The success of the development models implemented by Chief Ministers in their States notwithstanding, they cannot simply be scaled up and imposed on the rest of the country. Each Indian State needs its own tailormade development plan
The claims and counter-claims made by the Chief Ministers of Gujarat and Bihar about the superiority of the model of development implemented in their respective States has once again brought into sharp focus the issue of pan-national development. Mr Narendra Modi has suggested that the success of his Gujarat model of development is the result of his good governance system that he has provided during his decade as Chief Minister of Gujarat. He has often pointed to the fact that Gujarat has become the favoured destination for investors, both domestic and foreign. Mr Modi believes that if the Gujarat model is replicated across India, both in letter and spirit, it will work wonders for the whole country. His assertions, however, must be viewed against the backdrop of his rise to the national stage as a senior BJP leader.
As for Mr Nitish Kumar, he is not impressed with Mr Modi’s claims. On the contrary, he has said that his Bihar model of development that has pulled his State out of the shackles of backwardness is the way to go. In his defence, Mr Nitish Kumar has pointed out that while once the labouring classes of Bihar migrated in large numbers to far-off States such as Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, today, they stay in their home State because of the success of his model of development .
Mr Nitish Kumar has also refuted Mr Modi’s claims by mentioning the obvious fact that when comparing the success of the Gujarat and Bihar models of development, one cannot ignore the level of development (or lack of it) at which the either State already was. In other words, one must take into consideration that when Mr Modi became Chief Minister of Gujarat, his State was already more developed than Bihar.
The crux of the argument here is that there cannot be a single model of development for all States because each one has its own specific problems that require tailor-made responses. For instance, a model of development that may accelerate growth in the relatively ‘developed’ States such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Punjab or Haryana will probably nor work in the ‘backward’ States of the North-East. After all, the most important accelerator for economic development in any case is basic infrastructure like roads and communication facility. While these are already in place in the developed States, they still have to be put together in the less developed States.
Further, Indian diversity is reflected in vertical and horizontal levels of development. Therefore, ‘special State’s’ like Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have to adopt their own model of development because of the specific challenges posed, for instance, by their large tribal populations. While most tribal communities are themselves deprived and impoverished, their land is most often rich in natural resources. Any model of development aimed at the tribals must take into account this dichotomy. Or else, it is bound to fail. The mismanagement of tribal affairs has fuelled the politics of the bullet by Maoists.
Given the diverse challenges at hand, it is clear, therefore, that there can be no one model of development for India. In fact, it is this understanding that led the country to steer away from the centralised model of economic planning as the Union Government will deliver goods constructed on the basis of ‘uniformity’ while the imperatives of the country demand ‘multiplicity’.
This, however, does not mean that the Union Government should retreat from its role in planning development for the country as a whole. It is unrealistic to talk about Union Government versus the State Governments regarding their roles in planning process. The real issue is the Union Government and the States have to ‘cooperate’ and not ‘confront’ one another on development.