Economist Prabhat Patnaik examines how India moved away from the Constitution’s socialist promise, leading to inequality, joblessness, and democratic decline
Bhaskar Parichha
Book Title: Socialism
Author: Prabhat Patnaik
Publisher: Speaking Tiger
In his new book Socialism (Speaking Tiger, 2025), veteran economist Prabhat Patnaik raises a question that many in power would rather avoid: what happened to the India our Constitution promised? This is not a theoretical debate meant for university seminars. It speaks directly to ordinary citizens—parents anxious about their children’s future, young people searching for work, farmers battling uncertainty, and families pushed into debt by illness.
When India adopted its Constitution, socialism was not a borrowed slogan or an abstract idea. It had a clear meaning rooted in everyday life: work for all, dignity for every citizen, and a fair sharing of the nation’s wealth. The Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38 and 39, were unambiguous. The State was expected to reduce inequality, protect livelihoods, and prevent wealth from accumulating in a few hands. These principles were meant to guide every government, regardless of which party was in power.
Over the years, this constitutional roadmap has been quietly set aside. Planning was dismantled, the public sector was weakened, and market forces were allowed to decide who survives and who does not. All this was done in the name of efficiency, competitiveness, and growth. The result is before us today—growth without jobs, wealth without justice, and progress without security.
Unemployment has become a permanent condition for millions, especially the youth. Educated young men and women wait years for stable work, moving from one short-term arrangement to another. Farmers face rising costs and falling returns, while small traders struggle against large corporations and unpredictable policies. Meanwhile, a tiny section at the top adds to its wealth year after year. This deepening inequality is not an accident; it is the direct outcome of abandoning constitutional commitments.
Instead of addressing these failures, politics has chosen distraction. Identity, emotion, and spectacle are used to divert attention from shrinking incomes and disappearing jobs. Loud slogans replace honest answers. National pride is invoked to silence questions about everyday survival. As Patnaik argues, this shift is convenient—it hides the inability or unwillingness of the State to deliver economic justice.
Patnaik is clear that socialism does not mean returning to outdated controls or inefficient bureaucracy. His argument is far simpler and more urgent. A society cannot call itself democratic if its schools do not educate, if healthcare drives families into poverty, and if employment remains a privilege rather than a right. Socialism, in this sense, means strong public education, affordable healthcare, secure livelihoods, and limits on inherited wealth that lock inequality across generations.
Crucially, Patnaik places employment at the centre of democracy. Without the right to dignified work, citizens are reduced to dependents, vulnerable to fear and manipulation. Mass unemployment weakens not just the economy but democracy itself, making people more susceptible to false promises and divisive politics.
Drawing on decades of scholarship and public service—from teaching generations of students at Jawaharlal Nehru University to shaping policy in Kerala—Patnaik speaks with authority and urgency. His message has remained consistent because the crisis he describes has only deepened.
Socialism is ultimately a reminder—and a warning. A Constitution is not merely a legal document or a ceremonial text. It is a moral contract between the State and its people. When that contract is repeatedly broken, faith in democracy erodes.
The choice before India is not between socialism and development, as we are often told. It is between a democracy that delivers dignity and one that normalizes insecurity. Remembering the socialist promise of the Constitution is not about the past. It is about deciding what kind of country India wishes to be in the years to come.
(The author is a senior journalist and columnist. Views expressed are personal.)
