For India, war shrinks political and economic space for easy solutions

The first wave of globalisation from the 1870s, after the opening of Suez Canal and laying of a permanent transatlantic cable connecting Europe and North America, resulted in the US becoming the world’s economic superpower. It maintained that position even during the war and depression years (1914-45), when global trade collapsed and recovered gradually over the next three to four decades. The second wave, following the disintegration of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 and lasting till the 2010s, led to China’s emergence as the “world’s factory” and “mega-trader”. This decade ought to have been India’s, given its favourable youth demographics (like China’s during the 1980s to the 2010s) and policy initiatives spurring digitisation (through Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile), formalisation (GST and demonetisation) and investments in physical infrastructure, from ports and airports to highways and renewable energy. Sadly, the demographic dividend from a labour force “bulge” hasn’t materialised due to successive disruptions — Covid, wars in Ukraine and Iran, and US President Donald Trump’s unilateral tariffs.

The basis of globalisation — founded on the free movement of goods, services, capital, people and ideas across borders — has been upended. Today, the assumption of wars being a near-impossibility in an age of hyper-economic interdependence between countries lies in tatters. The current decade has seen two major episodes of migrant workers in big cities and industrial centres leaving for their villages and hometowns, the first exodus during the Covid lockdown and the second on account of cooking gas shortages triggered by the Iran war. In short, while China rode the second wave of globalisation to realise the economic growth potential from its high working age-to-dependent population ratio, India has been relatively unlucky on that score.

Overall Analysis

The editorial presents a historical and analytical argument about how global disruptions, especially wars, have limited India’s ability to fully benefit from globalization. It begins by tracing the two major waves of globalization — the first linked to technological and infrastructural advances like the Suez Canal, and the second following the end of the Cold War. This historical framing gives the piece depth and authority, showing how global economic leadership shifted from the United States to China across different eras.

The article then positions India within this global trajectory. It argues that the current decade should have been India’s moment, given its favourable demographics and major policy reforms. The language here is somewhat aspirational, highlighting India’s potential through references to digitisation, formalisation, and infrastructure growth. However, this optimism is quickly tempered by the phrase “Sadly, the demographic dividend… hasn’t materialised”, marking a shift to a more critical and regretful tone.

The editorial attributes this underperformance to a series of external shocks — the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, and protectionist policies. These factors are presented as disruptions that have derailed India’s growth trajectory. The language emphasizes unpredictability and external constraint, suggesting that India’s challenges are not entirely self-inflicted but also shaped by global instability.

In the second paragraph, the focus broadens to the changing nature of globalization itself. The editorial argues that the traditional model — based on free movement across borders — is weakening. The phrase “lies in tatters” is particularly strong, conveying the breakdown of earlier assumptions that economic interdependence would prevent wars. This marks a shift from economic analysis to a more philosophical reflection on global order.

The article then uses the example of migrant worker crises in India to illustrate how global and domestic shocks translate into human and economic consequences. These examples make the argument more concrete and relatable. The comparison with China reinforces the central point: while China benefited from globalization during its demographic peak, India’s similar opportunity has been disrupted by adverse global conditions.

Overall, the editorial uses historical comparison, contrast, and cause-effect reasoning to argue that global conflicts have constrained India’s economic possibilities, making easy solutions increasingly difficult.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Globalisation – the increasing interconnectedness of economies and societies across the world.
2. Demographic Dividend – economic growth potential resulting from a large working-age population.
3. Disintegration – the breakdown or collapse of a system or structure.
4. Unilateral – actions taken by one country independently, without agreement from others.
5. Interdependence – mutual dependence between countries or systems.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that global conflicts and disruptions have restricted India’s economic opportunities, preventing it from fully capitalizing on its demographic advantage. It highlights that in a fractured global environment, achieving growth becomes more complex and less predictable.

Tone: Analytical, reflective, and somewhat pessimistic — acknowledging India’s potential but emphasizing external constraints and missed opportunities.