Q. What are the key areas that India needs to focus on for economic growth?

Well, I think the record is quite uneven. India has been relatively more successful in terms of economic growth and expansion compared to raising living standards and improving the quality of life for its people. This is certainly one of the problems India is facing, and this imbalance needs to be addressed. It’s not that economic growth doesn’t matter—it does. However, the main purpose of pursuing economic growth is to raise living standards, not the other way around.

Q. If Kamala Harris were to win, and the fact that she’s of Indian descent, how do you think that will impact Indian diaspora across the world? And how would it impact India and U.S. relations?

First of all, when interpreting Kamala Harris’s background, it’s important not to solely define her as being of Indian descent. She is also of Jamaican descent, with a West Indian background, and she spent more time there than she did in India. She also identifies with the broader non-white community around the world, which we should respect and admire.

The key issue here isn’t so much her ethnicity or her bloodline, though there is a strong connection—her mother was from South India. What truly matters is that Kamala has a much deeper understanding of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, than most American politicians typically do. This is crucial because I believe the U.S. relationship with India has suffered, in part, from the common lack of understanding about India in America.

While there is a large Indian community in the U.S., they generally come from the upper classes of Indian society. Kamala’s mother, Shyamala, came from a similar background, but it was an academic family with a global outlook. Her father, Donald Harris, whom I am proud to have been a teacher of, completed his Ph.D. under my supervision alongside Dan McFadden. I know that Donald had a deep and insightful understanding of the developing world.

What stands out about Kamala is not just her ethnic roots, but the connection that has allowed her to develop an informed understanding of India—something that is often lacking in the U.S. I think this understanding is far more significant than her bloodline or ethnicity.

Q. Populist movements are on the rise globally. How do you think populism is impacting democracy worldwide?

Populism, when combined with a disdainful and negative attitude towards democracy, can be very dangerous. We are currently seeing a real risk of this in the United States. We recognize that Trump comes from a prosperous family and that he aligns himself with other authoritarian leaders around the world. In fact, Trump himself has said that when he met the North Korean dictator, he ‘fell in love’ immediately—a very strange sentiment, given the dictator’s terrible record, including a famine that caused many deaths. How could someone fall in love with such a figure? Trump seems to identify with another dictator.

What makes Trump particularly concerning in this context is that he combines authoritarian tendencies with populism. He is able to win over a significant portion of the population, to the point where the U.S. seems to be split almost evenly between supporters of Trump and supporters of Biden. This is not something we see in most authoritarian regimes around the world. If there were free elections in North Korea, with open media and public debate, it is unlikely the government would stay in power. However, Trump must gain power by winning an election, and he has something that many other dictators do not—strong support from a public base.

You might call this populism, and I would agree. Unlike simply being popular, populism involves rallying significant public support, which Trump clearly has. If he wins the election, the combination of electoral victory and dictatorial tendencies—especially given his talk of punishing his opponents for what he perceives as their wrongdoings—could create a very dangerous situation. There is something particularly worrisome about the current political landscape in the United States.

Q. The Indian American diaspora is highly attuned to both U.S. and Indian politics. What do you see as the biggest threat to democracy in either country?

Well, I think this requires some self-criticism, particularly from those of us in academia and in public discourse. We have failed to address an issue that wasn’t missed by great leaders like Rabindranath Tagore. When asked about India’s problems, Tagore identified the lack of education and the indifference of rulers towards it as the most pressing issue.

While there has been some improvement, the present government, like those before it, has been neglectful of education. Even right after independence, when the five-year plans were being developed, education was sidelined. People often discuss India’s unemployment problem—how can a country with such rapid growth still have so many people without jobs? A major reason is that many are either uneducated or poorly educated. This is true for much of the population in India. Those who attend elite schools escape this problem, and when they move to countries like the U.S. or Europe, they thrive. But for the general public, the standard of education is incredibly low.

First of all, education still doesn’t cover the entire population. People are considered literate if they can sign their name, which is commendable, but that doesn’t help them secure a job. The ability to read, follow instructions, and carry out tasks as required is essential for getting and keeping a job. So, I would say that the lack of education is a big problem, but even more problematic is the failure to recognize it as such.

This failure is not just limited to the current Modi government, which has been particularly neglectful, but extends to previous administrations as well. There’s a long history of neglecting education in India, and this has contributed to many of the country’s issues, including unemployment.

There is also a lack of healthcare. While upper-class medical facilities offer excellent care, the general healthcare system is extremely poor. Finding a job when you’re both unhealthy and uneducated is a real challenge. So, to say that India is doing well economically but not socially isn’t entirely accurate. India’s economic success is limited to producing a few billionaires like the Adanis and Ambanis, but for the general population, economic progress has been much less impactful. This isn’t surprising. One of the first steps is to recognize our ignorance in underestimating the impact of inadequate education and healthcare.

 Q. But how does lack of education and withheld care translate into being threats to democracy?

It affects democracy in two important ways. First, education is crucial for being able to discuss and address societal issues. For example, people often talk about the neglect of women and the high rate of sex-selective female abortions in India. The ratio of girls to boys born at birth is unusually low, which reflects not just biological factors, but also the prevalence of female abortions. I’m not talking about the broader issue of abortion, but specifically the gender-based neglect in this case.

This is closely connected with education. In many states in India, the gender ratio at birth is similar to that of Europe, particularly in the southern and eastern states. However, in the northern and western regions, this isn’t the case. The state that surpasses even European and American standards is Kerala, and this is clearly linked to education, particularly for girls. Historically, whether you look at the native kingdoms of Travancore or Cochin in the 19th century, or the influence of the Christian movement and the left-wing politics of Kerala, education has been a major focus. This is unlike Bengal, which also has a long left-wing history but hasn’t placed as much emphasis on education, although it still performs better than most of India. In Kerala, women have received better treatment in terms of healthcare and education, and the impact of educating girls is enormous, affecting nearly every aspect of life.

For example, people often assume that China’s lowering of birth and fertility rates was solely due to the one-child policy, but that’s not true. The one-child policy was introduced between 1978 and 1979, but China’s fertility rates had already dropped from around six children per couple to close to two before that. The further decline under the one-child policy was minimal. What really made the difference in China was the early expansion of school education, healthcare for girls, and female employability, which were key commitments of the communist regime during that period. This had a significant impact on society.

So, I think the socio-economic connections are very strong, and we must consider them together. We cannot think of education and social progress as two separate issues.