The statecraft of aspiration—Why India loves setting impossible national targets

These are not merely technocratic goals, but instruments of aspiration, designed to galvanize the ‘steel frame’ (our civil services), mobilize citizens and signal intent. It reflects a belief in the transformational power of political will—that somehow, through resolve, coordination and scale, India can leapfrog to become a high-income country.

The latest goal to appear on the horizon is around today’s global obsession: Artificial intelligence (AI). It is estimated that AI will add up to $600 billon to the Indian economy by 2035. That’s roughly $60 billion a year. A new Niti Aayog report, AI for Viksit Bharat: The Opportunity for Accelerated Economic Growth, contends that efficiency gains from AI may not lead to unemployment because those displaced from routine jobs will be re-employed through reskilling and upskilling in the same sector.

Of course, this assumption could go horribly wrong. As could others. Ask an economist why she assumes so much and you will perhaps come away more confused than enlightened.

More seriously, the report’s assumptions around reskilling and redeployment, while sound in theory, are hostage to logistical and educational challenges, given the sheer scale of India’s population and uneven access to quality training. The risk is that without a massive and rapid transformation in educational infrastructure, India’s demographic dividend could diminish as large segments of the workforce get left behind. Add to that the digital and data divide that persists, and the efficacy of AI models, particularly for the rural-development applications that the report mentions, will be severely crimped.

What’s more, rapid deployment of AI, without a commensurate strengthening of cybersecurity infrastructure and legal safeguards, could make India’s digital ecosystem vulnerable to a range of new threats, from deepfakes and misinformation to large-scale data breaches and financial fraud.

The inimitable Sir Humphrey had once said in the iconic BBC series Yes, Prime Minister that the purpose of minutes is not to record decisions; it is to protect people. One is tempted to adapt this droll observation to assert that the purpose of targets is not to achieve results; it is to protect the state from inertia, criticism and perhaps from itself. And this is not just spin; there is a method in that targets serve a purpose far beyond technocratic planning. They are instruments of state aspiration that reach far and wide.

They animate the bureaucratic machinery. A quantified goal, even if implausible, triggers action. The targets offer political traction, allowing the translation of abstract promises into deliverable metrics. An open-defecation-free city or 20 million new jobs plays better at the hustings than nuanced institutional reform. Narratives of progress are also essential in a democracy where symbols of development matter as much as substance. For the distant diaspora, they signal India’s arrival as the world’s fastest growing major economy, giving them new-found clout that goes beyond their own art and craft.

Yet, many (if not all) of these targets tend to be missed, often by wide margins. One suspects this is not accidental, but a consequence of structural weaknesses in the system, which is marked by a centralization of vision and decentralization of the administrative burden without the concomitant and essential financial autonomy. Over-ambition at the top and administrative and financial under-capacity at the bottom is a recipe for disappointment.

Add to that the absence of reliable baseline data and a persistent conflation of inputs with outcomes, and what we get is a pipeline of developmental announcements without enough absorption capacity.

Back to the AI mission. With its promise of a $600 billion GDP boost by 2035, it echoes the transformative language of India’s IT revolution. But the support infrastructure, data security, multilingual models and skilling at scale are still nascent. It is a target with vision, but without scaffolding. Yet, we persist.

To govern India without targets is to fly without instruments. Targets, like Sir Humphrey’s minutes, do not guarantee truth, but provide a cover. They create movement where stillness would prevail and accountability where vagueness might fester.

More generously, one could say we are a young democracy, managing old institutions while facing new problems. Unlike China, we may not always reach our destination, but a bold target gives us direction, and more importantly, something to revise in the next cycle.

So the next time we talk of a trillion-dollar digital economy or 100% AI skilling across the hinterland, don’t ask whether it’s achievable—in all probability, it is not. Ask what work the target is doing, politically, institutionally and symbolically. Because in India, and perhaps Whitehall, targets don’t forerun achievement. They protect beliefs and, of course, a select group of people.

These are the author’s personal views.

The author is dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and professor of economics at Shiv Nadar University.