War, oil, and poverty: Why India needs an Atmanirbhar Bharat 2.0

The reverberations of distant wars are rarely confined to battlefields. As the latest UNDP assessment makes clear (Military Escalation in the Middle East: Human Development Impacts Across Asia and the Pacific, April 14), the prolonged conflict in West Asia is already shaping human development outcomes across Asia, including India. What appears as a geopolitical crisis is, in reality, a deeply economic and social one, transmitted through energy prices, food systems, and fragile livelihoods. For India, the implications are sobering: a reminder that development gains remain vulnerable to external shocks and that true self-reliance must go far beyond rhetoric.

The UNDP’s analysis identifies energy prices as the principal channel through which the crisis is affecting developing economies. For a country like India, which imports close to 90% of its crude oil requirements, this dependence is not merely a macroeconomic statistic; it is a structural vulnerability. Rising oil prices cascade through the economy, increasing transport costs, raising food prices, and squeezing household budgets. The poor, who spend a disproportionately large share of their income on food and basic services, bear the brunt of these increases.

Under adverse scenarios, up to 2.5 million additional Indians could be pushed into poverty, while even modest declines in human development indicators risk reversing years of progress. These numbers may appear small in proportional terms, but in absolute terms they represent millions of disrupted lives. The report also highlights indirect risks: disruptions in fertiliser supply affecting agricultural output and potential declines in remittances from the Gulf, which account for a substantial share of household incomes in many Indian states.

India’s exposure is therefore multi-layered. It is not just about crude oil imports; it is about the embeddedness of imported energy in agriculture, industry, and everyday consumption. It is about the dependence of rural livelihoods on affordable inputs and the reliance of urban economies on mobility. And it is about the vulnerability of migrant households whose incomes depend on economic stability in West Asia.

The immediate policy response is necessarily pragmatic. Diversification of energy sources, expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, and targeted relief to vulnerable households are essential to cushion the shock. Importantly, as the UNDP suggests, such relief should be targeted rather than universal. Broad subsidies, while politically attractive, impose significant fiscal burdens and often fail to reach those most in need.

Yet, to focus only on short-term mitigation is to miss the larger lesson. The crisis underscores the urgency of structural transformation. India’s development trajectory must be reoriented towards reducing its deep dependence on imported fossil fuels.

This calls for an accelerated transition to renewable energy—not merely as a climate imperative, but as a development strategy. Large-scale solar and wind projects are important, but they must be complemented by decentralised systems: rooftop solar, village-level microgrids, and community-based energy solutions. Such systems not only reduce import dependence but also enhance resilience, particularly in rural areas.

Equally important is the need to rethink mobility. India’s transport sector remains heavily oil-dependent. Expanding electric public transport, strengthening rail networks, and promoting non-motorised mobility can significantly reduce oil consumption while improving urban liveability.

Agriculture, too, must be part of the transition. The UNDP’s emphasis on fertiliser disruptions highlights a critical vulnerability. Reducing chemical input dependence through agro-ecological practices, improving nutrient efficiency, and strengthening domestic production can help insulate farmers from global shocks.

At a deeper level, the crisis invites a rethinking of the very idea of development. It is here that a Gandhian perspective offers valuable insights. Gandhi’s emphasis on self-reliance, simplicity, and decentralisation is often dismissed as idealistic. Yet, in an era of global volatility, these ideas acquire renewed relevance.

A Gandhian approach to development does not imply isolation from the global economy. Rather, it advocates resilience through local capability. “Production by the masses”, in today’s context, can be reinterpreted as decentralised production systems, local energy generation, and community-based economies. Such an approach reduces vulnerability to external shocks while enhancing employment and social cohesion.

Equally significant is Gandhi’s principle of ethical restraint. Modern development has been driven by ever-expanding consumption, much of it energy-intensive. A shift towards more sustainable patterns of consumption—what might be termed “mindful development”—can reduce pressure on both the environment and external resources.

The idea of antyodaya, or the welfare of the last person, provides a powerful normative framework. The UNDP’s findings, in effect, echo Gandhi’s talisman: policy must be judged by its impact on the most vulnerable. When a war thousands of kilometres away can push millions into poverty, it is a sign that systems are neither equitable nor resilient.

An Atmanirbhar Bharat 2.0 must therefore move beyond the narrow confines of industrial self-sufficiency. It must encompass energy sovereignty, decentralised resilience, and social protection. It must integrate modern technology with traditional knowledge, large-scale infrastructure with local systems, and economic growth with ecological sustainability.

The UNDP report is a warning, but it is also an opportunity. It compels India to confront the fragility of its development model and to chart a more resilient path forward. In that journey, the fusion of modern policy thinking with Gandhian principles may well provide the foundation for a more secure, equitable, and sustainable future.

(The writer is an Hon. Professor at Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Panchayat Raj University, Gadag, Karnataka)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.