With 65% of India’s population under 35, the challenge is to mainstream youth into economic and democratic life. 

• Centralisation and uneven growth risk is wasting this demographic dividend unless districts are reimagined as democratic spaces.

Background

• Global Fragmentation: Public life worldwide is becoming fragmented, evidenced by societal divisions in countries like the US and the UK (e.g., between blacks and whites, or immigration supporters and opponents).
• India’s Demographic Dividend: India stands at a unique point due to its youth power, with 65% of the population under 35 years old—a demographic dividend. 
  • This window of opportunity will not last forever.
• Core Challenge: The central question is whether India can economically and democratically mainstream its youth by providing jobs/skills and ensuring their participation in democracy

About District-First Approach

• The District-First Approach focuses on empowering the districts as the primary units of democratic and economic engagement.

Benefits of the District-First Approach

• Democratic Reorientation: The District first approach reclaims governance as a deeply democratic and grounded process and redistributes power to communities rather than concentrating it at the top.
• Accountability and Participation: It fosters collective accountability through local collaboration and bridges the gap between policy design and lived impact.
• Youth-Centric Development: It ensures democracy remains responsive to the needs of youth beyond urban centres and connects local political leadership with development outcomes.
• Strengthening Institutions: India already has a district-first bureaucracy and now there is a need to evolve towards a district-first democracy that prioritises local participation.
• Social Cohesion: This framework of local collaboration offers a chance to build tangible common ground that is rooted in a shared love for the country, rather than being drawn into performative or polarising partisanship.

Challenges Faced In Optimisund Demographic Dividend

• Unequal Growth and Talent Underutilisation: Cities cover just 3% of land but generate over 60% of GDP, leaving districts under-served.
  • 85% of Indians live in their birth districts, yet opportunities remain concentrated in metros.
  • The stagnant wages have reduced domestic consumption capacity.
• Centralisation of Governance
  • Governance has prioritised technocratic schemes and digital delivery over local agency.
  • Elected representatives act mainly as entitlement mediators, not as developmental leaders.
  • Electoral politics is dominated by welfare transfers, with diminishing returns in job creation.
  • The centralized scheme regime has weakened the spirit of decentralization, despite the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments enacted over 30 years ago
• Democratic Deficit at District Level
  • Districts remain administrative anchors dominated by bureaucracy, limiting civic participation.
  • The local people in districts often become mere beneficiaries instead of active participants. 

Way Forward

• Reclaiming the District as a Democratic Common: The district must be transformed from merely an administrative unit into a “Democratic Common” where citizens actively participate in development discussions, raise questions, and ensure accountability.
• Disaggregate National Schemes: Large national schemes should be broken down to the district level.
  • Example: Skill India Mission must be tailored to local industry needs, enhancing accountability and relevance.
• Breaking the Silos: The ministries such as Health, Education, Water, and Women & Child Development must coordinate at the district level.
  • Complex issues like malnutrition require integrated solutions beyond isolated departmental work.
• Focus on Local Outcome: A Youth Opportunity Index should be created for every district to measure education quality and job availability.
  • Local MPs, through the District Development Coordination and Monitoring Committee (DISHA), should be directly accountable based on this index.
• Equitable Resource Allocation: District-level data must guide allocation, with backward districts receiving greater resources.
  • The Aspirational Districts Programme serves as a positive example of this targeted approach.
• Shared Responsibility: The government alone cannot implement these changes; responsibility must be collective.
  • Political leaders, corporate executives, and intellectuals must step forward.
  • Corporates should channel Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds into districts.
  • Civil society and NGOs can aid planning and monitoring.
  • Academics can assist in policy design and improvement.

Conclusion

By focusing on India’s districts, we can revive both national development and the fundamental principles of democratic engagement.

DOWNLOAD PDF