Viksit Bharat needs Viksit Minds
The vision of establishing Viksit Bharat (developed India) by 2047 is now an integral part of policy visions that reflect the long-term ambition of our policymakers, and this ambition creates a hope among the citizens to achieve the ideal situation of modern human organisations. This vision is often imagined through economic development, modern infrastructure, technological innovation, and global recognition. The government often showcases highways, digital connectivity, start-ups, and economic growth as evidence of national progress. Development, in its deeper sense, is not only about physical transformation. It is equally about the nature of thinking, social understanding, and moral sensibility that shape everyday life. A nation may advance materially, but it cannot truly become viksit without viksit minds.
Every developed society rests on an intellectual and ethical foundation. Roads connect places, but minds connect people. When material growth outpaces social understanding, it creates a lag in society. This lag becomes visible in everyday interactions in the form of intolerance, discrimination, bullying, racism, and, most importantly, the shrinking of democratic conduct. There have been recent incidents across different parts of India that indicate that while our society is struggling to develop a collective consciousness and shared representations, in their absence, society cannot develop completely.
The murder of a Northeast MBA student, Anjel Chakma, in Dehradun in December 2025 was not just an act of violence, it was a manifestation of an underdeveloped social mindset. This incident illustrates how racial, linguistic, and regional identities continue to be the grounds for suspicion and exclusion in everyday interactions, although this behaviour is not associated with modern, well-developed societies. In India, when students from the Northeast are treated as foreigners, made fun of for their attributes, or treated with doubt and hostility, it shows not only an act of discrimination but also indicates how some people lack understanding of India as a nation, its history, and culture and diversity. Such a situation may render the aspiration to become a Viksit Bharat and it may became the unfinished project.
This incident is not an exception. Numerous other incidents occur in various parts of India, where people treat regional and cultural differences with suspicion. In the first week December 2025, in parts of Himachal Pradesh, Kashmiri street vendors have reported being harassed and manhandled, with their identity casually conflated with hostile national labels. Another unfortunate similar incident happened in Dehradun, where a Kashmiri shawl seller was brutally assaulted and suffered a serious head injury. These incidents indicated how people from one region often experience exclusion in other regions of India. Migrant labourers from eastern India are often viewed through a lens of distrust rather than citizenship. Even spaces dedicated to learning and civic engagement are not immune to such attitudes. These incidents collectively highlight a wider social unease with internal diversity, where attribute, language, religion and region serve as markers of belonging. The issue, therefore, is not merely about individual prejudice; it also reflects a shrinking of social imagination that sustains a plural society.
These incidents do not always arise from organised criminal intent or extremist ideology. More importantly, these incidents reflect a quieter but equally important issue: a lack of developed thinking, which is evident in the form of social ignorance and exclusive cognition. This is an important requirement to become a developed state, particularly in a society like India, where plurality is the source of national strength. It also indicated that economic growth and infrastructure development have not automatically transformed into ethical or emotional development. When difference creates the situation of suspicion rather than respect, or disagreement with hostility rather than discourse, it results in the creation of a segmented society. This kind of immature social cognition doesn’t always harm minority groups; eventually, it harms the whole society. A society that struggles to accommodate its diversity cannot sustain the confidence, trust, and openness required of a truly developed nation. In this sense, social immaturity becomes a structural barrier to achieving Viksit Bharat.
This pathological situation in our society has created a responsibility for both education and the media to address and overcome it. Education extends the curriculum beyond skills, and media diffuse information beyond virality. Education must move past narrow performance metrics to cultivate critical thinking, empathy, and constitutional literacy, enabling students to engage with plurality as a lived reality rather than an abstract slogan. Similarly, the media should promote rational discussions based on a larger context and ethical clarity. When education and media work to justify pluralism, disagreement, and coexistence, it will help to strengthen the social imagination required for democratic life. Ultimately, Viksit Bharat is not merely an economic aspiration but a moral and intellectual project, one that expects developed minds alongside developed infrastructure. Without this balance, development remains incomplete and fragile.
The author teaches sociology at UILS, Chandigarh University, Punjab.
