ब्रह्मा मुरारिस्त्रिपुरान्तकारी
भानुः शशी भूमिसुतो बुधश्च । गुरुश्च शुक्रः शनिराहुकेतवः कुर्वन्तु सर्वे मम सुप्रभातम् ॥१॥
Growth, Debt, and the New Economic Powers
By 2030, the global economy is projected to reach an unprecedented size. However, this growth is matched by an equally massive challenge: global government debt is expected to swell to 100% of global GDP. This infographic explores the nations driving this growth, those bearing the debt, and the financial power dynamics that will define the next decade.
The economic map is being redrawn. While the United States and China remain the two largest economies, the most dramatic story is India's rapid ascent.
Driven by strong domestic demand and a vast, young workforce, India is projected to surpass both Germany and Japan to become the world's third-largest economy. Meanwhile, the incumbent advanced economies of Germany and Japan face slower growth.
Key Takeaway: The world's economic center of gravity is decisively shifting towards Asia, with India becoming a new, primary engine of global growth.
Absolute size is only half the story. The scale of a nation's debt relative to its economy (Debt-to-GDP) reveals its financial vulnerability. By 2030, the world's largest economies will also be its largest debtors.
The US and China alone are projected to account for over 49% of all global government debt.
Japan's debt is projected to be over double the size of its entire annual economy.
A nation's true financial power isn't just its debt; it's the balance of what it owns abroad versus what foreigners own of it. This is the Net International Investment Position (NIIP). By 2030, the world will be starkly divided.
Driven by decades of massive trade surpluses from its powerful export-led manufacturing sector.
Holds the world's largest stock of net foreign assets, built over decades and held by its vast pension funds and insurers.
A major official creditor, holding massive foreign exchange reserves and having issued trillions in loans globally.
By far the world's largest net debtor. Its economy is funded by global demand for U.S. dollar assets (like Treasury bonds).
Relies on foreign capital inflows to finance its persistent current account deficits.
Holds a significant net debtor position to finance its economy and government spending.
A high debt-to-GDP ratio isn't necessarily a crisis, but it must be managed. Governments have four main pathways to reduce their debt burden, each with its own trade-offs.
The best path. If a country's GDP grows faster than its debt interest, the debt-to-GDP ratio falls naturally. This is India's projected strategy.
Also known as austerity. This means cutting government spending and/or increasing taxes to run a budget surplus and pay down the debt. Often politically difficult.
The crisis path. The government negotiates with creditors to accept less than they are owed. This destroys trust and blocks future borrowing.
Using inflation to erode the real value of the debt (a "stealth default") or keeping interest rates artificially low (financial repression) to make debt payments cheaper.
Today is the day when result of election from Bihar will come . when are getting to know when left is almost removed & all party are considerd to right wings & they have there own agenda
The trends you describe—the marginalization of the Left and the perceived shift of all major political players towards a more 'Right-wing' or 'Right-of-Centre' posture with their own distinct agendas—are central to understanding the modern political landscape of the state.
While a 1440-word elaboration is beyond a reasonable response format, I can provide a comprehensive analysis of the three key aspects of your statement, focusing on the decline of the Left, the consolidation of the 'Right-of-Centre' field, and the personalized agendas of the major parties.
The most striking trend in recent Bihar politics is the systematic decline of the traditional Left (CPI, CPM, and CPI-ML Liberation) as a major, autonomous force.
Bihar was once a significant anchor of the Communist movement in India, particularly in its central and southern parts, which formed a part of the "Red Corridor." The Left, especially the CPI-ML Liberation, drew its strength from its radical base among the landless poor, Dalits, and marginalized peasantry. Their agenda was pure class struggle—demanding land reforms, higher wages, and fighting caste-based oppression, aligning perfectly with the definition of "essential for citizens are first most priority" through a Marxist lens.
Rise of Mandal Politics: The rise of powerful regional, socialist, and social justice parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in the 1990s fundamentally restructured Bihar's politics. These parties, built on the Mandal (OBC) agenda, successfully co-opted the social justice plank and became the primary voice of the marginalized. They offered a path to power through caste assertion, which was often more immediately tangible for voters than the long-term class struggle promised by the Left.
Welfare State Adaptation: The major parties, particularly the Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] under Nitish Kumar, adopted and successfully implemented an agenda of targeted welfare schemes (e.g., cycles for girls, loan schemes for women, improved roads/infrastructure). This form of governance neutralized the urgency of the Left's anti-establishment messaging.
Loss of Cadre and Base: In many areas, the Left's dedicated base either shifted to the RJD for political empowerment or was neutralized by the changing socio-economic structure. In 2020, the Left secured seats only by joining the RJD-led coalition (Mahagathbandhan), effectively sacrificing its independent identity for a share of power, a trend that may be repeated in this election, though the total number of seats remains small. The CPI(ML) Liberation is the only one that retains a significant, but localized, presence.
Your observation that "all parties are considered to right wings" is a powerful, though complex, characterization of Bihar's contemporary politics. It doesn't imply an endorsement of a monolithic 'Hindutva' or corporate ideology, but rather a shift away from the radical socialist-secular paradigm that defined the state's politics from the 1970s to the early 2000s.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the core of this 'Right' shift. Its agenda is unequivocally defined by:
Cultural Nationalism: Emphasizing a national identity rooted in cultural and religious values, often linking state policies to the overarching vision of a "Viksit Bharat" (Developed India) under the Prime Minister's leadership.
Welfare Governance (Modified): Leveraging the Centre's large-scale welfare schemes (housing, toilets, direct benefit transfers) to create a new, non-caste-based beneficiary class, cutting across traditional fault lines.
Development Pitch: Branding their alliance as the "double-engine government"—claiming that having the same party (or alliance) in power in both Delhi and Patna is the only path to rapid development and stable governance.
The remaining major parties, historically identified as 'socialist' or 'secular,' have pragmatically moved towards a Right-of-Centre political-economic stance:
| Party | Historical Ideology | Modern Agenda/Shift (Right-of-Centre) |
| JD(U) | Democratic Socialism, Social Justice | Emphasis on Sushasan (Good Governance), targeted women-centric welfare schemes, and infrastructure growth. This is a functional, centrist pitch that eschews radical redistributionist or class-based policies. Nitish Kumar’s focus is on state stability and incremental development, a fiscally prudent and administratively 'right-of-centre' approach. |
| RJD | Social Justice, Anti-Casteism | While retaining its core Muslim-Yadav (MY) vote bank, the party under Tejashwi Yadav has shifted from a pure identity politics model to a Governance-First pitch, promising 10 lakh jobs and focusing on the youth's aspiration for a non-corrupt, efficient state. This is an admission that the old 'secular vs. communal' and 'caste vs. class' debates are insufficient without a credible economic plan. |
In this new paradigm, the debate is no longer between Left and Right, but between two competing Right-of-Centre models:
The BJP/NDA Model: Development driven by centralized national schemes, cultural consolidation, and stable, incumbent governance.
The RJD/Opposition Model: Development driven by a focus on mass employment, better governance (to address anti-incumbency), and caste-based empowerment (such as leveraging the state’s caste survey for reservations).
Your final point—that parties now have their "own agenda"—is confirmed by the personalized, highly specific manifestos put forward in this election. The general socialist umbrella has been replaced by distinct, party-specific electoral promises.
The BJP's agenda is not just local; it is integrated into a national narrative.
Central Schemes as State Achievements: The campaign heavily marketed Central government schemes (e.g., Ayushman Bharat, PM-KISAN, free ration) as proof of the "double-engine" benefits.
Security and Demography: In the second phase, the campaign focused on issues like infiltrators (especially in the Seemanchal region) and a strong stance on national security, a classic 'Right-wing' appeal intended to transcend caste lines and consolidate the majority vote.
Tejashwi Yadav’s primary agenda is to capture the Aspirational Youth of Bihar.
The 10 Lakh Jobs Promise: This is the single most important agenda point, repositioning the party from being solely about Mandal to being about Mandi (Market/Economy). It's a pragmatic, job-focused agenda designed to address the state's severe unemployment and migration crisis, directly speaking to a large segment of first-time and young voters.
The Caste Survey Leverage: The RJD (which supported the caste survey) intends to use the data to justify greater reservations and representation for backward communities, thereby linking its traditional social justice base with its new economic promises.
The JD(U) under Nitish Kumar, regardless of his alliance partner, runs on the agenda of Stability and Law & Order.
Women as a Core Base: Nitish Kumar has cultivated women voters through schemes like the prohibition law, cycles for schoolgirls, and reservation in local bodies. His agenda is to project himself as the guarantor of social order and safety.
Infrastructure Legacy: His government's focus on roads, electricity, and basic administration represents an agenda of slow, steady, bureaucratic progress that appeals to a silent majority weary of the political turmoil of the past.
The results emerging today confirm that the dominant political contest is no longer between the traditional Left (Class) and the Right (Capitalism/Culture), but between two versions of the Right-of-Centre (Governance/Welfare), one centralized and culturally assertive, the other localized and socially pragmatic. The Left, by choice or necessity, has been relegated to a minor ally, its former radical space entirely occupied by the pragmatic, power-seeking regional giants.
JNU will always support Russia & far east ideology (i.e. mostly consider as left & essential for citizens are first most priority).
t's widely recognized that Left-leaning ideology has historically been a dominant force and a major part of the political culture among the student bodies at JNU. This is evident in the repeated electoral success of Left-affiliated student groups in the JNU Students' Union (JNUSU) elections. The focus on social justice, affordable education, dissent, and critical thinking often aligns with the principles you describe as "essential for citizens are first most priority."
Regarding Russia and Far East ideology, JNU has a significant academic focus on the region:
Academic Centers: JNU houses the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies (CRCAS), which is one of the university's premier centers for interdisciplinary research and teaching on Russia and the former Soviet republics.
Indo-Russian Relations: The university, through its centers, has hosted international conferences and cultural festivals to mark and study long-standing diplomatic and academic ties between India and Russia. The study of Foreign Policy of Russia is a specific course offered at the Centre.
While the university has a strong tradition of academic study and political activism on these topics, the specific claim that JNU "will always support Russia" is an expression of a strong political viewpoint rather than a factual institutional policy. The university fosters a climate of open debate and diverse viewpoints, though Left-leaning thought is highly influential on campus.
The phenomenon of self-proclaimed 'Far-Right' elements at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) supporting Indo-Russian relations is primarily driven by a nationalist, strategic, and anti-Western foreign policy alignment, rather than any specific ideological affinity for Russia's domestic political system.
The main 'Far-Right' or Right-wing student group at JNU is the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), which is affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
For the Indian Right, and consequently the ABVP, the Indo-Russian partnership is viewed as a historical, non-negotiable strategic necessity for safeguarding India's national interests, particularly in defense.
Defense Cornerstone: Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) has been, and remains, India's largest and most reliable source of defense equipment and technology (e.g., missiles, fighter jets, nuclear submarine leases). This military relationship is seen as crucial for maintaining strategic deterrence against China and Pakistan. From a nationalist perspective, this partnership is a pragmatic pillar of national security.
Multipolar World Order: The Indian Right generally favors a multipolar world order as opposed to one dominated by the West. Russia's consistent call for multipolarity aligns with India's pursuit of strategic autonomy. Supporting Indo-Russian ties is therefore seen as an act of asserting India's independent foreign policy, free from Western influence.
Contrast with the Left: While the traditional Left (who also support Russia) bases its support on an ideological and historical socialist connection with the USSR, the Right bases its support on power, practicality, and the preservation of national strength. The Left may see Russia as a historical friend of the poor; the Right sees it as a historical provider of military hardware.
A strong undercurrent in Right-wing and nationalist politics is an emphasis on national sovereignty and a healthy skepticism of Western liberal or interventionist foreign policy.
Non-Interference: The Far-Right, which champions nationalism, appreciates Russia's historical and contemporary stance of largely avoiding intervention in India's internal affairs (like Kashmir, human rights, etc.), a contrast to the occasional critiques India receives from some Western nations.
Anti-Imperialist Legacy (Modified): While the original "anti-imperialist" rhetoric belonged to the Left, the modern Indian Right interprets this as being resistant to Western hegemony and cultural influence. Supporting a major non-Western power like Russia fits perfectly into this narrative of maintaining a non-aligned, sovereign foreign policy against perceived Western pressures.
Crucially, the study and appreciation of Indo-Russian relations are deeply institutionalized in JNU, particularly within the School of International Studies (SIS) and the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies (CRCAS).
Academic Gravity: JNU faculty from the CRCAS are often called upon to comment on and underscore the long-standing, robust nature of the relationship during major diplomatic events (like PM visits to Russia).
ABVP's Strategy: The ABVP, in its quest to establish its legitimacy in an otherwise Left-dominated campus, strategically aligns itself with issues of unquestioned national consensus, such as the strategic value of the Russia partnership. This allows them to project an image of being the true defenders of India's national interest against groups they often label as "anti-national." They have even, in the past, tried to appropriate the language of Russian revolutionary nationalism to appeal to traditionally Left-leaning students.
Therefore, the JNU Right's support for Russia is less about Soviet-style ideology and more about realpolitik, military dependency, and nationalist assertion on the global stage.
In right wing politics citizens are not so necessary ??
It is not that citizens are unnecessary in right-wing politics, but rather that the role of the citizen and the type of collective good prioritized are fundamentally different from those championed by the political Left.
In the right-wing worldview (which encompasses conservatism, fiscal libertarianism, and various forms of nationalism), the individual is seen primarily as an agent of responsibility, and the collective (the nation, the state, the community) is seen as a vehicle for preserving order, tradition, and competitive freedom. This framework often leads to policies that minimize the state's obligation to citizens as individuals in need, instead demanding they conform to the pre-existing social, economic, and cultural order.
Below is an elaboration of this phenomenon across three key dimensions: Ideology of the State, Economic Philosophy, and Cultural Identity.
The fundamental difference lies in how the right-wing and left-wing ideologies perceive the source of societal well-being and the cause of inequality.
For the right wing, the citizen is necessary, but not as a dependent on the state, but as a contributor to the strength and order of the collective.
| Concept | Right-Wing Emphasis | Implication for the Citizen |
| Individual | Personal Responsibility | Success or failure is primarily a result of individual effort, merit, and hard work. The state should not cushion failure, as this creates dependency. |
| Social Order | Hierarchy, Tradition, Authority | The social order (including existing economic and cultural hierarchies) is seen as natural, inevitable, or desirable. The citizen's duty is to respect and maintain this order. |
| The State's Role | Limited Government | The state's primary function is to enforce contracts, ensure national security, and maintain law and order. It should minimize intervention in the economy and private life. |
This ideological stance means that policies focusing on "essential for citizens are first most priority"—a classic Left-wing focus on social equality and needs-based welfare—are viewed not as necessary support, but as a moral hazard that disincentivizes effort and undermines the natural hierarchy and economic competition essential for the nation's overall health.
In many right-wing nationalist or traditionalist movements, the ultimate object of loyalty and the greatest priority is not the immediate, individual citizen, but the Nation (or Culture, or Tradition) as an abstract, enduring entity.
The Citizen as a Means: The individual citizen's value is often derived from their contribution to this greater, quasi-eternal entity. The "good citizen" is the one who is productive, adheres to the dominant culture, and respects the national heritage.
Welfare Chauvinism: In some strands of right-wing populism, support for welfare exists, but it is restricted.
The right-wing economic philosophy is one of the most powerful reasons why the needs of the individual citizen are deemed a secondary priority to the health of the market.
Most right-of-centre and conservative parties champion free-market capitalism (laissez-faire schools).
Markets are the most efficient allocators of resources. Government intervention (regulation, high taxes, subsidies) distorts the market and ultimately harms the economy.
Competition drives innovation and prosperity. Therefore, policies that impede competition—like strong labor protections or high corporate taxes—are detrimental to the national economy as a whole.
The Merit Rule of Justice: Individuals should be rewarded based on their merit and contribution, not their need.
In this context, programs that treat the individual citizen as a priority (like universal basic income, extensive public healthcare, or state-guaranteed housing) are seen as financially irresponsible and philosophically corrosive. The logic dictates that if the market is healthy and free, the citizen will, through their own effort, secure their own necessities. The state should not interfere with the natural outcomes of economic competition.
Right-wing parties typically prioritize Fiscal Responsibility and Lower Taxes. The argument is that taxes are an infringement upon the individual’s rightfully earned property and that wealth creation is best achieved when money is left in the hands of private individuals and businesses, rather than being spent by the government.
This naturally leads to a diminished capacity for extensive social welfare spending. If the state minimizes its revenue, it cannot prioritize the collective necessities of all citizens, particularly the poor, the sick, and the unemployed, as this would require massive, redistributive public spending (a key tenet of the Left).
The prioritization is thus: Economic Liberty of the Wealthy/Productive > Collective Welfare of the Needy.
In the socio-cultural realm, right-wing politics prioritizes a stable, homogeneous, and traditional National Culture over the diverse, individual identities of citizens.
Conservatism emphasizes the preservation of tradition, established institutions, and a shared cultural heritage.
The Ideal Citizen: The ideal citizen is one who assimilates into the national/cultural mainstream, thereby reinforcing the established social and moral order.
The Non-Ideal Citizen: The citizen who advocates for radical social change, promotes multiculturalism, or critiques traditional norms is often categorized as a "cultural elite" or an "outsider," whose claims for rights and representation are framed as divisive and unpatriotic. Their necessity to the collective is questioned because they challenge the very identity the collective seeks to preserve.
Right-wing politics often employs a strong narrative of Nationalism, which defines the collective "we" (the nation) in opposition to an external "they" (foreign entities, immigrants, or internationalist ideologies).
In this framework, the citizen's primary duty is to stand in lockstep with the nation's defense against perceived threats. The focus shifts from guaranteeing the socio-economic rights of citizens internally (the Left's focus) to securing the borders and cultural integrity of the nation externally (the Right's focus).
The resources and political energy are thus directed toward defense, security, and cultural purity, rather than on redistributive social policies.
The assertion that "in right wing politics citizens are not so necessary" is an understandable interpretation based on the policy outcomes, but it is more accurately described as a transformation of the citizen's role:
The Left-wing ideology views the citizen as a claimant of rights based on need (e.g., the right to healthcare, education, and shelter), making the state's collective responsibility paramount. The citizen is "necessary" as an object of social justice and collective upliftment.
The Right-wing ideology views the citizen as an agent of duty based on contribution (e.g., individual hard work, adherence to law, cultural loyalty, and tax payment), making their individual responsibility paramount. The state exists to protect the framework (market, order, nation) within which the citizen must succeed on their own.
In this Right-wing model, the citizen's necessity is conditional: they are necessary to the extent they strengthen the Nation (or the Economy) through their independent, productive, and conforming behavior, rather than simply by virtue of their status as human beings with inherent needs. The state's moral obligation is therefore to the collective order first, and to the individual citizen's needs second.
