Rajdeep Sardesai: Two states, two lessons
This week, two states, separated at birth, completed their 50th birthday celebrations. While comparing siblings is often best avoided, the journey of Maharashtra and Gujarat offer many lessons for the future. 50 years ago, Maharashtra was the country's economic powerhouse, benefiting from the colonial legacy of being the heart of the old Bombay state while Gujarat was 'an idea in the making'. Today, on several growth indicators - including an impressive double digit agricultural growth rate - Gujarat is showing signs of marching ahead, even while Maharashtra is reaching saturation point. What explains the divergent paths taken by two states that have been tied by history and geography?
In the first instance, let's compare the quality of political leadership. For the first 20 years of its existence, Maharashtra was blessed to have a visionary leadership backed by a high degree of political stability. Single party rule and chief ministers who lasted their full term ensured a single-minded focus on industrial and agrarian development. By contrast, Gujarat had eight chief ministers in its first 20 years, not a single one completing a five-year term. The political uncertainty meant that Gujarat struggled to match Maharashtra's growth trajectory.
In the last 20 years though, the political situation in both states has changed rather dramatically. Since 1995, Maharashtra has been cursed with coalition governments that have slowed down decision-making. Every chief minister has had to compromise for political survival, with the result that the authority of the leadership has been undermined from within. Worse, the vacuum has been filled by an unholy power nexus led by real estate barons. On the other hand, Gujarat in this period, and particularly, in the last decade, has been fortunate to have assured political stability which in turn has given the state an opportunity to unleash its entrepreneurial energies.
Narendra Modi remains a contentious political figure, but what cannot be denied is his having provided Gujarat with a strong, decisive leadership. He may be an autocrat, but the fact is that he has also provided a single window clearance to investors, with no glaring instance of corruption, which is attractive to business leaders when evaluating options. Just contrast the speed with which the Nano project was cleared with the hesitancy shown by the Maharashtra government when confronted with similar proposals. Or the innovative agro-technology schemes in Gujarat with the manner in which agrarian distress in rural Maharashtra, especially Vidarbha, has remained a festering sore.
Part of the problem lies in the over-politicisation of decision-making in Maharashtra when compared with Gujarat. Take the recent controversy over Jaitapur. Instead of a rational evaluation of the merits of the nuclear power project, a political war has broken out between the ruling Congress-NCP alliance and the opposition Shiv Sena. There have even been unsubstantiated allegations of the Sena bankrolling some of the anti-Jaitapur protestors. The agitation is worryingly similar to the anti-Enron movement of the 1990s where again politics hijacked economic imperatives. The result is that a once power surplus state today suffers from 16 hours of load-shedding in several districts.
In Gujarat, by contrast, politics has always been subservient to economics. The mercantilist traditions of the state have meant that the Gujarati will not allow political battles to trump 'dhandha'. For the Gujarati, the sensex not asmita (self-respect) is the ultimate barometer of his well-being, Mukesh Ambani, not Shivaji is his icon, and money, not Matoshree, is the prized deity. A pragmatic approach to development in Gujarat has meant that there has been relatively muted opposition to any project - be it an SEZ or a big dam - that is seen to benefit the larger economic interests of the state.
And yet, while being economically aspirational, Gujarati society remains socially conservative. The sex ratio in Gujarat remains worryingly below the national average, while Dalits and tribal communities are still marginalised. Moreover, the rise of overt religiosity has made Gandhi's Gujarat into a state which is today a laboratory for Hindutva politics. The influence of religious sects and their self-styled leaders is perhaps greater in Gujarat than any other state. The 2002 riots were a reflection of the coarseness of a mindset that saw religious minorities as the 'enemy'. Since 2002, there hasn't been a major eruption of violence in the state, but as the recent report of economist Abu Saleh Sharief has revealed, the 'Vibrant Gujarat' concept has clearly bypassed its minorities. For example, poverty of Gujarati Muslims is 8 times more than high caste Hindus and 50% more than OBCs. Twelve per cent Muslims have bank accounts but only 2.6% of them get bank loans.
It isn't as if Maharashtra hasn't seen religious rioting or linguistic bigotry in this period. The fact that parties like the Shiv Sena and the MNS can still use their goons to target other communities without any effective censure is a blot on a state which swears by a legacy of social progressiveness. However, the Senas remain fringe groups, largely confined to Mumbai and a few other urban pockets -- proof of the limits of the politics of hate across Maharashtra.
The challenges before the two states then are clear. Maharashtra needs to rediscover a far-sighted political leadership that is able to look beyond personal self-aggrandisement. For Gujarat, the challenge is to show that its growth story is not measured in investments alone, but in the ability of a non-partisan state to reach out to its less privileged groups.
Post-script: As someone born in Ahmedabad, but who grew up in Mumbai, I can only wish that both states learn the lessons of the first 50 years so that the next half century establishes the rise of western India!
More about Rajdeep SardesaiRajdeep Sardesai is the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He comes with 22 years of journalistic experience during which he has covered some of the biggest stories in India and the world. Prior to setting up the IBN network, he was the Managing Editor of both NDTV 24X7 and NDTV India and was responsible for overseeing the news policy for both the channels. He has also worked with The Times of India for six years and was the city editor of its Mumbai edition at the age of 26. During the last 22 years, he has covered major national and international stories, specialising in national politics. He has won numerous other awards for journalistic excellence, including the prestigious Padma Shri for journalism in 2008, the International Broadcasters Award for coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for 2007. He has won the Asian Television Award for best talk show for the Big Fight on two occasions and his current flagship show on CNN-IBN, India at 9, has been awarded the best news show at the Asian awards for the last two years. He has been News Anchor of the year at the Indian Television Academy for seven of the last eight years and won more than 50 awards in this period. He has also been the President of the Editors Guild of India, the only television journalist to hold the post and was chosen a Global leader for tomorrow by the world economic forum in 2000. An alumni of St Xavier's College, Mumbai, he has done his Masters and LLB from Oxford University and has also played first class cricket for the Oxford University team. He has contributed to several books and writes a fortnightly column that appears in seven newspapers.
- + AAP and the business of Delhi-centric news
- + Both 1984, 2002 a blot but conviction better in Gujarat
- + Cometh the anti-establishment neta
- + Can Arvind Kejriwal avoid a repeat of the 1989 VP Singh phenomena?
- + India is changing and it's in the positive direction
- + Arvind Kejriwal-AAP success has many lessons for Rahul Gandhi
- + Kejriwal and Modi: Agents of change promising too much, too soon
- + Don't ban opinion polls, but bring in a code of conduct for pollsters
- + Leaders speak of riots and its victims but fail to provide the healing touch