Rei Murasame wrote:I just think that it would be impossible to do, if they keep choosing the wrong economics, though.
For example, Modi and the BJP have been fêted as being a sort of mastermind group behind the so-called "Gujarat Model" which they say is a good model, but when I compare Gujarat on key issues to other states, I have to ask myself why it is that the Indian media chooses to talk about a "Gujarat Model", rather than a "Kerala Model", or an "Orissa Model".
- Counting from since 2004, Kerala was at #1 for providing basic facilities to rural people, whereas Gujarat was at #15.
- Within the same time period, Orissa had the highest rate of poverty reduction in India, 24.6%. But in Gujarat there was only 8.6% poverty reduction.
- Rate of industrial growth in Gujarat was 12.65%, while in Orissa it was 17.53%.
- On the Human Development Index, Gujarat is at 16th, Kerala is at 1st.
- In literacy, Gujarat is at 15th with 79.31%. Kerala is at 1st with 93.91%.
Kerala was controlled by Communist Party of India (Marxist) which leads the Left Front during all of the times that progressive policies were enacted over the past 20 years, and Orissa is presently controlled by Biju Janata Dal, a secular socialist-nationalist party which is one of the 'Janata Dal' family of parties that you can see from the list are in the Third Front.
So as a Third Positionist, I would have no problem supporting these guys if that is what has to be done. They've even done us all the favour of naming it the Third Front (you'll notice that CPI(M) is part of the Third Front and part of the Left Front).
I don't think that anyone should work with the BJP until it fixes its policies.
Rei, here's an interesting article not outright excusing, but at least partially explaining the HDI gap
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politi ... 74969.htmlFourth, Gujarat’s top-down model of development keeps its social indicators relatively low compare to its above average rankings on growth parameters. The Gujarat model does not believe in doles and direct subsidies, as evidenced by its performance in the power sector – where the state runs some of the most efficient power companies. There are limited subsidies for the rural sector, but lower than in other states. Farmers get limited power at just over 60 paise per unit, but they get 24x7 power at higher, commercial rates. Net result: Gujarat runs an economically viable power sector. The state believes that efficient economic growth ultimately trickles down to all segments – but in the interim the state clearly has lower human development indicators (HDI) than it should. Among Indian states, Gujarat figures in the middle category of states – far below Kerala’s 0.790 at 0.527, and also below Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu (0.572 and 0.570), but above Karnataka (0.519). Clearly, this is where the Gujarat model of trickle down is not good enough to lift the really poor – socially and economically – out of their misery quickly. Here, Modi’s critics do have a point. Gujarat ranks 11th among 23 states in HDI . However, there is a reason why Gujarat figures lower down the HDI scale compared to other developed states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu: it is the only big state with a huge tribal population. Gujarat’s tribal population is nearly 15 percent of the total (14.79 percent, to be exact), which is nearly twice as large as Maharashtra’s (8.87 percent) and more than twice as large as Karnataka’s (6.55 percent), or Andhra Pradesh’s (6.53 percent). Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the states with far better human development indicators than Gujarat, have barely 1 percent tribal population. It is this tribal gap that explains a large part of Gujarat’s laggard status in terms of human indicators. Surjit Bhalla points out that compared to some tribal states (like Madhya Pradesh and Odisha), Gujarat is reducing poverty faster among the scheduled tribes. Its 1999-2012 average reduction in poverty for STs was 2.4 percent, against (1.9 percent for Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, and just 0.7 percent for Rajasthan). But having a large tribal population is no excuse for relatively poor performance in HDI for a progressive state. The remedy clearly is to spice up trickle-down economics with some trickle-up direct investment in tribal areas. This is the challenge the Gujarat model has to tackle head-on in the coming years.
Sixth, Gujarat goes beyond business-friendliness. It is not actually a right-wing ideologue’s ideal state where the state runs no business. Write Fernandes: “Modi is pro- business (but) not necessarily pro-markets. He is a loud liberaliser but measured in practice. Unlike Vajpayee government’s which privatised state enterprises, Modi believes in turning them around. The return on investment in public enterprises has doubled under his tenure to seven percent, according to state audit reports. While Modi has hived off the state’s electricity utilities he has not privatised them for fear they will not care for non-creamy customers.”
I'm willing to give Modi the benefit of the doubt to at least DO something, UPA has been disastrous for the country whilst in control with a damning lack of direction. With the majority, Modi now has the ability to act - how and what he will do remains yet to be seen. If he is able to seriously tackle the rampant and all-pervasive corruption (though this is something that requires a marked culture shift, rather than legislation) through brute force with the mandate to rule that the people of India have given him, then things can only improve, as a whole, for India, irrespective of political orientation.
The fact that they won an overwhelming majority is significant - no longer should policy, and state action be marred by the need to resort to "alliance" politics.
The silver lining for the left in all of this is crippling the Gandhi political dynasty. By blasting open Congress' chokehold, the left should use the time now to build a nation-wide opposition to keep neoliberal tendencies in check whilst ousting the Congress and the Gandhis as a relevant force. The people have definitely shown their disgust for the UPA and it's horrid mix of British-era India hating liberalism (and condemnation of "India" to see what I mean - just have a read of this vitriolic, malice-laden hitpiece on Modi and political Hinduism in general from another smarmy Western sychophant and parasite, Pankaj Mishra -
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/m ... kaj-mishra, who has the gall to call out Viveknanda and liken him to a cheap demagogue) and out and out support of rampant bureaucratic public/private corruption without any sort of long-term national plan or roadwork.
Under the UPA capital flight and the "lost decade" crippled the country. Here's hoping that Modi can at least keep Indian intellectual and financial capital within the country. If he can resuscitate failing public service entities along the way, or force them to perform as they should, all the better.
Oh, and the great news? American moral hypocrisy which culminated in refusal of a Visa for Modi vis a vis the Gujarat riots is the icing on the cake. Here's hoping foreign policy wise, Modi expands trade and bilateral ties with China and is a more active participant in South East Asia in general, even if purely on an economic basis. I sincerely hope that there is no "kiss and make-up" with Washington, if Modis India can avoid the knee-jerk response to China which sends the political establishment spinning into the arms of America, then the region can only go upwards.