Backpage

FEW events in our recent history have proved as contentious and divisive as the communal carnage of Gujarat 2002 and the subsequent consolidation of power by Narendra Modi. So deep are the divisions and so visiceral the reactions/assessments, that any ‘appreciation’ of any developments in the state is invariably read by one section of intellectual opinion as an endorsement of the politics and rule of Narendra Modi. Such a conflation of a person (and party) and a state is deeply troubling and raises serious doubt about our ability to ‘objectively’ and fairly provide judgement about developments and processes, both contemporary and of the past.

In itself this is neither new nor unusual. One can list many such events/personalities whose assessments remain severely contested. Take, for instance, the shock which a stray aside in the Sachar Committee Report, comparing the educational and developmental status of the Muslim communities in West Bengal and Gujarat, generated. To most, it appeared incomprehensible, if not sacrilegious, that Muslims in riot-prone and scarred Gujarat could be ‘better-off’, on selected indicators, than ‘secular’ and riot-free West Bengal. It took the defeat of the Left Front government in West Bengal, in part a result of the desertion of the Muslim vote, to even admit to the possibility of Muslim underdevelopment and discontent. One can add to the list of such situations, all pointing to the need to separate, to the degree that is possible, matters of fact and those of value and preferences.

The next round of elections in Gujarat are round the corner. Like earlier, we are likely to be subjected to a frenzied debate on the decade long rule by the Narendra Modi government, even more because the verdict will have a bearing on Modi’s role at the national level. And since, more than a Hindu hriday samrat, Modi is projecting himself as a vikas purush, attention will focus on the ‘progress’ or otherwise of the state in the last decade. But whether we can separate our ‘position’ on Narendra Modi with the developments in the state, remains a matter of some doubt.

Gujarat: Governance for Growth and Development by Bibek Debroy (Academic Foundation, 2012) could not thus have come out at a better time. Debroy, as some may remember, had created a minor storm when he, in collaboration with Laveesh Bhandari, had top-ranked Gujarat in a study Economic Freedom for States of India (2005). This study echoed the results of an annual survey by the authors called ‘The State of States’ for India Today. The fact that the former study, in addition to ranking on the basis of recognized parameters also adopts a normative position on policy – that enhanced individual choice and reduced government intervention is good for growth and development – resulted in Debroy losing his job as Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies. Hopefully, this time around, the Debroy book will not elicit a similar reaction; Gujarat is not coterminous with and is larger than Narendra Modi.

The present book, in addition to using available secondary data from multiple sources, draws substantially on the author’s travels in and interviews with a wide cross-section of people in the state. His assessment: There is a Gujarat story reflected in high GSDP growth since 2002, a decline in poverty, no significant increase in inequality and a steady improvement in human development outcomes, especially in backward geographical regions and backward segments of population. The charge of ‘inequitable development’ levelled by critics of the Modi regime is, in his view, untenable.

Much of the above, Debroy credits to the ‘freeing up space for private initiative and enterprise and the creation of an enabling environment by the state. It is one of decentralization of planning and empowering people. It is about targeted public expenditure through specific schemes, supplementing central schemes with state-specific schemes, of bureaucratic empowerment and improving the efficiency of public expenditure. It is one of feedback loops between government machinery and the people and delivering public goods.’ In short, this is a template that any state ought to adopt and implement; in practice, not too many do. Finally, while recognizing many other factors like legacy, a healthy tradition of private initiative, as also fortituous exogenous developments like the migration of the auto industry to Gujarat, Debroy also credits the current political leadership for the positive developments.

Given the strong reactions that a mere mention of Narendra Modi generates, such an assessment is unlikely to go unchallenged. That can only be welcomed. One only hopes that the responses this time around steer clear of overly ideological likes and dislikes. To reduce Gujarat to Narendra Modi and his ‘political’ practice does great disservice to the former and unnecessarily elevates the latter.

Harsh Sethi