Who Builds a Nation? Who Sells It?

By Sunil Goyal 

Senior Editor & Research Analyst

As strategic sales and asset monetisation reshape India's public wealth, a crucial question arises, will future generations praise us as builders or traders?

Every nation eventually confronts the question hidden within an old Scottish proverb: The grandfather buys, the father builds, the son sells, and the grandson begs. India's first generation inherited a country shattered by Partition, widespread poverty and a fragile economy. Their answer was to build, dams, steel plants, public sector enterprises, IITs, laboratories, power stations, railways and scientific institutions formed the backbone of a self-reliant republic.

The Builder's Generation

The philosophy was simple, before a nation can become wealthy, it must first own productive assets. The freedom fighters and early planners did not merely draft five-year plans, they poured concrete, erected blast furnaces, founded institutes of technology and launched satellites. They believed that sovereignty meant economic self-reliance, and that self-reliance required public ownership of the means of production.

Decades later, India embraced economic liberalisation. Markets opened, private enterprise flourished and globalisation transformed the economy. More recently, privatisation, strategic disinvestment and asset monetisation have become central features of government policy. Supporters describe these measures as pragmatic reforms that improve efficiency, attract investment and reduce the burden on taxpayers. Critics see them differently: they argue governments are increasingly monetising assets painstakingly created by earlier generations instead of focusing on building an equivalent stock of new public wealth.

The Trader's Generation?

That criticism echoes the Scottish proverb.

If one generation spends decades building railways, ports, factories, airports, energy networks and public institutions, while another increasingly transfers some of those assets into private hands, history will inevitably ask, which generation was the builder and which was the trader?

Since 2014, the Centre has raised over ₹4.36 lakh crore through disinvestment and strategic sales. The bulk of this comes from minority stake sales in profitable PSUs like Coal India, NTPC and ONGC. Only two full privatisations stand out: Air India (2021) and Neelachal Ispat Nigam (2022). The National Monetisation Pipeline, launched in 2021, targets ₹6 lakh crore in FY22–25 (89% achieved) and ₹16.7 lakh crore in FY26–30 through roads, railways, power, ports and more.

This is not merely an economic debate. It is a philosophical one.

A Philosophical Question

A government's greatness is measured not only by GDP growth or stock market indices but also by the institutions and infrastructure it leaves behind. Buildings, universities, scientific laboratories, public hospitals, transportation networks and national enterprises outlive political slogans. Political parties frequently celebrate the achievements of the freedom movement and independent India's early builders. Yet the true tribute to those pioneers lies not in speeches but in ensuring that future generations inherit a stronger nation than the one we inherited.

Perhaps the Scottish proverb deserves an Indian adaptation:

 "The freedom generation built. The next generation expanded. The present generation debates whether national assets are better built, managed or monetised. The next generation will live with the consequences."

History is rarely kind to those who merely inherit. It reserves its highest praise for those who create lasting institutions and opportunities. Every generation has the right to reform the economy. But every generation also has a responsibility to ask a simple question. When our grandchildren look back at us, will they say we built a stronger India or merely managed the inheritance left by those before us? That question, more than any election result, will define our legacy.