India loves national stories: one GDP number, one growth rate, one “India is rising” headline. But electorally—and economically—that’s a convenient fiction.
Because 17 states with more than 10 Lok Sabha seats account for 492 of 543 parliamentary constituencies. In other words: ~91% of India’s political mandate is concentrated in a set of states whose development paths are sharply different. (Press Information Bureau)
So if you want to understand “how India is working,” don’t begin with New Delhi’s aggregate. Begin with this federation of divergent realities.
The lens: a composite index that treats “growth” as more than output
To compare these 17 states, I used three pillars that track what citizens actually experience:
- Economic scale (GSDP at current prices) — the size of the engine. (Ministry of Statistics)
- Prosperity (per-capita NSDP at current prices) — what the average citizen can command. (Ministry of Statistics)
- Human development (Subnational HDI/SHDI) — the capability base (health, education, income index). (Global Data Lab)
This matters because a state can be big but poor, rich but small, or socially advanced but underpowered economically. A serious assessment must see all three at once.
What emerges is not a neat ladder. It’s four archetypes—four different development regimes coexisting inside one republic.
Group 1: The balanced engines
Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana
These are the states that look like modern economies in the making: not because they have no problems, but because they combine capability (people), productive ecosystems (firms), and income pathways (jobs).
In our composite ranking (restricted to the 17 big-seat states), Kerala leads—a reminder that human development is not charity; it’s productivity in slow motion. When health and education work, even a state without the biggest industrial footprint produces stronger social outcomes and a more resilient workforce.
Global analogies (illustrative):
- Large balanced engines: Germany / Japan / South Korea (high capability + strong production and services)
- Capability-first success with smaller scale: Portugal / Costa Rica (strong human outcomes punching above economic weight)
Their risk: complacency. Once a state reaches a certain comfort, the next frontier is hard: innovation, job quality, housing, ageing, urban congestion.
Group 2: The growth machines with a social ceiling
Gujarat, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan
These states often show investment energy—industry, logistics, enterprise, agriculture-linked growth, infrastructure push. They can grow fast; they can scale output; they can build visible assets.
But many hit a familiar wall: human development and inclusion don’t automatically keep up with investment. The result is an economy that can produce wealth—yet struggles to distribute opportunity widely enough to sustain the next leap.
Global analogies (illustrative):
- Malaysia / Turkey / Mexico (production and exports, uneven social outcomes)
- Vietnam (fast growth momentum; human development catching up and shaping the next phase)
Their challenge: convert growth into broad capability—especially learning outcomes, public health, women’s participation, and reducing deep internal inequality.
Group 3: The giant labour markets stuck in low productivity
West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha
This is the decisive battleground for India’s future.
These states have scale—sometimes immense scale. But the average citizen’s prosperity is constrained by the structure of employment: too much work remains informal, low-wage, low-productivity. The economy moves, but wages don’t rise fast enough; the demographic dividend becomes politically noisy.
When these states improve, the country changes. When they stall, the country becomes a headline economy but a stressed society.
Global analogies (illustrative):
- Indonesia / Philippines / Egypt (large populations, progress and promise—but held back by productivity and informality)
- Brazil as an inequality analogy: not the same income level, but the same warning—big economies can carry deep internal divergence for a long time.
Their need: mass job creation that isn’t fragile—manufacturing depth, modern services spread beyond metros, urban job clusters, and better state capacity to deliver basics.
Group 4: The catch-up frontier—where the republic is tested
Chhattisgarh, Assam, Jharkhand, Bihar
If Group 3 is India’s productivity challenge, Group 4 is India’s foundation challenge: health, nutrition, schooling quality, institutional capacity, and safe pathways into mass employment.
These states have upside—because the baseline is low enough that good execution delivers visible gains quickly. But they also carry the risk of permanent lag if governance can’t convert resources into outcomes.
Global analogies (illustrative):
- Bangladesh / Nigeria / Ethiopia (large catch-up economies where foundational capability and job engines decide everything)
The truth: you cannot build a high-income India while a large part of the mandate lives in low-capability conditions. The federation will not allow it—socially, fiscally, politically.
So where does India fall?
On the UNDP’s global HDI scale, India’s HDI for 2022 is 0.644, placing it in the “Medium human development” category. (UNDP)
But that national label hides the core story: India contains multiple “countries” inside it.
Parts of India resemble upper-middle performance in capability and incomes; other parts resemble catch-up economies still fighting foundational battles.
India is not one development trajectory. It is a development argument, held together by one Constitution and fought over in one election.
The editorial point: stop celebrating India’s average
If politics remains addicted to a single national growth narrative, India will keep producing two outcomes at once:
- islands of world-class capability and wealth, and
- vast zones of precarious work, weak services, and cyclical anger.
The next decade’s national project is not “more growth.” India already knows how to grow in pockets.
The project is convergence:
- Raise the floor in Group 4 (health, schooling, employability, state capacity).
- Break the low-productivity trap in Group 3 (jobs, urbanisation, manufacturing depth, formalisation).
- Push Group 1 and 2 into frontier competitiveness (innovation, job quality, sustainability).
Because here’s the political economy reality: the states that decide elections are also the states that decide whether growth becomes prosperity. (The Times of India)
If India wants to become a developed country in lived terms—not just in GDP headlines—it must stop asking “How is India doing?” and start asking the harder question:
Which India is winning—and what are we doing about the other three?
If you w
Indian Political Debate 