Gerontocracy in Indian Politics: Why Our Leaders Don’t Reflect the Country’s Youth

 

---

Gerontocracy in Indian Politics: Why Our Leaders Don’t Reflect the Country’s Youth

India is young. Its politicians are not.

While the average Indian is about 28 years old, the people governing India are among the oldest in the country’s history. This generational distortion — where lawmakers are far older than the citizens they represent — is known as gerontocracy. Recent data from the 18th Lok Sabha, current state assemblies, and the top echelons of government shows how deeply this phenomenon runs through Indian democracy.

---

The Stark Age Gap: Parliament and Assemblies vs The People

Numbers don’t lie:

• Average age of 18th Lok Sabha MPs (elected in 2024): 56 years — the highest ever.
• Only 11% of MPs are aged 40 or younger; more than half are 55+, and the oldest is 82.
• State assemblies: A nationwide ADR analysis of 4,092 MLAs finds that over 61% are above 50. Just 11% are under 40, showcasing a similar tilt toward the aged.

By contrast:

• India’s median age (2024): ~28.4 years — with over 65% of citizens below 35.
• The average Rajya Sabha member is estimated to be well over 60.

---

A Portrait of India’s Greying Power Structure

Despite having the world’s largest youth population, the highest offices of Indian politics and administration add up to a formidable portrait of elder leadership:

• Prime Minister Narendra Modi will turn 75 in September 2025; already one of India’s oldest serving PMs.
• National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is 80 years old as of 2025 — India’s oldest and longest-serving NSA.
• Key Chief Ministers:
• Pinarayi Vijayan (Kerala): 80 (oldest CM in office)
• Nitish Kumar (Bihar): 73
• Mamata Banerjee (West Bengal): 70
• Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh): 75
• Yogi Adityanath (Uttar Pradesh): 53
• Pema Khandu (Arunachal Pradesh): 46 (youngest among major states)
• Revanth Reddy (Telangana): 55
• Mohan Yadav (Madhya Pradesh): 59
• Other senior figures:
• Sonia Gandhi (Congress leader): 78
• Rajnath Singh (Defence): 74
• Amit Shah (Home): 60

Lok Sabha youngest and oldest MPs:

• Oldest: T. R. Baalu, 82 (Tamil Nadu)
• Youngest: Four MPs at 25 (constitutional minimum) — Shambhavi Choudhary, Sanjana Jatav, Pushpendra Saroj, Priya Saroj.

---

What Does Gerontocracy Mean for Democracy?

A gerontocracy is rule by elders. In India, this means the lived experience and priorities reflected in the law are those of a generation several decades older than India’s average citizen. This can skew legislative focus — employment, digital policy, social media, education, and entrepreneurship issues affecting youth may be interpreted through an out-of-date lens. When older generations dominate, innovation can slow, and youth concerns — including climate, tech, jobs, and mental health — may get less official attention.

---

Why Are India’s Politicians So Old?

The roots run deep and structural:

• Top-Down Nominations: Parties are controlled by concentrated leaderships; tickets for “winnable” seats go mostly to loyal, well-connected veterans.
• Weak Intra-Party Democracy: Internal elections or leadership changes rarely elevate younger figures.
• Societal Tradition: Seniority is culturally valued, and experience is often equated with age.
• No Legal Remedies: While the Constitution sets lower age limits (25 for Lok Sabha/MLA, 30 for Rajya Sabha/MLC), there is no structural mechanism to promote youth candidatures. The Law Commission’s 170th report highlights the urgent need for intra-party reforms and greater transparency.
• Safety for Parties: Older politicians are seen as a “safe bet,” especially in risk-averse electoral environments

Is It a Problem Unique to India?

Globally, parliaments are older than populations. However, for a country where the youth form the largest chunk of voters in the world, the disconnect is more dramatic and consequential. The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s data shows that only about 2.8% of global MPs are under 30, underscoring how rare it is to see real youth representation at the top.

---

Fixing the Gap: What Will It Take?

1. Internal Party Democracy:
   Legal reforms enforcing regular, transparent inner-party elections and term limits can force parties to broaden their leadership pipelines.
2. Affirmative Action:
   Youth quotas in ticket allotment, modeled on gender reservations, could be considered.
3. Institutional Innovation:
   Regular youth parliaments, mentorship programs, and seats for youth representatives in important committees would mainstream young voices.
4. Societal Change:
   Voters increasingly demanding younger candidates will shift party priorities.

---

Conclusion: A Demographic Dividend, Squandered?

India’s democracy is often celebrated for its vibrancy, but its most vital demographic — youth — struggles to be heard where it matters most. Power’s “age wall” is rising at precisely the moment when India needs bold, youthful thinking the most. If the promise of India’s demographic dividend is to be realized, Parliament and state assemblies must reflect not just the wisdom of age but the promise and perspective of youth.

It’s time for India’s politics to grow younger — for the sake of its democracy and its future.

Reforming the UPSC CSE: Streamlining a Marathon for Aspiring Civil Servants

 

Reforming the UPSC CSE: Streamlining a Marathon for Aspiring Civil Servants

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination (CSE) is often hailed as one of India’s toughest competitive exams, designed to select the nation’s top administrative talent. However, its current structure — comprising two preliminary papers, nine mains papers, and a personality test (interview) — has drawn increasing criticism for being overly protracted, redundant, and exhausting for aspirants. With the process spanning nearly a year from prelims in late May to interviews concluding in April of the following year, many candidates find themselves trapped in a cycle of perpetual preparation, burnout, and diminished work-life balance. This article explores the key flaws in the existing framework and proposes targeted revisions to make it more efficient, while preserving the exam’s rigor and comprehensiveness. Drawing from the experiences of countless aspirants, including those deeply immersed in subjects like physics or governance, it’s time to rethink this behemoth to better serve India’s administrative needs.

The Current Structure: A Grueling Timeline and Its Toll

The UPSC CSE unfolds in three stages:

• Prelims: Two objective papers — General Studies (GS) Paper 1 (focusing on history, geography, polity, economy, science, and current affairs) and GS Paper 2 (CSAT, covering comprehension, logical reasoning, and basic numeracy). Held in late May or early June, this stage acts as a filter, with only about 2–3% of candidates advancing.
• Mains: Nine descriptive papers, including four GS papers (covering a wide array of topics from Indian heritage to ethics and international relations), two optional subject papers, two language papers (English and an Indian language), and an essay paper. Scheduled around late August or September, this phase demands months of intensive writing practice and deep dives into specialized topics.
• Interview/Personality Test: A 275-mark assessment for mains qualifiers, typically running from January to April the next year, evaluating personality traits, communication skills, and suitability for civil services.

This timeline creates a domino effect of challenges. Aspirants who reach the interview stage often have just a few weeks to pivot back to prelims preparation for the next cycle, as results are declared in May or June — leaving scant time for rest, reflection, or alternative career pursuits. For repeaters, this means years of their lives consumed by the exam, leading to mental fatigue, financial strain, and opportunity costs. No other global civil service exam, such as the UK’s Civil Service Fast Stream or France’s École Nationale d’Administration entry process, imposes such a multi-layered, year-long ordeal with 12 distinct evaluation steps (2 prelims + 9 mains + 1 interview). The result? A system that tests endurance more than aptitude, potentially deterring diverse talent pools.

International Comparisons: Fewer Steps for Efficient Selection

To contextualize the UPSC’s complexity, civil service selection processes in other countries are generally more streamlined, often involving 4–8 steps focused on aptitude, interviews, and practical assessments rather than multiple specialized papers. These systems prioritize merit, experience, and efficiency, wrapping up in 3–6 months, and adapt to national needs like population size or governance style.

• United Kingdom: The Civil Service Fast Stream uses a decentralized, merit-based process with 6–8 steps: registration, online aptitude tests (situational judgement, numerical/verbal reasoning), CV and personal statement submission, video interview, assessment center, referencing, and offer. It emphasizes skills like problem-solving over exhaustive exams, with no upper age limit and consideration of private sector experience.
• United States: Federal and state processes vary but typically involve 4–6 steps: job search/registration, application submission, a single civil service exam (testing job-related skills), resume review/interviews, selection, and probation. Exams are merit-based and rank candidates, with specialized roles adding assessments but keeping the core concise.
• France: Entry to high-level roles via the Institut National du Service Public (formerly ENA) includes 4–6 steps: eligibility check (age, experience, nationality), application, entrance exams (written/oral on legal/economic topics), medical/background checks, interview, and training. It favors experienced candidates (e.g., 4+ years in public service) and has age limits varying by category.
• Singapore: Without a centralized exam, the Public Service Commission process has 4–6 steps: application, video interview, psychometric/aptitude tests, psychological interview, further assessments (e.g., case studies), and selection. It focuses on potential, diversity, and practical skills, with no age restrictions beyond citizenship.

Other examples include Germany’s decentralized recruitment without a centralized exam (organized by each authority), the Netherlands’ lack of formal competitive exams (relying on experience and applications), and China’s guokao, a one-day exam with essays and interviews, selecting from millions but emphasizing party loyalty and policy knowledge. The UN’s Young Professionals Programme uses a multi-stage entrance exam and development track. Unlike the UPSC, these systems often incorporate lateral entry, value private sector experience, and avoid redundancies, making them more accessible while maintaining rigor.

Overlaps and Redundancies: Duplication That Dilutes Efficiency

One of the most glaring issues is the overlap between stages and papers, which inflates the exam’s volume without adding proportional value.

• Language Skills Repetition: Prelims Paper 2 (CSAT) includes sections on comprehension and language proficiency, which are then retested in the two compulsory language papers in mains (English and an Indian language). This redundancy serves little purpose beyond extending preparation time. Language proficiency could be assessed once, perhaps integrated into prelims or as a qualifying criterion, freeing up space in mains for more substantive content.
• General Studies Overload: The four GS papers in mains — GS1 (history and society), GS2 (governance and international relations), GS3 (economy, environment, and technology), and GS4 (ethics) — cover an exhaustive syllabus that often overlaps. For instance, ethical dimensions in governance (GS2) bleed into GS4’s ethics focus, while economic policies in GS3 intersect with GS2’s polity. Reducing these to two consolidated GS papers — one on humanities and society, and another on contemporary issues like economy, environment, and ethics — would streamline preparation without sacrificing depth.
• The Essay Conundrum: The standalone essay paper requires candidates to write on philosophical or current affairs topics, many of which mirror GS4’s emphasis on ethics, integrity, and aptitude. Merging the essay into an expanded GS4 could create a single, holistic paper that evaluates analytical writing alongside ethical reasoning, reducing the total mains papers from nine to a more manageable number.
• Optional Subjects- Relevance in Question: The two optional papers allow specialization in subjects like physics, history, or literature, but their utility is debatable. Does mastering quantum mechanics or nuclear physics truly equip someone to be a better district collector or policy maker? While optionals add diversity, they often favor candidates from specific academic backgrounds, creating inequities. Condensing them into one paper or eliminating them entirely — replacing with an aptitude-based assessment or integrating relevant elements into GS — would level the playing field. This isn’t to dismiss the value of specialized knowledge (as seen in aspirants who leverage physics for logical thinking), but rather to question its necessity in a generalist civil service role. Global benchmarks, like the U.S. Foreign Service Officer Test, prioritize broad skills over niche expertise.

These redundancies contribute to a bloated syllabus, where aspirants juggle overlapping content across stages, leading to inefficient study habits and higher dropout rates.

Proposed Revisions: A Leaner, Fairer Path Forward

To address these issues, a revised UPSC CSE could adopt the following changes, shortening the timeline while maintaining the exam’s exhaustive nature:

1. Condense Prelims and Integrate Language Testing: Keep two prelims papers but make CSAT purely aptitude-focused, shifting language assessment to a single qualifying test or merging it into mains if needed. This eliminates early duplication.
2. Streamline Mains to 5–6 Papers: Reduce GS to two papers (e.g., GS1: History, Society, and Governance; GS2: Economy, Environment, Ethics, and International Relations). Merge the essay with the ethics-focused GS paper. Limit optionals to one paper or phase them out, perhaps replacing with a practical skills test like case studies on public administration — aligning better with civil service demands.
3. Accelerate the Timeline: Shift mains to mid-July (post-prelims results in June) and interviews to October-December. This compresses the process to 6–7 months, giving unsuccessful candidates ample time to prepare for the next cycle or explore other opportunities. Digital tools, like AI-assisted evaluation, could expedite result processing.
4. Holistic Evaluation: Retain the interview but make it more structured, incorporating elements from eliminated papers to ensure comprehensiveness. Introduce wellness breaks or mental health support mandates during the process.

These reforms would reduce the total steps from 12 to about 8 (2 prelims + 4–5 mains + 1 interview + 1 qualifying language test), making UPSC comparable to efficient systems like Singapore’s Public Service Commission exams.

The Benefits: Empowering Aspirants and Enhancing Governance

A revised structure wouldn’t dilute the exam’s prestige; instead, it would attract a broader, more resilient pool of candidates by reducing burnout and redundancies. Aspirants like those preparing with physics as an optional could redirect their analytical skills toward core governance topics, fostering well-rounded administrators. Ultimately, a shorter, sharper UPSC CSE would better serve India’s dynamic needs — producing civil servants who are not just exam survivors, but innovative leaders ready to tackle real-world challenges in policy, economics, and public administration.

Reforms require stakeholder input, including from current aspirants and experts, but the conversation is overdue. As India evolves, so too should the gateway to its civil services

Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect in India’s Policy Making

 

Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect in India’s Policy Making

Public policy in India often suffers from a gap between intention and outcome. At the heart of this paradox lie two concepts from economics and social sciences — Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect. Both capture how well-meaning metrics and incentives can backfire, especially in a diverse democracy where welfare delivery faces challenges of scale, leakages, and local adaptation.

Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect: A Primer

• Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Once metrics are linked to rewards, people start gaming the system rather than solving the real problem.
• Cobra Effect: Named after colonial India, when the British offered money for every dead cobra to reduce their population. Citizens began breeding cobras to kill and sell for reward. When the policy was scrapped, the cobras were released, worsening the problem.

Both highlight how poorly designed incentives distort behavior and create perverse outcomes.

Case Studies from Indian Policy and Welfare Schemes

1. Learning Outcomes in Education

India’s school education policy historically measured success by enrollment and infrastructure — number of classrooms, midday meals, teacher recruitment. As per Goodhart’s Law, once these became targets, states focused on inflating enrollment and building structures, while learning outcomes stagnated. The ASER reports (2005–2022) consistently showed that even after years of schooling, many children struggled with basic arithmetic and reading.

2. MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act)

The world’s largest employment guarantee scheme aimed at providing 100 days of work per household. But linking performance to “number of person-days generated” led to inflated work records, ghost workers, and incomplete assets. Instead of durable rural infrastructure, the incentive system sometimes encouraged quantity over quality.

3. Janani Suraksha Yojana (Maternal Health)

Cash incentives to institutionalize deliveries reduced home births dramatically. But in several cases, women were rushed into hospitals for monetary reasons without adequate facilities or postnatal care. The target — numbers of institutional deliveries — became more important than the quality of maternal and infant health services.

4. Toilet Construction under Swachh Bharat Mission

The ambitious mission reported near-total household toilet coverage by 2019. However, several surveys revealed issues of toilet functionality, water access, and behavioral usage. The rush to meet construction targets often overlooked sustainability — showing the classic Goodhart’s Law trade-off between numbers vs. actual sanitation outcomes.

5. Fertilizer and Subsidy Policies

Incentives to increase foodgrain production during the Green Revolution led to overuse of urea subsidies, distorting soil health and groundwater tables. Farmers optimized to maximize subsidies and yields, not long-term sustainability — an unintended “cobra effect” that still burdens Indian agriculture today.

Why These Effects Persist in India

1. Target-driven bureaucracy — Officers are evaluated on achieving measurable outputs, not nuanced outcomes.
2. Political pressures — Short-term results look better in electoral cycles.
3. Scale of welfare schemes — With hundreds of millions of beneficiaries, central monitoring relies heavily on metrics.
4. Weak feedback loops — Ground-level realities are often masked by inflated reporting.
5. Resource constraints — Quantity becomes easier to track than quality.

The Way Forward: Designing Better Policies

1. Focus on outcomes, not just outputs — Eg. measuring literacy and numeracy skills instead of only school enrollments.
2. Build feedback loops — Independent social audits, community scorecards, and civil society participation.
3. Use technology smartly — Aadhaar-linked DBTs, geotagging assets, real-time dashboards to reduce gaming.
4. Align incentives with behavior change — Example: moving Swachh Bharat from construction to sustained usage through campaigns.
5. Flexibility and local adaptation — One-size-fits-all metrics often fail; decentralization can ensure context-specific outcomes.

Conclusion

India’s welfare architecture is massive and ambitious, but the lessons of Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect remind us that badly designed metrics can derail even the best policies. True success lies not in ticking boxes but in improving lived realities — healthy mothers, educated children, sustainable agriculture, and dignified rural employment.

As India moves towards becoming the world’s third-largest economy, its governance must also mature from counting numbers to measuring impact.

 

India’s 35 Million–Strong Diaspora: Pride Without Power?

Every January, we celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas with pomp and pride. Politicians beam about the 35 million Indians abroad, often calling them “India’s ambassadors to the world.” We highlight the parade of Indian-origin CEOs — Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Arvind Krishna — as proof that Indian talent dominates global boardrooms. We’ve even sweetened the deal with OCI cards, allowing them to keep a foot in the Indian door.

And yet, when it comes to protecting India’s core economic interests, this vast network has been silent — sometimes uncomfortably so.

The Test Case: US Tariffs

When the United States imposed tariffs affecting Indian goods — steel, aluminium, and later other sectors — New Delhi expected that the strong Indian-American presence, especially in policy circles and corporate corridors, might help soften the blow. After all, this is the same diaspora that India celebrates at every opportunity.

But there was no organized lobbying, no public campaign, no high-profile voices condemning the move. The Indian-American community, despite its political clout and economic influence, remained on the sidelines.

Why the Silence?

1. National Loyalty vs. Cultural Roots
   Most diaspora members, especially those in positions of power, are now citizens of their adopted countries. When push comes to shove, their legal and political obligations lie there, not here.
2. Corporate Priorities Over National Affection
   A CEO’s primary responsibility is to shareholders, not to the land of their birth. Supporting India against their own government’s trade policy is simply not in their job description.
3. Fear of Political Backlash
   Openly lobbying against a domestic policy of their host country can invite suspicion, accusations of dual loyalty, and professional risk.

The Harsh Reality

We love to imagine that the Indian diaspora is a geopolitical asset, ready to rally for India in times of need. The truth is more sobering: diaspora influence is circumstantial. It can shine in cultural promotion, philanthropy, and bilateral business ties — but when a direct clash of interests arises, their loyalties will align with their passports.

This isn’t betrayal. It’s simply the reality of migration and assimilation.

Rethinking Our Approach

India must recognize that diaspora goodwill ≠ diaspora activism. We can still take pride in their achievements, but we must stop assuming they are a dependable lobbying force for India’s political battles. Instead:

• Build our own institutional lobbying capacity abroad.
• Strengthen government-to-government channels rather than relying on soft power alone.
• Appreciate diaspora contributions where they are effective, but not confuse sentiment with strategy.

Conclusion

Our 35 million–strong diaspora is a source of pride, culture, and connection — but not a shield in economic warfare. They have built lives elsewhere, and when forced to choose, they will side with the nations that now claim their allegiance.

India can celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas, hand out OCI cards, and beam at the success of Indian-origin leaders. But let’s also accept the reality: in the moments of geopolitical friction, we stand alone.

 

Why Modi’s “standing with farmers” rhetoric misses the mark: The real sectors taking the hit

Modi’s emphasis on protecting farmers from US tariffs is politically savvy but economically misleading — agriculture represents only ~6% of India’s $79 billion exports to the US, while far larger non-agricultural sectors are bearing the brunt of Trump’s tariffs.

The sectors actually getting hammered (far bigger than agriculture):

Electronics/IT Hardware: $12.3 billion (largest single category)

• Smartphones, semiconductors, IT equipment
• Employs millions in urban manufacturing hubs
• Currently exempted but vulnerable to policy shifts

Gems & Jewelry: $9.15 billion

• Cut diamonds, precious stones, gold jewelry
• Faces 52% total tariff, among the highest
• 30% of sector’s global sales go to US
• Heavily concentrated in Gujarat, Mumbai

Pharmaceuticals: $8.7 billion

• Generic drugs, APIs, formulations
• Currently exempted due to US healthcare dependence
• Employs educated middle-class workforce

Machinery/Engineering: $6.48 billion

• Auto components, industrial equipment
• 65%+ US market dependency in some sub-sectors
• Major employer in manufacturing states

Textiles/Apparel: $2.9 billion

• Faces 59–64% total tariffs (highest of all sectors)
• Labor-intensive but much smaller than other hit sectors
• Already declining before tariffs

Why the farmer rhetoric is misleading:

Agricultural exports to US: ~$4–5 billion (including marine products)

• Rice, spices, marine products make up bulk
• Many agricultural items already duty-free or low-tariff
• Sector employs many but contributes relatively small export value

The real impact hierarchy:

1. Urban manufacturing workers (electronics, pharma, engineering) — highest skilled, highest paid
2. Diamond/jewelry artisans (Gujarat/Mumbai) — traditional but high-value
3. Textile workers (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka) — labor-intensive but smaller scale
4. Farmers/fishermen — large numbers but smaller dollar impact

Political calculation behind farmer focus:

• Vote bank arithmetic: Farmers are 40%+ of workforce vs. industrial workers ~25%
• Emotional resonance: “Annadata” (food provider) narrative plays better than “export manufacturer”
• Deflection strategy: Easier to blame external tariffs than address domestic industrial competitiveness
• State politics: Key agricultural states (UP, Punjab, Haryana) more electorally critical than industrial centers

What Modi isn’t saying:

The real economic damage is to India’s high-value manufacturing and services sectors that employ educated urban workers, generate higher per-capita income, and drive technology transfer — precisely the sectors needed for India’s “developed nation” aspirations.

Bottom line: Modi’s farmer-centric messaging obscures that urban industrial workers in electronics, pharma, gems, and engineering — not farmers — are taking the biggest economic hit from US tariffs. It’s classic political theater: appeal to the numerically larger but economically smaller constituency while the higher-value sectors suffer quietly.

Brain Drain Isn’t the Villain You Think It Is

If you’ve been on social media lately, you’ve probably seen every group in India come up with its own pet theory on why people are leaving the country.

• Caste-focused commentators insist it’s because of reservations.
• Wealthy elites think it’s because the government “wastes” resources on freebies for the poor.
• Middle-class warriors are convinced it’s all about potholes and bad roads.

Each narrative conveniently fits their worldview, but all miss the elephant in the room.

The uncomfortable truth? When $1 equals ₹86, the economic pull is irresistible. Even if Indian roads matched German autobahns tomorrow, skilled professionals would still emigrate. The wage arbitrage is simply too powerful to ignore — a software engineer earning $120,000 in Silicon Valley versus ₹12 lakhs in Bangalore faces a lifestyle differential that transcends policy grievances.

But here’s what the doomsday crowd won’t tell you: brain drain isn’t economic suicide for India.

The Numbers That Matter

Over 630,000 Indians emigrated in 2024 alone, contributing to the world’s largest diaspora of 35.4 million people spread across 180 countries. Yet this “loss” generates India’s biggest economic win: $135.46 billion in remittances in FY25 — a 14% jump from the previous year and the highest globally.

To put this in perspective:

• India’s remittances are nearly double Mexico’s $68 billion (second place)
• They offset 47% of India’s $287 billion trade deficit
• Remittances have more than doubled from $61 billion in 2016–17
• They exceed India’s total FDI inflows, making them the most stable source of external financing

18.5 million overseas Indians now work in advanced economies, sending money that sustains millions of households back home. The US alone contributes 27.7% of these flows, followed by Gulf countries at 38% collectively.

Beyond Money: Cultural Soft Power

The diaspora has transformed into India’s most effective cultural ambassadors. Diwali is now celebrated in New York’s Times Square thanks to Indian-Americans. London’s Southall, Toronto’s Little India, and Sydney’s Harris Park showcase Indian festivals, cuisine, and traditions to global audiences.

This isn’t just feel-good multiculturalism — it’s strategic soft power that:

• Builds bilateral diplomatic ties through people-to-people connections
• Attracts tourism and investment to India through positive branding
• Creates business networks that facilitate trade and technology transfer
• Influences policy in host countries favorable to India’s interests

The Brain Circulation Reality

Modern migration isn’t one-way hemorrhaging — it’s brain circulation. Many emigrants eventually return with global experience, capital, and networks. Even those who stay permanently often:

• Invest in Indian startups and real estate
• Collaborate with Indian institutions on research and innovation
• Mentor Indian entrepreneurs through accelerator programs
• Bridge technology gaps between India and developed markets

The Real Conversation We’re Avoiding

Yes, India loses talent. But focusing only on the loss while ignoring the ₹11+ lakh crore annual remittance inflow is economic myopia. The question isn’t how to stop emigration — it’s how to maximize the benefits while building domestic opportunities that eventually attract global talent, including our own, back home.

Countries like Ireland, South Korea, and China leveraged their diasporas as economic engines during their development phases. India is already doing this unconsciously — now it needs to do it strategically.

The brain drain debate needs nuance, not nationalist hand-wringing. When 630,000 Indians leave but 35 million Indians abroad send home $135 billion, maybe it’s time to reframe emigration from pure loss to complex opportunity.

Bottom line: Brain drain hurts, but diaspora dividends help — and the numbers prove the latter outweighs the former.