By Dr Samar Verma*
India’s Incivility Crisis and the Hidden Cost to Progress
The Missing Half of Progress: Sabhya Bharat
Viksit Bharat Needs Sabhya Bharat Too
The images are difficult to watch and unsee. A migrant worker in Tamil Nadu was surrounded and assaulted by a group of minors. The violence was not only committed but filmed as it unfolded, a triumphant victory sign flashed to the camera, and the clip was then posted on social media as a trophy. If it bruises your soul, it should. But outrage alone is not an answer. It is also a warning: such brutality does not erupt in a vacuum; it sits at the far end of a continuum built from the smaller, everyday asabhyata we experience and mostly tolerate- humiliation, aggression, contempt for the weak- until the ordinary curdles into the unthinkable.
Everyday Brutality and the Crisis of Civic Life in India
Step out on an ordinary weekday, and you can often predict the frictions before they arrive. The wrong-side driver who expects you to “adjust.” The queue that dissolves into elbowing and entitlement. A public counter where impatience is rewarded, and patience is punished. And, increasingly, an atmosphere in which disagreement escalates into intimidation with startling speed.
Recent news reports have captured this daily unease in sharp snapshots. In Gurugram, a dashcam video showed a flower-decorated Scorpio driving on the wrong side, blocking a car and its occupants stepping out to threaten the driver. At Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport, a passenger alleged he was assaulted near the security checkpoint after objecting to queue-jumping; an off-duty airline pilot was arrested, and a ministry probe was initiated. In Bengaluru’s Majestic metro interchange, a security guard was reportedly assaulted simply for asking passengers to stand in line. And in Ahmedabad, reports described stone pelting and vandalism following a road incident- an escalation from dispute to public violence.
Admittedly, these are not the whole of India. They are, however, signals of a growing concern: asabhyata is becoming normalised in everyday public life. And that raises a development question, not merely a cultural one. What does it mean to become “developed” if daily citizenship feels increasingly abrasive- if trust thins, public interactions harden, and dignity becomes contingent on status?
This is why the aspiration of Viksit Bharat must be pursued alongside a companion goal we name explicitly: Sabhya Bharat– the civic and ethical maturity that converts national progress into lived dignity. The argument is not that India must become sabhya before it becomes viksit, as if these are sequential stages. It is that Viksit Bharat and Sabhya Bharat must be built together- because one becomes brittle without the other-, for India to become Shreshtha Bharat.
From Outrage to Ethics: Rethinking India’s Public Behaviour
We often treat bad behaviour as a private defect- some people are aggressive, others considerate. Yet when rule-breaking becomes routine in traffic, public offices, airports, stations, and digital spaces, it stops being about temperament. It becomes systemic leakage: weakening norms, uneven enforcement, and a low social cost for incivility.
There is a distinct amplifier in India’s civic life: VIP culture- not merely as security protocol, but as a social worldview inflicted by Indians upon Indians. It produces a deep, almost algorithmic sense of entitlement, where priority is presumed to be a right rather than a responsibility. What makes it particularly corrosive is that it is sustained not only by those who demand it, but also by those who deliver it- often subserviently, sometimes admiringly- internalising hierarchy as the natural order of public life. Over time, the logic becomes self-reinforcing: special access is treated as proof of importance, and importance as justification for special access. Citizens then learn the wrong lesson- that dignity is secured not by shared rules, but by proximity to power. Like a contagion, it spreads through imitation and aspiration: the crowd not only suffers it; many also eye it with salivating desire, turning civic equality into a spectacle of envy.
To see why this matters, it helps to look at societies that treat everyday civility as a design problem- solved through routine, institutions, and repetition, rather than sermon.
From Viksit to Sabhya: Why Civility Is Development
In Japan, for instance, civic responsibility is instilled early in school life through structured “cleaning time.” Students routinely clean classrooms and common areas, learning (practically, not rhetorically) that shared spaces are everyone’s responsibility and that dignity is not dependent on rank. Even eating becomes a form of civic education: national “shokuiku” (food education) frameworks position school meals as a learning experience, and common practices such as itadakimasu cultivate gratitude and respect for labour.
Japan also illustrates how punctuality and courtesy are institutionalised as operational norms. JR East publishes formal “delay certificates” that passengers can print when trains run late- an administrative acknowledgement that time discipline is a public expectation, not a discretionary courtesy. And Tokyo Metro has explicitly run etiquette-poster campaigns- with published materials describing a programme of station/train posters intended to keep passenger conduct orderly and considerate. The lesson for India is not romanticisation; it is a reminder that serious societies do not merely appeal to “good behaviour”- they build systems that train it, expect it, and reinforce it.
The development cost of incivility is tangible. A society cannot build world-class public systems on a civic substrate that routinely rewards rule-breaking and humiliates ordinary compliance. When the “standard citizen” expects disrespect and the “standard official” anticipates confrontation, public service becomes defensive, and citizens become cynical. That is not merely a moral failure; it is an efficiency failure, leading to a legitimacy failure and eventually a system design dysfunctionality.
Development Without Dignity Is a Hollow Victory
Sabhya Bharat should not be misread as nostalgia, sanctimony, or cultural uniformity. In a Constitutional democracy, it must mean something practical: a shared behavioural baseline that protects dignity, reduces friction, and enables cooperation among strangers.
At its core, Sabhya Bharat is visible in small, accountable acts- fairness in queues, restraint in speech, respect for public property, empathy for workers, punctuality, clean public spaces, and an instinct to de-escalate rather than dominate. It is the opposite of “pehle main.” It is a civic habit of mind- I matter, and therefore others also matter; rules bind me too; and the public space is mine only because it is ours.
This framing also resonates with a longstanding insight in development economics; growth can raise national income, yet still fail to enlarge the lives people can live. Amartya Sen’s capability approach argues that development should be assessed through the expansion of people’s real freedoms- the substantive opportunities to live the lives they have reason to value- rather than treated as a synonym for GDP aggregates. That is precisely why a Viksit Bharat that is not also a Sabhya Bharat risks becoming impressive in statistics but harsh in daily experience.
A Constitutional Guidepost: Directive Principles as Modern Bharat
India does not need to import its moral compass. It already carries one- in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Part IV of the Constitution, framed as obligations that are “fundamental in the governance of the country.”
Read as a single sweep, the Directive Principles- particularly Articles from 38-45- offer something close to a Constitutional definition of what a sabhya society should look like in practice: a social order where welfare and justice are institutional (not ornamental); where opportunity and livelihood are protected; where legal and social arrangements prevent vulnerability from becoming destitution; where conditions of work are humane; where children are protected and enabled to learn; and where dignity is not reduced to a privilege rationed by status.
Taken together, these principles do not merely sketch a welfare state. They articulate a moral idea of the Republic: that development must enlarge dignity; that the weak must not be crushed by circumstance; that justice must be accessible; and that governance must treat the citizen not as a nuisance to be disdained or an opportunity for profiteering, but as a bearer of equal worth. In that sense, Part IV is Constitutional sabhyata expressed through institutions, not through a sermon.
This is also why the DPSP offer a Constitutional way to speak of “Bharatiya Sanskriti” without narrowing it into any one religion, region, language, or sect. They represent Constitutional Bharat: a plural moral architecture rooted in dignity, welfare, justice, humane work, care for children, and special responsibility towards those historically disadvantaged.
Karma, Dhamma, and the Measure of a Civilised State
India’s civilisational texts can add depth to this Constitutional compass- if used as ethical vocabulary rather than sectarian boundary-markers.
The Bhagavad Gita’s ethic of disciplined action is a useful civic metaphor, not only a spiritual one. “Karmanye vadhikaraste…” (Gita 2.47) is commonly understood as: we are entitled to action, not to the fruits. In public life, the lesson is restraint; do your duty without turning every encounter into a contest for privilege; resist the ego that seeks domination as reward.
Similarly, Ashoka’s dhamma– often described as emphasising non-violence, tolerance, humane conduct, and respect- can be read as an early attempt at civic ethics across diversity: a polity held together by restraint and compassion rather than fear.
Placed alongside the DPSP, these traditions do not compete; they converge. One speaks in the language of inner discipline, another in the language of public morality, and the Constitution speaks in the language of institutions. Together, they offer a coherent proposition: a society becomes truly developed when prosperity is governed by ethics and delivered through dignity.
When Incivility Becomes Normal, Development Suffers
Sabhya Bharat must be translated into monitorable behaviour, especially in citizen-facing systems where the citizen is too often treated as a liability and annoyance.
Consider the small things that can be observed, trained, and audited- particularly across public offices, hospitals, local bodies, utilities, police stations, and frontline service counters. Politeness that does not depend on the citizen’s status. A welcoming tone rather than default suspicion. Clear information rather than opaque gatekeeping. Punctuality and predictable timelines. Queue discipline is enforced fairly, not selectively. A basic refusal to humiliate- no shouting, no sarcasm, no casual threats from either side. These are not “soft skills.” They are the behavioural expression of Constitutional dignity.
Ironically, many offices display the customary board- often attributed to Gandhi- stating that the citizen is the most important person on the premises. Yet citizens routinely report being treated as interruptions rather than as the purpose of the institution. If there is one place where Sabhya Bharat can become visible quickly, it is in the everyday micro-behaviours of public service. Technology enables such monitoring. Accountability must be sharply fixed and effectively conveyed to the public.
A practical 2026 agenda would therefore look less like moral lecturing and more like governance design: clear citizen charters with service standards; frontline training in respectful conduct; grievance redress that is responsive; feedback loops that are visible; and consequences for documented disrespect. Equally, citizens must accept their side of the compact: follow rules, refrain from bribery as a shortcut, and reject the VIP impulse in their own behaviour.
India’s Growth Test Is Not GDP, But Daily Dignity
Viksit Bharat is an important national ambition, and official statements around the Viksit Bharat @2047 vision explicitly frame development as encompassing economic growth, social progress, sustainability and good governance- not GDP alone. But ambition cannot guarantee lived dignity. For that, India needs Sabhya Bharat– built from Constitutional morality (the DPSP), strengthened by civilisational ethics (Gita and dhamma), and translated into everyday conduct in public spaces and institutions.
The scholarly point is straightforward: Viksit Bharat expands material and institutional capacity; Sabhya Bharat strengthens social capital and civic ethics that determine the returns on that capacity. Without the latter, the former yields uneven dividends- growth that looks impressive in aggregates but feels harsh in daily life. With it, development becomes not only faster and more legitimate, but more humane and more enduring.
It is tempting to celebrate headline rankings- especially as India is widely reported to have surpassed Japan to become the world’s fourth-largest economy by nominal GDP. But the deeper test of greatness is not where we stand on a league table; it is how we treat one another when nobody is watching, and how our institutions treat the weakest citizen when power offers an easy shortcut.
So, on this New Year Day 2026, the resolve worth making is simple: we must pursue Sabhya Bharat alongside Viksit Bharat, so that India’s rise is measured not only in output, but also in everyday dignity for all- earned, shared, and protected. That is the only route to becoming Shreshtha Bharat.
*Samar Verma, PhD, is a senior economist, public policy professional and an institution-builder, with 28 years of experience in economic policy research, international development, grant management, and philanthropic leadership. Views are personal.
