Three Competing Visions in India

Arjun Dave
20 Apr, 2014
New York City

The national election in India has led to a rise of two new confident and self-made leaders with different visions from the traditional welfare state model supported by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. India is looking for ways to speed up economic growth and catch up with the neighboring rival China.

Parliament elections are in full swings in India where 60% of eligible voters are expected to cast ballots in a month long election that is scheduled to end on May 14.

India’s national elections always draw worldwide media attention simply because of the sheer complexity but these time three leading candidates are also making headlines.

India has 81.5 crore or 815 million registered voters and nearly 10 crore or 100 million are eligible to vote for the first time.

For more than six decades people in India cast their votes but rarely managed to get much in return when it came to governance, development and access to basic utilities.

Though India remains one of the poorest nations in the world, voters in India are not shy in throwing out governments when they fail to deliver. India has gone through several change of governments in the last three decades and all brought about through peaceful election process.

Voters appear to be in a mood for another change this time in Lok Sabha election.

Analysts have been quick to link the current voter mood to the slowing economy and on the growing dysfunction in the ruling coalition led by the Congress Party. However, there are other reasons that are bubbling up in the maturing democracy that is now sixty seven years old.

For decades, people in India were told that the vast and diverse nation’s economy can’t grow faster than 3% and its large population is a burden to economic development. Voters accepted for decades the slow infrastructure development and virtually no support for healthcare, education and high unemployment rates.

But in the current election three distinct group of leaders are offering different visions of India - village development, rapid urbanization and anti-corruption.

Congress Believes India Lives in Villages

Congress Party has governed India for all but 13 years and had the traditional claim to power in New Delhi after successfully throwing out British rule through a non-violence movement in 1947.

The party sailed through in national elections till the late seventies but delivered little in economic growth, jobs and infrastructure development. Most elections were fought on religion and caste basis and minority votes were always taken granted by the Congress.

The nation fell behind other fast growing smaller countries in Asia and steadily shrank its small share of global trade and commerce to fast developing South East Asian nations.

Congress Party’s grip on power weakened as living standards stagnated and corruption took deeper root in the early eighties. Congress Party led the governing coalition and held on to power for the last ten years only after support from several smaller regional parties.

Congress Party, once enjoyed support of masses, middle class and elites; policy makers worked on Swadeshi or import substitution economic development model and focused on creating a balanced growth under five-year plan programs.

However, India failed to develop its own technology, implement new technology from abroad, and successfully build export markets. With unemployment staying above 12% for decades and abysmal infrastructure, India continued to lag in industrial development and already low living standards dropped further and the impoverished nation became even more dependent on foreign technology and imported goods.

Things began to change in the late eighties and with the rise of computing power and development of communication networks, India’s educated elite finally found a market that did not need government support. India finally began to see visible benefits of rising exports in growing wages, though limited to only top 0.5% of population.

This small but visible progress captured the imagination of many entrepreneurs.

Three decades ago, Manmohan Singh, then finance minister initiated economic reforms as the exports gathered steam and opened doors for foreign investments. Those policies delivered economic growth and benefited top 1% of the population but the growing economic activities eventually reached masses after seven years of reforms and rising investments in manufacturing.

Congress Party regained its control of power after a coalition led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee failed to explain voters why the faster economic growth under the BJP did not help masses.

Congress Party leadership has always talked about “inclusive growth” and offered a “secular vision” and led the current coalition in power after winning two national elections in 2004 and 2009. However, Congress Party suffered from the fractious coalition that made it impossible for Singh government to take speedy decisions and implement next stage of economic reforms.

Prime Minister’s office also suffered from the perception that most decisions are taken outside the cabinet by party leader Sonia Gandhi and compromised Singh’s leadership. It did not help in noisy democracy of India, when Prime Minster Singh remained silent on most policy issues and let the mother-son duo (Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi) answer media on policy issues.

In India’s democratic system, big policy decisions are taken by the central government in New Delhi but most of the implementation is done by the state governments. And, it gets harder, when smaller regional parties are in control of several states.

Congress Parry was reelected in 2009 after a surprise win in 2004 with a clear promise to provide health, food and job related subsidies to nearly half of population living in smaller villages and towns.

It is widely known that the election in 2004 was bought on the promise of providing subsidies or free food or minimum wage to poor as demanded by the Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi. These subsidies were expanded to cover wider population in 2009 and were paid for with deficit spending and became the root source of corruption across the nation.

Poor villagers were happy to get cheap food and a token healthcare but most of the capital allocated for these programs was siphoned away by the ruling coalition party workers for their benefits. Large percentage of masses failed to get the intended benefits and people in urban locations who did not receive any benefits paid a heavy price as food price inflation shot up to a record high.

The massive misallocation of resources delivered little benefits to the poor and saddled the nation with record inflation above 10% for more than a decade, the worst on record in more than a century.

The Congress Party in this election is offering a continuation of these programs for poor and proposes higher deficit spending to finance these welfare programs. The party leadership strongly believes that these programs will lift the masses and provide opportunities to young people in villages to compete in the world markets.

Even after a decade long program for villages there are no visible signs of progress. There are no plans to support or grow exports, to implement youth skill development to compete in rapidly globalizing world, and to eliminate huge energy dependence.

India has one of the youngest population with 65% of people below the age of 35 and has unemployment rate of more than 15% for people between the ages of 21 and 30. India imports 70% of its crude oil needs.

Congress Party’s vision of India is the vision of village development. The party has focused on village development for more than five decades and yet 60% of India’s villages do not have stable electricity, running water and sewage plants.

BJP Wants Rapid Urbanization

Bhartiya Janata Party, the only other national party, last governed India for a full-term of five years that ended in 2004 and was voted out of power. BJP lost seats and suffered a surprise and humiliating defeat in the Lok Sabha election despite delivering sustained annual economic growth of more than 7%.

The party in its previous incarnations was a part of a governing coalition two times in the late seventies and nineties. The party has significantly changed its economic policy in the last three decades and the BJP remains tightly organized and enjoys a strong support of the middle and upper class families and business community.

Unlike Congress, the BJP also has several well-run organizations focused on students, women and the party is allied with the Hindu religion based social organizations RSS and VHP.

BJP leadership has evolved from its early focus on village development in its previous political incarnation to inter-state competition and then to inviting foreign investment to drive economic growth. This sharp reversal in policy outlook was not welcomed by the grass-root party operators. BJP led government under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee between 1999 and 2004 focused on attracting much needed foreign investment and ratcheted up infrastructure development.

Big projects like new four-lane highways, power plants, airports and railroad expansion drove the economic growth during those five years. The country also saw rapid urbanization and several states controlled by the party also rolled back labor law controls.

During the last BJP led government, the business community was ecstatic and talks of India emerging as the world power was rampant in media while villages received little attention in infrastructure development.

Only one state Gujarat, where Narendra Modi led BJP government continued to govern uninterrupted since 2002, saw not only large development projects but also witnessed improvement in smaller villages. Electricity for the first time reached all villages and a vast network of man-made lakes provided relief from the persistent drought in the state.

Development in Gujarat is far from perfect, but the state stands out when compared to the progress in the rest of the nation. Policy makers around the nation first and then in the world began to take notice.

Modi has sharp focus on development and puts a strong emphasis on implementing large projects with a speed that is unheard of India and his administrative success has attracted large businesses to shift manufacturing operations to Gujarat.

Modi led the revitalization of Kutch region that was devastated in 2001 earthquake, which was largely ignored by the national media. In fact, Modi was never given credit for his ground-breaking role in aligning the state machinery with the private enterprises and community organizations to rebuild a vast region.

Modi focused early on in his first term as Chief Minister in restoring Kutch where 20,000 people died and 400,000 homes were destroyed. His organizational abilities shined in how he galvanized local community organizations and individuals with a clear focus on rebuilding efforts with minimum bureaucratic interference.

His fresh approach to governance in working with local faith based or business community based organizations worked wonders. Modi went on to win three successive state elections.

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal are known to suffer frequent natural disasters as well. But not one leader of these states has managed to do what Modi accomplished after the 2001 earthquake.

However, Modi’s handling of media during the Hindu-Muslim riots that originated in Godhra and spread across the state and killed at least 1,000 people in three days continues to haunt him. Many human rights organization, most never visited the state long after the riots, continue to blame Modi and the state machinery for his handling of riots.

The Supreme Court of India cleared Modi of any wrongdoing but he remains the focus of select media in India, and liberal newspapers; The New York Times and The Guardian in London, U.K.

These publications continue to selectively highlight Godhra riots but rarely comment of how Hindus are treated in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Middle East and how 400,000 Hindus were terrorized and then driven out of Muslim Kashmir.

The New York Times and The Guardian have yet to write a single article on these oppressions and violence against Hindus. Nearly 75,000 Gujaratis and Hindus were driven out of Uganda in 1972, yet these publications never cared to write about atrocities committed against Hindus.

The U.S. Department of State under pressure from the so called human rights organization canceled Modi’s travel visa in 2005 and cited “severe violation of religious freedom” in Gujarat and held him responsible for the 2002 riots.

By the same standards, most countries should not issues visas to the former U.S. President George W. Bush and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair for killing more than one million innocent Iraqis.

U.S. officials have subsequently backtracked on the travel ban but the U.S. has never officially apologized to India, Gujarat or Narendra Modi for denying visas to a publicly elected Chief Minister of a democratic state with a population of 60 million.

Young voters in India and other state officials are fascinated by Modi’s sheer stamina and efficiency in government administration and the rise of the self-made man. And, despite the intense media pressure and distraction, Modi continues to win elections.

Modi’s message of hope, optimism and can-do attitude resonates well with younger voters in India.

In the current election, young and first time voters are expected to vote in increasing numbers, not because of Rahul Gandhi’s youth but are attracted to Narendra Modi’s track record in job creation.

In the last twelve years, when India delivered spotty growth and lackluster annual economic growth of 6%, one can witness dramatic changes in Gujarat with annual 11% growth.

Despite the shortcomings of Gujarat development, the state has catapulted once dominating Maharashtra and Punjab in just one decade. Gujarat model may not be worth copying but many people including Muslims are migrating to Gujarat searching for jobs.

Modi’s laser focus on development, infrastructure and reputation with investors has earned him rave reviews among business communities in the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Switzerland, Singapore, South Korea and U.K.

In the globalized world, Modi does not have to travel to the U.S. Most American and world business leaders travel to Gujarat to meet Modi.

BJP and Modi’s vision of India focuses on governance, urban development, economic growth and stronger defense.

However, there are sharp differences between the former BJP leader Vajpayee and Modi. Vajpayee preferred a consensus in his cabinet and a balance between economic growth poverty programs and believed in stronger defense. Though Vajpayee was liked and respected by people across party lines, he was never an administrator.

Modi is a proven administrator and does not have much time for debate, discussion and talks. He prefers to act and demands action. He is not easily ruffled and cares little about opinion in the mass media. Modi’s sole focus is to accelerate India’s growth.

Modi is driven by a palpable passion and has spent life-time perfecting his growth vision. His confident demeanor and pride in Indian identity is strikingly different from the meek and beggarly approach of Congress leaders.

Under Modi’s leadership, the governments will be measured on one yardstick – economic development. Ties with Japan will be tighter and Modi will encourage manufacturing industry to compete on a global scale and rival neighboring China.

And similar to Vajpayee, Modi is less likely to yield to the unilateral demands from the U.S. and take a tougher line with Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism.

Modi may put sanctions on Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism in India, and nations collaborating and selling arms to Pakistan including the U.S., U.K. and France, will be forced to take their own medicine.

AAP Vision of Corruption and Big Business Influence

India may be poor but its democracy has a rich tradition of surprises.

Arvind Kejriwal was one of the surprises that fascinated voters in Delhi local elections in December 2013.

The former civil servant won attention of many for his grassroots movement to fight against corruption using right-to-information legislation.

Kejriwal launched the Aam Admi Party in 2012 and caused a national uproar after he successfully defeated long entrenched Congress Party leader Sheila Dixit in the 2013 Delhi Legislative Assembly election.

Kejriwal promised to resign if his government failed to pass anti-corruption bill. His minority government did not succeed in the passage of the anti-graft bill and he resigned as Chief Minister of Delhi only after 49 days. Kejriwal remains popular in Delhi but after the resignation his national appeal has taken a dive.

Kejriwal attracts attention of voters who are fed up with ingrained corruption at all levels in India and managed to accomplish several small but key victories during his brief administration overshadowing lethargic Congress Party rule in the capital city.

Kejriwal and his AAP hopes to score big and build on short-lived success in Delhi government by focusing on eradicating corruption at the highest level of governments.

Kejriwal after resigning from Delhi alleged Congress Party cut a sweetheart deal with Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man, to purchase natural gas from his country at four times the cost of production at the energy block owned by the government. He has also alleged that part of this absurd annual profit of $2 billion a year is rerouted to Congress Party and finances campaigns.

Kejriwal also alleged that Modi sold land well below market price to Adani Group, fast growing conglomerate and port operator. Rahul Gandhi and Kejriwal contend that 4,500 hectare of land was sold to Adani at a mere price of $5 million or Rs 30 crore.

Kejriwal also promised to reveal land transactions worth several thousand crore rupees that catapulted Sharad Pawar, a political strongman in Maharashtra aligned with Congress, to one of the richest man in the nation. He hides most of his land deals in the name of family members.

Also, the dairy industry in Maharashtra is a huge contributor to Pawar election campaigns and has financed his regional party elections with the help of price increases in milk in the state in the last four years. Milk prices have doubled in the period in Maharashtra.

After resigning in February, Kejriwal, immediately changed his focus to winning the national election and became the person with the most prime time media coverage in the last month.

Aam Admi Party has attracted several young technocrats, environmentalists, anti-corruption activists and the party has fielded candidates in many states across the nation.

However, voters across the nation do not know the party, candidates and Kejriwal well. They are indeed attracted to his rhetoric but Kejriwal falls short in voters estimate only because he failed to complete his term and resigned under pressure in less than two month.

AAP and Kejriwal wants to change how India is governed but for now party is struggling to govern itself. The party has no chain of command, and at least nine candidates of the 70 proposed have left the party. In addition, a substantial minority of candidates fielded by the AAP also have criminal records.

Kejriwal offers lot of hope for India’s democracy but he appears to have erred in estimating voters’ mood. Kejriwal has attacked BJP and Congress Party for corruption and blamed both parties for aligning with big businesses.

However, Kejriwal may be surprised with the election results. He may win far less seats than AAP anticipates and most independent polls anticipate him to lose all seats except in Delhi. Voters prefer Kejriwal to build a track record of governance in one state before staking a claim on the national office.

Neither Keriwal nor AAP has a track record that voters can rely upon.

Today Kejriwal is where Narendra Modi was in 2002 and AAP is where BJP was in 1988. It took Modi twelve years to build a track record and win three state elections and overcome intense national media scrutiny before he contested the national election. And, Modi’s future is still uncertain.

Kejriwal has no track record to support his claims of governance, and the only claim people can identify is with his decision to resign under pressure in less than 50 days.

Ministers are elected to govern and operate under intense pressure. If Kejriwal resigned in less than two months while running a local government, how he will cope with domestic and international pressure.

Most voters feel Kejriwal and AAP has lot to offer but are not skilled enough or ready to run a national government. The party also has no grass-root organization across the nation and lacks funding.

If Kejriwal does not listen to voters, he may be relegated to the periphery as once rising stars Chandra Babu Naidu, Subramanian Swamy and Shashi Tharoor have been.

Kejriwal’s vision for India is to lead a government that runs on public referendum similar to Switzerland and eradicate corruption and big business influence.

AAP’s vision heavily leans on bureaucrats to run efficient but small government and tow a tough line with big businesses. The government hopes to seek public views before taking any major decision. AAP views that the government is in place only to implement people’s preference and not impose its decision on people.

Voters have no idea what is AAP’s position on economic policy, national debt, defense and national security, and trade and commerce. How education and healthcare will be provided and what the government will do to eradicate poverty and improve shoddy infrastructure and increase urbanization.