Opinion

India’s renewable build-out is impressive, but the toughest phase is here. Solar and wind grow fast, while transmission, storage, and flexible demand lag. The result is familiar: curtailment in some regions, shortages in others, and a grid that is increasingly hard to balance hour by hour.

This is not a critique of renewables. It is a recognition that scale changes the problem. At low penetration, variability is manageable. At high penetration, variability becomes a system design challenge that needs firm power, storage, and smarter grids.

Nuclear is not a silver bullet, but it is a rare source of low-carbon, high-reliability power. It uses little land, produces steady output, and can stabilize a grid dominated by variable renewables. That makes it attractive as a complement rather than a replacement.

The hesitation is real: cost overruns, long construction timelines, and safety concerns have earned public skepticism. But if the energy transition is a marathon, firm clean power becomes a practical necessity.

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, released in December 2025, resets India’s nuclear policy landscape. It repeals legacy laws that had effectively limited participation and modernizes the governance framework for future projects.

The signal is clear: India wants a larger nuclear footprint to support its clean-energy goals. Whether that translates into faster delivery will depend on project execution, regulatory credibility, and public trust.

The debate should not be framed as renewables versus nuclear. India needs a portfolio: aggressive renewables, rapid grid upgrades, demand-side flexibility, and a measured nuclear expansion that avoids cost blowouts.

If the SHANTI Act succeeds, nuclear can provide the firm backbone that allows renewables to scale faster. If it fails, the risk is not just wasted capital but a slower transition. The mix matters more than the ideology.

The Global Innovation Index (GII) blends dozens of indicators: human capital, R&D spending, infrastructure, regulatory quality, and outputs like patents or creative goods. That breadth is its strength, but also the source of confusion. It measures innovation capacity, not just headline inventions.

A high rank does not mean a country is automatically innovative at scale. It often means the inputs are strong and the system is consistent. The gap between inputs and real-world impact is where most countries struggle.

The GII is easy to turn into a national scoreboard, but innovation is not a one-time event. A country can improve its rank while still failing to move new ideas into the market or everyday services. Rankings are a signal, not a strategy.

If policy makers chase the metric instead of the mechanisms, they may over-invest in visible inputs and under-invest in the hard work of commercialization, diffusion, and skills alignment.

The biggest bottleneck in many innovation systems is translation: turning research into products and adoption at scale. That requires risk capital, strong university-industry links, and procurement systems that reward innovation rather than only low cost.

This is also where mid-tier economies can outperform expectations. They may not top the rankings, but they can build targeted strengths in sectors where they have demand, talent, or manufacturing advantages.

Treat the GII as a dashboard. Identify the weakest links, then invest in feedback loops that improve outcomes over time. For example, if skills are strong but output is weak, the focus should be on startup finance, tech transfer, and public-private collaboration.

The goal should be sustained productivity gains and social impact, not a ceremonial jump in ranking. Innovation is a system, and the index is a mirror, not a trophy.