By Swapan Dasgupta
Attending the Vibrant Gujarat summit at Gandhinagar
last week, I was pleasantly surprised to find a good representation of
journalists from Kolkata-based media organisations. Subsequently, I was
informed that the Bengali press had given generous coverage to the event,
perhaps in anticipation of the investor meet organised by Mamata Banerjee in
Haldia. Whatever the motivation, I was tickled by the idea that the buzz in
India’s fastest-growing and most entrepreneur-friendly state was resonating in
a state that is being viewed as a basket case. Perhaps something from Gujarat
would rub off on West Bengal.
Back in Delhi, I mentioned this to a friend who
occupies a senior editorial position in a national publication. “Oh well”, she
retorted dismissively, “as long as the coverage was confined to Bengal.” “Here
in Delhi”, she added joyously, “the papers have barely mentioned it.”
This supercilious dismissal of a bi-annual event
that is the nearest equivalent to a Davos in Asia—minus the fine dining and the
paraphernalia surrounding Heads of State—isn’t unusual. Ever since 2002, it has
become obligatory for the Left-liberal fraternity to either ignore or debunk
the economic achievements of the Gujarat Government. In the early days until
2007 it was believed that a combination of political disapproval, judicial
activism and diplomatic isolation would result in Modi falling off the map.
Every attempt was made to encourage the Chief
Minister’s detractors to attack the state government with all guns blazing.
Almost every vocal critic of Modi was rewarded with committee posts, Padma
awards, Rajya Sabha seats and international prizes. Simultaneously, anyone who
dared suggest that there was more to Modi than the failure to prevent the
post-Godhra killings was mercilessly hounded. A former Director of Rajiv Gandhi
Institute of Contemporary Studies was eased out of his post after he wrote a
report in 2005 suggesting that Gujarat ranked number one among states in terms
of economic freedom. Interestingly, seven years down the line, Gujarat remains
at the top of that pile.
That the tide has turned is obvious. Today, Anil
Ambani’s hyperbolic testimonial to Modi doesn’t provoke outrage in the same way
as Ratan Tata’s 2007 remark that industry would be “stupid” if it wasn’t in
Gujarat. India Inc. has given a resounding thumbs- up to Gujarat. For that Modi
has, in a small measure, Mamata Banerjee to thank. The story of the development
of Sanand as an automobile hub in just four years began when Tata Motors
shifted its Nano plant from strife-torn Singur in West Bengal. India has not witnessed
such a spectacular success story in recent times.
In economic terms, Gujarat is on a roll. Whether it
is Jagdish Bhagwati or Lord Meghnad Desai, there is a growing line of
‘respectable’ people unafraid to sing the virtues of the ‘Gujarat model’ or
even suggest that India would realise its full potential if there was a leader
like Modi at the helm. Even the US and European Union’s unstated diplomatic
‘sanctions’ against the government in Gandhinagar appears to be crumbling.
There was a mega-size British delegation at Vibrant Gujarat and the British
High Commissioner’s speech on the occasion was described by someone as
representing a “720 degree turn”. The Canadians were there in full strength, as
were the Australians showcasing their fast-growing knowledge economy and, of
course, the Japanese who have invested heavily in the 1,483 km Delhi-Mumbai
freight corridor (nearly 38 per cent passes through Gujarat), the hottest
development of the next decade.
Indeed, the Special Investment Region in Dholera is
arguably the most talked- about venture in the whole country, blessed as it is
with special legislation that meets almost every item (including labour
flexibility) on industry’s wish list. Shardul Shroff, the Managing Partner of
Amarchand Mangaldas, who briefed delegates on the exciting legal ramifications
of the SIR legislation, told me that the investor-friendly facilities were
actually available to every state in the country (including West Bengal). Yet,
it is significant that only Modi has followed it through with state legislation.
Just as Gujarat has circumvented political hostility of the UPA Government and
extracted its full quota of monetary allotments from the Centre by adhering
strictly to the rules.
The fact that Gujarat has developed a huge land bank
for industry and townships gives it a natural advantage for new development.
But the transfer of land from low-yielding agriculture to industry would not
have been possible unless rural folk had not detected the possibilities of
self-improvement from abandoning their traditional livelihood.
The most reassuring feature of contemporary
Gujarat—both urban and rural—is this unending search for better opportunities
and a better life. The thousands of ordinary, middle-class individuals who
flocked to the seminars making copious notes weren’t there as part of the
latest tamasha in town. Some of them were there purely to be exposed to modern
business practices and some, particularly the owners of the SMEs, were there to
sniff for ideas and opportunities. The country seminars whether hosted by
developed countries or nations that never feature in the Indian consciousness,
weren’t about foreigners investing in Gujarat; they were about inviting Indians
to do business overseas and investing there. When it comes to politics, Gujarat
is quite spiritedly nationalist (some would say xenophobic) but when it comes
to business, Gujaratis are quite unequivocally global. Little wonder that the
regressive economics that marks a section of the BJP finds no mention in the
political language of Modi.
In a recent, broadly sympathetic article, Vivek
Dehejia, a Canada-based economist, has asked an interesting question: in the
free-market ethos of Gujarat, why is there such an emphasis on the government
and the Modi cult? The implication is obvious: if the impulses observed in the
Vibrant Gujarat meets have struck roots in society, they will surely outlive
the Chief Minister’s tenure in Gandhinagar.
Gujarat’s development may well be on auto-pilot.
However, as the freeze on reforms at the Centre between 2004 and 2012 suggest,
it doesn’t take long for an economy to stagnate in the absence of leadership
and political direction. Much of what Gujarat has achieved has been due to the
single-minded determination of Modi to circumvent political opposition through
exemplary economic growth. It is Modi’s no-nonsense style of functioning and
his ability to pick the right team and motivate them that has made all the
difference. A more laid-back approach that incorporated political venality
wouldn’t have ruined Gujarat or diminished its economic importance. However, it
would have meant that the state would be deprived of its cutting edge and sustained
double-digit growth. A glance at neighbouring Maharashtra suggests the possible
plight of a Gujarat that has eschewed the Modi legacy. Without inspirational
leadership, Indians as a collective tend to merely chug along. By insisting on
a relentless pace, Modi has actually been very un-Indian.
After his third successive election victory, the
discourse on Modi has shifted. His detractors are now asking whether the
Gujarat model is applicable to a diverse, fractious country with uneven levels
of development. I leave it to Modi to answer that question. However, in a
recent conversation he underlined a facet of Gujarat’s development. Gujarat, he
told me, merely has a seafront. It has no raw materials—no iron ore for steel,
no coal for power and no diamond mines. Yet it has made huge strides in these
fields. Imagine, he added, if we had the natural resources of an Assam, a
Jharkhand and a West Bengal: “I would have changed the face of India.”
The Telegraph, January 18, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment