The Indian economy is galloping at a breakneck speed and might even reach double-digit growth by 2013, feel Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Commerce Minister Anand Sharma. Many economists agree that the demographic dividend that India enjoys could see the country sustain its high growth rate for a long time to come.

The India growth story is indeed enviable. Despite being plagued by myriad problems, India has emerged stronger and more resilient to any global crises so far.

India is expected to be the world's fastest growing economy by 2018, according to Economist Intelligence Unit, a research arm of the Economist magazine.

But does this so-called growth reach Indians living at the lowest rung of the society, does 8-8.5 per cent rise in gross domestic product indicate better living conditions for the poorest of the poor?

What does aam aadmi feel about this development story so well publicised by the politicians, economists and media alike?

First we need to ask ourselves what do we mean by growth?

Some 'growth' is considered 'good', like growth in gross domestic product, growth in industrial production (notwithstanding the havoc it plays on the environment); but some 'growth' like the 'population growth' is considered 'bad' growth.

So we need to define two things: which growth are we talking about, and who is doing the talking?

India has had 'great' industrial growth and 'economic' growth by the economic parameters of gross domestic product, gross national product, et al; but has 'not grown' at all in other sectors like health, education, quality of lives, nutrition, newborn, childhood and infant mortality, infectious disease prevention, etc.

We still have extremely poor health indicators: more than 46 per cent of our children are malnourished -- so, where then is this 'growth'?

I think the viewpoint that 'growth' should only focus on economic growth is deeply problematic. I believe that distribution of that growth, equity and rights equally need to be measured to say that we are 'growing'.

I think in terms of economic growth: this is indeed fabulous!

But if we say that to the Uttar Pradesh rural woman whose baby dies because she couldn't reach the Lucknow private hospital. The place she did reach -- a government primary health centre -- did not have the medical officer (who may/may not have been busy getting a piece of that 'growth' at that time).

So how does this 'fabulous' growth affect this UP woman?

Or take the case of a tribal woman in India's heartland -- whose life is going to be changed totally -- because 8 per cent GDP translates to her being evicted out of her ancestral home and her land dug up for bauxite or chromium or hematite ore or coal.

Therefore, growth is only fabulous when its fruits are equitably distributed and all the people get a share.

Again, we need to define what we mean by 'basic needs'. If by that we mean livelihood, food, clothing, shelter, education, health (mental and physical), pleasure, dignity, choice, for all people -- we can comfortably say that till now, we have not been able to fulfil these for all the people. 

I wouldn't really know that never having been 'rich' myself, but most published indicators seem to point at that. We must take into account the increasing numbers of our dollar billionaires in India.

The names of the top industrial house owners are now part of the global rich list and going by the public display of their spending, it does seem that they are getting richer.

To be honest, I am not too sure. The old pattern of socialism did not last. Perhaps, we need a new discourse entailing new kinds of social movements.

Sheer militarising populations won't be of much help.When the State usurps power, denies people their rights and redressal formula is thrown out of the window, people suffer and growth takes a backseat.