The document outlines seven key non-economic reforms that are needed in India to propel sustained high growth over the long term. These include: 1) judicial and legal reforms to increase independence and efficiency of the courts; 2) administrative reforms to make civil servants more responsive and less influenced by politics; 3) defense reforms focusing on new technologies and expertise; 4) constitutional reforms to streamline rights and duties and balance centralization; 5) electoral reforms to reduce money power and corruption; 6) religious reforms focusing on consolidation not expansion; and 7) empowering states and cities with more autonomy from central and state governments. The document argues that without reforms in these critical non-economic areas, India will not be able to realize its full

1. India@75: Seven Non-Economic
Reforms We Must Push For In Amrit
Kaal
India may be among the world’s best-functioning economies currently, but it is
far from clear that we are on our way to self-sustaining growth over the long
term. If you were to ask economists, they will talk of the long, unfinished reforms
agenda: factor markets, agriculture, markets, deregulation, etc.
However, while these are important, the critical factors holding India back from
sustained high growth relate to reforms that are not directly connected to
economics.
What we need are political, judicial, constitutional and other structural reforms
without which no economy can outperform.
As India completes 75 years of independence, it is these areas that need
addressing. Otherwise, Azaadi Ka Amrit Kaal will be little more than a slogan.
The first and most important reform relates to the judiciary and law
enforcement.
Four things are of importance here: judicial independence with accountability;
police and legal reforms; investment in training and technology for gathering
better evidence in civil and criminal cases; and faster trials and judgments, again
using new laws and technology.
This means judicial appointments must be taken out of the hands of the
collegium; a separate body must be created to monitor judicial performance,

2. investigate complaints against judges so that weeding out bad apples can
happen without having to impeach them.
Police reform goes without saying, and it means two things: insulating them
from political interference, and more forensic and other resources for
investigating cases more efficiently.
The second reform we need is administrative.
The “steel frame” of the IAS is rusty, and no longer capable of doing its job. The
IAS structure is rooted in a colonial-era culture that is unsuitable for a
democracy.
Like every other field of human endeavour, at the higher levels, given the need
for specialisation, we need more experts; at the middle and other
implementation levels, we need officers and staff more responsive and
accountable to the public who they are supposed to serve.
With some exceptions, the civil servant is neither civil nor a servant of the
people. The induction of short-term appointees at the joint secretary level is a
move in the right direction, but it will make no difference if the speed and
quantum of induction continues at a glacial pace.
Just as the proverbial frog sitting in slowly heating water will fail to jump out in
time and save itself, excessively slow reforms do no good. The system learns to
neutralise the proposed change-makers by co-opting some and isolating the
others. The administrative service needs serious disruption. We need to get a
move on.
Third, and this is related to defence.

3. Like the police and administrative staff, defence is no longer about having a lot
of bodies to hold territory, but about going hybrid, where war may not always be
at the borders, but right inside our economies.
This means that defence needs more expertise in areas like technology, cyber
defence and offence, use of robots and equipment to do the actual fighting, real-
time propaganda capabilities (where Pakistan’s ISI seems to score over us), and a
younger force.
Agniveer is one good move, but it needs to be implemented well and with lots of
patience so that the short-term staff do no lose the motivation to serve. Also, as
we move towards theatre commands, we need defence experts who know how
to make different services work as one unit. Corporate M&A specialists are one
area to tap for advice and consulting.
Fourth, constitutional reform.
We don’t need a 1.45 lakh words-plus constitution. It should be shorter and
more focused, and draw from Indian social experience. The balance between
rights and duties - articles 12 to 35 of the constitution deal with fundamental
rights while article 51A deals with duties – is weak. There is no harmony and
linkage.
Thus, to the best of one’s knowledge, while rights have been defended often in
courts, duties have seldom been enforced, except whimsically.
For example, article 51A says “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to
abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag
and the National Anthem; (b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which
inspired our national struggle for freedom…” - among many other duties. How

4. will anyone ensure ideals that have not been properly defined in terms that an
individual should understand?
Also, what is the tradeoff between rights and duties?
If dissent and freedom of conscience are fundamental rights, can one prosecute
those who do not salute the national flag? Or will this have to be done purely
through education and training?
In the US, and in India, courts have accepted the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses to
not salute the flag, since this would contradict their belief that salvation can only
be through Jesus, and not the state or its emblems.
But what if, tomorrow, another community says that it does not recognise the
Indian state or its emblems, and only believes in the Umma under Allah and the
Prophet? What is needed is a linkage between some rights and duties. Also, once
exceptions are made, why would anyone follow any prescribed duty?
Fifth, electoral reform.
India has a good election management system, but has been sadly lacking
electoral reform. We get to choose our representatives without let or hindrance,
but the outcome is less than optimal as indirect distortions of the electoral
process continue.
If it is going to take over Rs 10 crore to elect a Lok Sabha member, what you are
going to get is a boatload of mercenaries in parliament, not public service and
change agents. The current brouhaha over freebies is one pointer to the
direction of change: we cannot allow politicians to use taxpayer resources to re-
elect themselves. This reform can only come if politically the major parties come
to a consensus among themselves. The courts should not be involved.

5. The anti-defection law, too, does not work well; what it has ensured is a higher
premium for defections, thus enhancing corruption at the margin. It has
provided some political stability, but at a huge cost to the credibility of
legislators.
At some point, we have to offer state funding of elections, so that good
candidates have half a chance of being elected. Otherwise, the same corrupt lot,
who can commandeer state resources and get themselves re-elected with
illegally obtained resources, will keep returning to power.
Sixth, India’s major religions, broadly classifiable as Dharmic (Hinduism,
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), and Abrahamic (Christianity and Islam), need
reforms too – but reform means different things for the two systems.
Indic religions need to focus more on consolidation and growth, while
Abrahamic religions need to focus less on expansion (i.e. conversions) by any
means and more on inner spiritual development. An expansionist religion is as
much a threat to social harmony and peace as a religion incapable of defending
itself, as is often the case with diverse and cacophonic Hinduism.
Seventh, states and cities. India’s constitution allows for too much centralisation
of power, at the Centre and State levels. The key to faster growth is
empowerment of cities, which can draw talent from the hinterland and provide
good jobs if they can only ensure good governance.
This can’t happen if urban areas are ruled by rural politicians, and even state
governments are emasculated economically. The only way forward is for the
Centre to reduce its role, empower states, and states must, in turn, empower
urban areas and local government.

6. Constitutional amendments granting more powers to states should be
contingent on the transfer of more powers to urban and non-urban local
bodies.
Empowered cities, and states with enough elbow room to raise resources and
initiate reforms that will create jobs, are what the doctor ordered. Right now, it is
assumed that everything is the Centre’s responsibility – from inflation to jobs.
Time to change that.
Economic reform is important, no doubt. But it is reform in the political, social,
legal and other areas that will prove to be true accelerators of growth and
prosperity.
Jagannathan is Editorial Director, Swarajya. He tweets at @TheJaggi.