FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Chief Minister of Gujarat and BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi continues to dominate the political conversation as the election campaigning gathers steam. The two main questions that often dog him are: How guilty is he for allowing the massacre in the Gujarat riots of 2002, and whether the Gujarat model of development can be replicated nationally. The culpability for the riots has been extensively scrutinised by the courts and investigating agencies, plus actively debated in public forums. I believe the Gujarat model of development hasn’t received the same degree of attention although opinion on it is strongly divided. Some see it as the ideal road map for India, promising inclusive growth, economic progress across sectors, and a brand of decisive governance that the nation desperately needs. Others consider it to be propaganda that over-emphasises the purported wholesome growth of Gujarat. They say that Modi is being credited for creating a robust economy that existed long before he took charge of the state 12 years ago.
Different numbers are being thrown around by members of both camps. If one side points to the state’s 10.1 per cent GDP growth between 2004 and 2012, which is far ahead of the national average of 7.6 per cent in that period, the other side talks of failing social indicators such as a maternal mortality rate of 122, which is much higher than states such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. If one group brings up the 9 per cent agricultural growth in the state, as opposed to 2.9 per cent across India, the other says that 350,000 farmers have lost their land, leading to high rural unemployment.
At the India Today Conclave on March 7 & 8, the division between the two groups had become apparent as Amit Shah of BJP and Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party presented Modi’s Gujarat model in different light. While Shah spoke of planting Modinomics across India, Kejriwal warned that such a move would only mean the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Not just politicians, even economists were divided, as evidenced by a lively exchange between Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Columbia University economics professor Arvind Panagariya. Ahluwalia argued that welfare schemes in healthcare and education are investments to ensure easier access to these services. Panagariya, who has been vocal in his support of the Gujarat model, said it is better to raise income and give people the chance to choose between private and public providers. Some basic questions arise from these differences of opinion: What is the Gujarat model? Does the state really boast of inclusive growth across sectors? Is Modi responsible for it? Most importantly, can this model be replicated across a large and diverse nation?
Our cover story searches for answers by putting together a ground report from Gujarat that encapsulates the principles behind Modi’s model of governance. Taking one sector at a time, we analyse whether or not Modinomics works on the ground. We find that while there are many innovative ideas that Gujarat can share with the rest of the country—especially on e-governance, decentralisation and improving infrastructure—there are still areas such as healthcare and education where the state lags behind. Among the success stories, certain critical aspects of the Gujarat model can be applied across India but some others seem non-transferable. Not all states, for instance, have large tracts of land to spare for industry, or Gujarat’s strong history of Panchayati Raj that has allowed development schemes to be tailored for specific areas.
Though there may still be some rough edges, it cannot be denied that Gujarat has many significant achievements to its credit. How successfully this model will work at a national level will be an interesting experiment to watch if Modi gets to form the next government.