Thirty-five years after the liberalization reforms of 1991, it’s time to revisit an unfinished chapter in India’s economic story—one that holds the key to unlocking its true potential. Here’s the stark reality: failing to eradicate poverty through entrepreneurship isn’t just a missed opportunity; it’s a form of societal violence. Yet, entrenched elites continue to peddle outdated ideologies that paint entrepreneurs as villains rather than visionaries. But here’s where it gets controversial: What if the very mindset that labels wealth creation as predatory is the same one holding us back from prosperity?
January 12, 2026, 07:18 AM IST (First published: Jan 12, 2026, at 07:17 AM IST) marks a moment of reflection, much like the Roman God Janus, who looks both backward and forward. As we commemorate 35 years of the 1991 reforms, it’s clear these changes were transformative yet incomplete. While India has seen remarkable growth—vehicle ownership up 45 times, Provident Fund contributions 75 times, and stock market value a staggering 500 times—the contrast with China’s progress is jarring. In 1991, both nations had similar per-capita GDPs; today, China’s is five times higher. Last year’s reforms were bold, but this year’s agenda demands even greater courage, particularly in rethinking entrepreneurship to create millions of non-farm jobs.
The 1991 reforms were undeniably substantial, but their incompleteness is equally glaring. Despite economic strides, 45% of India’s workforce remains in agriculture, and only 8 lakh enterprises contribute to the Provident Fund. Manufacturing employs just 11% of the workforce—a figure reminiscent of post-industrial America. If India could build the world’s largest democracy in a society as diverse and hierarchical as ours, why did we let China surge ahead economically? After all, economics shouldn’t be harder than politics.
And this is the part most people miss: The root of our stagnation lies in an ideology that rejects abundance. Whether left-wing or right-wing, such ideologies perpetuate zero-sum thinking—the belief that there’s only so much wealth to go around. Economist Stefanie Stantcheva highlights how this mindset, prevalent in the West, mirrors India’s own historical economic ideologies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. This suspicion of entrepreneurship has cost us millions of jobs and decades of growth.
Two centuries ago, the world began to rethink entrepreneurship, shifting from exploitation to welfare. This transformation has lifted global GDP by 1,600% and improved countless lives. Yet, in India, nostalgia for outdated ideologies persists, fueled by dynasts who equate entrepreneurs with predators. But here’s a bold question: Isn’t failing to harness entrepreneurship to end poverty a greater injustice than any perceived exploitation?
To move forward, we need five paradigm shifts in our thinking about entrepreneurship. First, ‘Getting rich is glorious’—wealth creation is not a sin but a necessity for eradicating poverty. Second, ‘Some will get rich before others’—reducing inequality doesn’t mean stifling prosperity. Third, ‘Cross the river by feeling the stones’—calibrated risk-taking and experimentation are essential for progress. Fourth, ‘A cat’s color doesn’t matter if it catches mice’—pragmatism should trump ideology in job creation. Fifth, ‘Opening a window invites flies, but it’s worth it’—overregulation stifles innovation; fraud should be punished, but not at the cost of economic growth.
These ideas, inspired by Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatism, are not an endorsement of China’s system but a call to emulate its focus on mass prosperity. Meanwhile, both China and the U.S. are abandoning these principles—Xi Jinping dismantling Deng’s legacy and Donald Trump undermining America’s strengths. Their mistakes should be India’s cautionary tale. Economist Gita Gopinath warns a global crash could destroy $35 trillion in wealth, making domestic entrepreneurship our best defense.
Prime Minister Modi’s 2026 reform agenda—deregulation, decriminalization, digitization, decentralization, and democratic accountability—echoes the spirit of ‘Naye daur me likhenge nayi kahani.’ But for these reforms to succeed, rethinking entrepreneurship is non-negotiable. As we stand at this crossroads, let’s ask ourselves: Are we ready to shed outdated ideologies and embrace a future where entrepreneurship is the engine of prosperity? The comments section awaits your thoughts—agree, disagree, or debate, but let’s start this conversation.
