Viksit Bharat 2047: Why India's Aging Population is Overlooked

India is in the middle of the longevity conversation without quite admitting it. Life expectancy has crossed 72 years, healthy life expectancy sits a decade lower and by 2050 almost one in five Indians will be over 60. Yet, when politicians talk of “Viksit Bharat 2047”, the ageing of India sounds like a footnote, not a central plotline. The government’s 2047 narrative is filled with images of high‑speed trains, digital public infrastructure and a dynamic young workforce. However, an ageing India will look less like a start‑up pitch and more like an overcrowded outpatient department unless policy choices change. Though India’s average life expectancy has increased, healthy life expectancy still lags by around 10 years, which means many Indians are now living longer but spending a sizeable slice of late life with illness or disability. Behind the national averages lies a harsh geography of inequality and striking differentials by caste, gender and region. Private insurers, corporate hospitals and wellness platforms are already designing products for middle‑class and affluent clients who expect to live into their 80s and want to stay “active” for as long as possible. Their version of healthy ageing features boutique diagnostics, fitness tracking, elective procedures and curated diets that are just about within reach of the salaried upper-middle class and easily within reach of the very rich. For the majority, the script looks different. Informal workers with no pension, women whose unpaid care labour leaves them exhausted by midlife and rural households juggling non-communicable diseases with agricultural shocks will age into precariousness rather than comfort. Studies show lower life expectancy among marginalised groups than in many entire countries. Longevity will become a privilege for gated enclaves while the rest of the country grows old the hard way. Ageing India Government data and independent projections indicate that older people already account for a little over 10% of India’s population, or about 100 million people, and that this share could approach 20% by mid‑century. But longevity is not just about the number of candles on the cake. It is about who will carry the tray, pay for the cake and clean up after the guests. A widely cited roadmap for “Swastha, Viksit Bharat” estimates that by 2047 India will need millions more doctors, nurses and hospital beds simply to cope with ageing. Chronic diseases already account for most deaths in India, and as people live longer, the burden of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer will inevitably rise. The question is whether those extra years will be characterised by productivity and autonomy, or by avoidable hospital visits, catastrophic health spending and quiet despair. As the share of older people rises, the demands on India’s care economy will also surge, especially for long‑term care, home‑based support and dementia services. A NITI Aayog paper on senior care reforms already flags the scale of the challenge, with far‑reaching implications for pensions, health services and social protection by 2050. Right now, most of that care is cross‑subsidised by women in the family, who provide unpaid support to older relatives while also holding down paid work or domestic responsibilities. Without deliberate policy, longer lives will mean longer hours of invisible labour for women, not a dignified old age supported by a mix of public services, community arrangements and fair labour markets. The privilege of living long Healthy longevity can be an economic asset. Older adults can contribute through work, mentorship, volunteering and intergenerational support if systems recognise their value and keep them healthy. But without investment in primary care, early detection, rehabilitation and mental health, India risks creating a large pool of older citizens who are “too well to die, too ill to live”, trapped in a limbo of manageable but unmanaged illness. First, India needs to treat healthy life expectancy as seriously as life expectancy, with clear targets, state‑level scorecards and regular public reporting. It should not be acceptable for healthy life expectancy to trail life expectancy by a decade while governments congratulate themselves on demographic “success”. Second, policy must pivot towards services that keep people functional, not just alive. That meansinvesting in geriatric primary care, fall prevention, rehabilitation, community mental health and accessible diagnostics that are usable outside big cities. Third, the care economy must be dragged out of the shadows. India will need a pipeline of trained caregivers, nurses and allied health workers, backed by decent wages and protections, rather than families, and especially women, shouldering the load indefinitely. At the same time, pension reform and social security for informal workers will decide whether millions of older Indians experience longevity as a gift or a sentence. Finally, healthy ageing policy has to be designed with an explicit equity lens, recognising that life expectancy and healthy life expectancy for a Dalit woman in a poor district and a man in an urban elite enclave are almost different species of experience. If longevity is allowed to become just another marker of privilege, “Viksit Bharat 2047” will be a lopsided celebration, with the country’s future applauding from one side of the stadium while its past struggles to climb the steps on the other.