economy produces growth without employment, a peculiar achievement that raises GDP while leaving millions behind.

The demographic window begins closing around 2040, when dependency ratios start rising again. India has perhaps 15 years to create the jobs that previous decades failed to create. If it misses this window, it may never get another.

The Female Labor Force Paradox

Perhaps no statistic captures India’s development failure more starkly than female labor force participation.

In 2000, approximately 30% of Indian women participated in the formal workforce. By 2020, the figure had fallen to approximately 20%. As India got richer, women’s workforce participation declined.

This is the opposite of every other developing country. Everywhere else, development brings women into the workforce. In China, female participation exceeds 60%. In Vietnam, it’s similar. Even in Bangladesh, it’s rising.

What happened in India?

Several factors converged.

Rising incomes reduced the need for women’s earnings. Poor families send women to work out of necessity. As household income rises, women’s paid work becomes optional. In a society where women’s labor carries stigma, optional often means avoided.

Education without employment. Women’s education improved dramatically, but job markets couldn’t absorb them. An educated woman is less likely to accept agricultural labor or domestic work, but white-collar jobs remain scarce. Educated unemployment keeps women home.

Cultural expectations persisted. Marriage expectations in much of India assume women will leave paid work. Arranged marriages often require women to relocate to husbands’ families, disrupting careers. Childcare infrastructure barely exists. The “second shift” of domestic labor falls entirely on women.

The informal sector shrank. Demonetization, GST, and Covid crushed small enterprises where women often found flexible work. Formal sector jobs require longer hours, commuting, fixed schedules that conflict with domestic responsibilities.

The result is an economy that systematically excludes half its potential workforce. India’s growth potential is constrained not by capital or technology but by the failure to utilize its largest underemployed resource: women.

The Agricultural Trap

The number that defines India’s development failure: 42% of the workforce produces 15% of GDP. This is agriculture, where the sector employing nearly half of Indians contributes less than a sixth of national output, creating brutal math in which earning the average agricultural income while 42% of workers share 15% of output means earning roughly one-third of average national income. Farmers are poor because there are too many of them.

Land holdings have fragmented across generations. The average farm is now around 1 hectare, too small for efficient mechanization, too small to generate surplus beyond subsistence. Consolidation is politically impossible; land reform would require displacing millions.

Water tables are collapsing. The Green Revolution’s irrigation was drawn from aquifers that are not replenishing. Punjab, India’s breadbasket, faces water crisis within decades. Farmers drill deeper each year, chasing water that’s disappearing.

Subsidies trap farmers in unsustainable cropping patterns. Minimum support prices guarantee purchase of wheat and rice, so farmers grow wheat and rice even where other crops would make more sense. Free electricity encourages water-intensive crops in water-scarce regions.

The political economy is gridlocked. Farmers vote. They vote in large numbers, in bloc formations, with clear interests. Any politician who touches agricultural subsidies faces electoral destruction.

The 2020-2021 farmer protests proved this beyond doubt. When Modi’s government passed three farm reform laws designed to liberalize agricultural markets, farmers from Punjab and Haryana descended on Delhi’s borders. They came with tractors, tents, and supplies for a siege. They stayed for over a year.

The protest camps became semi-permanent settlements. Farmers built makeshift homes on highways. They organized communal kitchens feeding thousands daily. Elderly farmers died in the cold Delhi winter. The protests continued. Families rotated members between the camps and farms back home. The protests continued.

In November 2021, facing state elections in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, Modi blinked. He repealed all three laws, apologizing for failing to convince farmers of their benefits. The reforms that might have modernized Indian agriculture died on the roads leading to Delhi.

The trap is obvious: too many farmers, too little land, too much political power to reform, too little economic opportunity elsewhere. The manufacturing jobs that could absorb agricultural labor don’t exist. The education system doesn’t prepare farm children for service jobs. Farmers’ children become farmers, perpetuating poverty across generations.

The State Divergence

India’s internal inequality increasingly takes geographic form.

The southern and western states (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat) look like middle-income countries. Per-capita income approaches global medians. Infrastructure functions. Governance is comparatively effective. These states compete globally for manufacturing investment.

The northern and eastern states (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha) look like low-income Africa. Per-capita income lags by factors of three or four. Infrastructure is decrepit. Governance is often dysfunctional. These states compete with each other for the bottom.

The divergence is widening. The states that attracted manufacturing investment in the 1990s built advantages that compounded over time. Better infrastructure attracted more investment, which generated more tax revenue, which funded better infrastructure. The virtuous cycle continued.

States left behind faced the opposite dynamic. Poor infrastructure deterred investment. Low tax revenue prevented infrastructure improvement. The vicious cycle continued.

Today, Tamil Nadu’s per-capita income exceeds Bihar’s by roughly 4:1. The gap has widened over every decade since independence. At current trajectories, it will widen further.

Politically, the divergence creates tension. Northern states have larger populations and therefore more Parliament seats. Southern states have smaller populations, higher incomes, and resentment about subsidizing the North. The 2026 census may trigger redistribution of seats based on population, shifting power toward exactly the states that have failed at development.

Federal structure prevents outright conflict but doesn’t resolve the underlying tension. India may be one country, but its regions are on divergent paths.

The China Clock

Everything India does must be measured against China.

In 1990, India and China had comparable per-capita incomes as both emerged from decades of central planning with massive populations, agricultural workforces, and limited infrastructure. Thirty-five years later, China’s per-capita income is roughly six times India’s, having moved 300 million people from farms to factories while India moved them from farms to farms, and having built world-class infrastructure in a generation while India is still building.

The comparison is unfair in some ways. China’s authoritarian government can relocate villages for highway projects that Indian democracy would litigate for decades. China’s Communist Party suppresses labor organizing that Indian unions ensure persists. China can mandate education reforms that Indian states would resist.

But the comparison is also unavoidable. India defined itself against China. The competition shapes Indian self-understanding. And by any objective measure, India is losing.

The gap has implications beyond pride.

Manufacturing supply chains chose China. Once established, they’re difficult to move. India cannot replicate China’s manufacturing ecosystem; it can only hope to capture some share of companies diversifying away from Chinese dependence.

Military competition favors the larger economy. Defense spending as a share of GDP produces more absolute capability for the larger economy. China’s military now operates an aircraft carrier, advanced fighters, blue-water navy. India struggles to maintain parity.

Diplomatic weight follows economic weight. China’s Belt and Road Initiative offers infrastructure financing across the developing world. India can offer rhetoric about democratic partnership but limited resources to compete.

India tells itself that democracy produces more sustainable development than autocracy. That may be true over very long time horizons. Over the time horizons that matter for current generations, China is simply larger, richer, more powerful.

Viksit Bharat 2047

The Modi government’s vision for India’s centennial of independence: Viksit Bharat, or “Developed India.”

The target: developed country status by 2047. Per-capita income of $12,000-15,000 (roughly Mexico or Thailand today). Modern infrastructure nationwide. Manufacturing hub for the world. Poverty eliminated.

Is it achievable? The math is demanding: India’s current per-capita income of approximately $2,500 must reach $12,000 by 2047, requiring roughly 7% real per-capita growth annually for 22 years, which means GDP must grow 8-9% annually when adding population growth (declining but still positive), a pace never sustained for that duration by a democracy.

The obstacles are familiar. Manufacturing hasn’t scaled, agriculture hasn’t released labor, education hasn’t produced skills, infrastructure remains inadequate, and bureaucracy remains stifling. And yet...

India’s IT services sector was impossible to predict in 1980. UPI was impossible to predict in 2010. Things change faster than extrapolation suggests. A few successful policy changes, sustained over decades, could alter trajectories.

If India could reform labor laws to enable manufacturing scale, land acquisition to enable industrial construction, education to produce employable graduates, and agricultural policy to allow farm consolidation... If all of these happened, sustained growth becomes plausible.

That’s a lot of “ifs.” Every one of them faces political opposition. Every one requires sustained policy across multiple electoral cycles. Every one means losers as well as winners, and losers vote.

The window is still open. But it’s closing.

The Democratic Wager

India’s development path requires betting on something unproven: that democracy can deliver transformation.

Every Asian development miracle (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China) involved some combination of:

* Authoritarian government during key development phases

* Technocratic insulation from popular pressure

* State direction of industrial policy

* Suppression of labor and environmental opposition

India has none of these. Its democracy is noisy, contentious, and responsive to constituencies that benefit from the status quo. Reforms that impose short-term costs for long-term gains face electoral punishment.

The Modi government’s approach has been to concentrate executive power while maintaining electoral competition. Decisions are made centrally, implemented nationally, before opposition can organize. Demonetization was announced with four hours’ notice. GST was implemented despite state objections. The approach works for some reforms and backfires for others.

Whether illiberal democracy can achieve what liberal democracy has not, while avoiding the costs of outright authoritarianism, remains untested. India is the experiment.

The stakes are enormous. If India succeeds, it proves democracy can deliver development. If it fails, it suggests that democracy is a luxury poor countries cannot afford during transformation, a conclusion with dark implications for the developing world.

What the Elephant Became

Let us return to where we began. In 1947, a British lawyer drew lines on a map and India was born in blood, with the new nation choosing central planning because the world’s experts recommended it and capitalism meant colonialism, allowing the License Raj to strangle growth for 44 years while Asia boomed around it. In 1991, India nearly defaulted as gold flew to London as collateral, but the reforms that followed unleashed something unexpected: an IT revolution that made India the world’s back office while the factory floor went to China.

The 2000s brought a golden era that ended in crisis through a twin balance sheet problem that strangled investment, while the 2010s brought Modi with demonetization, GST, digital revolution, and the K-shaped divergence that left the informal sector behind. Now India stands at 77, contradictions unresolved.

5th largest economy, 140th in per-capita income.

Digital giant, manufacturing dwarf.

Demographic dividend that might become demographic disaster.

Democracy that concentrates power to achieve development.

Two Indias, one growing rapidly into the global elite, the other stuck in poverty that independence was supposed to end.

The elephant learned to run on one leg. Whether it grows the other before the window closes is the question of India’s next 25 years.

Postscript: What History Doesn’t Tell Us

This series examined India’s economic history: choices made, consequences delivered, paths taken and not taken. History illuminates how we arrived here. It doesn’t tell us where we’re going.

India might achieve Viksit Bharat. Manufacturing might finally scale. The demographic dividend might be captured. The two Indias might converge.

Or India might stagnate in the middle-income trap, growing too slowly to reach developed status before demographic advantage expires. The divided country might grow more divided. The democratic experiment might end in something darker.

Both futures are plausible. History provides no guarantees.

What history does provide is perspective. India’s current challenges are not new. The struggle between efficiency and inclusion, centralization and democracy, growth and equity, has defined the nation since birth. Previous generations faced their versions. This generation faces theirs.

The midnight hour continues. India is still awakening. The freedom Nehru promised remains, for hundreds of millions, a promise not yet kept.

The elephant runs. The race continues.

This concludes the 6-part investigative series “The Elephant’s Stride: India’s 77-Year Economic Journey.”

Disclaimer: This article presents historical and economic analysis. The author has no financial interests in Indian markets or companies mentioned.

Footnotes

* Nehru’s Speech - “A Tryst with Destiny” was delivered to the Indian Constituent Assembly on August 14-15, 1947, as India gained independence at midnight. The full text is archived by the Indian Parliament and remains one of the most celebrated speeches in modern history. Parliament of India archives. https://parliamentofindia.nic.in/

* Per-Capita Income Ranking - India’s GDP per capita in 2023 was approximately 2, 500, rankingaround140thglobally.Countrieswithhigherper − capitaincomeincludeBolivia(3,600), Egypt (3, 900), andLibya(6,000), illustrating that aggregate economic size doesn’t translate to individual prosperity. World Bank Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=false

* Wealth Inequality - The World Inequality Lab’s 2022 report found India’s top 10% owned 77% of national wealth and earned more than the bottom 50% combined. The top 1% owned approximately 40% of wealth, representing one of the highest concentrations globally. World Inequality Lab. https://wir2022.wid.world/

* Interstate Inequality - Per-capita income in Delhi (approximately $5,500) exceeds Bihar (approximately $700) by roughly 8:1 in nominal terms. Adjusted for purchasing power, the ratio is approximately 4:1. The gap has widened consistently since independence. Reserve Bank of India state-level data. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20on%20Indian%20States

* Median Age Comparisons - India’s median age is approximately 28 years. China’s is approximately 39 years. Japan’s exceeds 49 years. This demographic window creates both opportunity and risk depending on job creation success. United Nations Population Division data. https://population.un.org/wpp/

* Employment Generation Gap - India adds approximately 12 million people to working age annually. Job creation estimates vary but consistently fall short, ranging from 5-8 million annually, creating a cumulative employment deficit. Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) and various government surveys. https://www.cmie.com/

* Female Labor Force Participation - World Bank data shows India’s female labor force participation declined from approximately 30% in 2000 to approximately 20% by 2020. This contrasts with increases in most developing countries and represents a massive underutilization of human capital. World Bank Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?locations=IN

* Agricultural Workforce and GDP Share - As of 2023, approximately 42-45% of India’s workforce was engaged in agriculture, producing approximately 15-16% of GDP. The disparity has persisted for decades, trapping hundreds of millions in low-productivity farming. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare statistics.

* Farm Reform Withdrawal - The Modi government introduced three farm reform laws in September 2020, which triggered year-long protests primarily in Punjab and Haryana. The laws were repealed in November 2021 ahead of state elections, demonstrating the political impossibility of agricultural reform. Extensively documented in Indian media and government records.

* Viksit Bharat 2047 - The “Developed India by 2047” vision has been articulated in various government documents and speeches. Specific targets vary but generally reference per-capita income of $12,000-15,000 and developed country infrastructure, requiring sustained 8-9% annual growth. Government of India NITI Aayog documentation. https://www.niti.gov.in/

* Historical Per-Capita Comparison - In 1990, India’s per-capita income was approximately $370 and China’s was approximately $340. By 2023, China’s exceeded $12,000 while India’s remained below $2,500, representing roughly 6:1 ratio and illustrating the dramatically divergent development paths despite similar starting points. World Bank Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IN-CN

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe