That could be said about anyone who questions a governmental decision. Get nasty with me if you want. I am sure attacking those who don't agree with you is easier than defending your views. I explained in detail my reasoning. You sound like democracy isn't what you believe in. In a democracy, strategy and funding decisions are always discussed by the populous to some degree. Any outside views are welcomed, discussed, and debated to figure out what approach is best. "holier than thou" would be to dismiss all other proposals as a bunch of "armchair-Nobel laureates who think they know how to run a country". Get some perspective.)
Likewise, get some perspective. No two socioeconomic systems are alike, and norms and standards of no two systems are comparable, hence your way of thinking cannot be applied here, nor can it be used to approve or disapprove of something perfectly.
Think of inclusive development as a bit-torrent download of multiple files (different parts of the society which need development). The size of each "piece" is constant, think of that as budget allocation. So with the client running, pieces are filling up each of the files in tandem, so by the time certain development targets are reached (download complete), the society is able to function in a meaningful manner with all its resources (files) in place.
Likewise, an inclusive development model ensures that money is allocated to various aspects of social upliftment, so that by the time certain targets are reached, the society is able to function in an optimal manner that propels economic growth. Just as there are programmes that subsidize food and fuel, there are programmes that look after housing, programmes that guarantee employment, programmes which guarantee education, and so on. Sakshat is just a component of one of the countless programmes that are already being executed, so it's not that the government is distributing tablet PCs at the expense of someone who's starving. To the government, in the long run, it's cheaper to maintain the Sakshat infrastructure than printing and distribution of physical books (which are qualitatively and quantitatively limited), and balancing faculty-deficits. This way the government will be uplifting populations (at varied rates), much more effectively than doing things in a more or less serial order (like a Communist state). Meanwhile, those educated will be able to qualify as skilled human resources, which will contribute to the economy much more constructively.
Of course that is a very thin band where there can be differences in perception of effective means for governance. Beyond that band, our systems are identical. India is a federal republic that practices parliamentary democracy.
