http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/M_K_Venu_Rise_of_legacy_politics/articleshow/2228509.cms
The rise of legacy politics 24 Jul, 2007, 0102 hrs IST,M K VENU, TNN At some stage in their careers, political leaders with a mass base are seized by the desire to leave a rich legacy for which they are remembered. Generally this stage in their lives comes after they have consolidated their power base but start tiring of the politics of power as an end in itself. One example that clearly comes to mind is that of Lalu Yadav. After going through the rough and tumble of Bihar politics, which gave him a terrible reputation, he decided to turn over a new leaf by attempting what can be described as "legacy politics". Indeed, he chose to use a powerful state instrument, the Indian Railways, which carries 16 million people a day, to leave behind something for people to remember. Of course, he has not fully succeeded in this task. But he certainly wants to leave a legacy of good governance. Now, its seems, Ms Mayawati has been bitten by the legacy bug. Having fully consolidated power in India's most populous state, she sees a big opportunity before her to usher in genuine development and governance in the state. Part of the legacy politics is also a deep desire on the part of caste-based leaders to become acceptable to the growing middle class India. This is an aspect of Indian politics that will unfold in a big way in the years to come. The manner in which Mayawati conducted the last elections was proof of her long-term desire to be accepted as a pan-Indian leader. For that, she probably realises, only genuine developmental politics will help. That will deliver both her core constituency, Dalits and the poor belonging to other castes, from grinding poverty. In a sense, Mayawati has a huge challenge before her. Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 175 million, has over 35% per cent of India's poorest. If she can turn UP around, Mayawati is sure to become a prime ministerial candidate in the future. Recently, Mayawati had extensive discussions with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on how to put UP on the fast track of economic development. After all, the PM too has a vested interest in making UP work. It is the one state which will truly determine whether India will rise as an economic power over the next few decades. It is very clear that if UP and Bihar fail to deliver in the years to come, India will perform far below its potential in the global sweepstakes. It has been argued that the only threat to India emerging as part of the big four BRIC economies is its socially divisive politics. And this politics is largely concentrated in UP and Bihar. Only genuine development politics will neutralise this threat. Caste-based leaders have also understood this. The PM, in consultation with Mayawati, has set up a special committee of industry experts and administrators to suggest an action plan for UP's economic development. The committee, of course, will come up with a range of recommendations. Mayawati will have to politically sell a "new deal" for Uttar Pradesh which is acceptable to the people at large. Most importantly, she will have to usher in a law and order framework that attracts domestic and foreign investors to come to the state. If you leave aside Noida, which is part of the national capital region, foreign investment in UP is negligible. The official UP website itself admits that its per capita income at Rs 4,787 in 1993-94 is one of the lowest in the country. Only Orissa (Rs 4,726) and Bihar (Rs 3,620) are worse off. Better-off states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana have per capital income ranging between Rs 16,000 to Rs 22,000. The per capita income of UP in 1950-51 was very close to the national average. The average annual growth in the total income of the state in the period between 1951-74 was far less than that of the country. Possibly because of the positive impact of the green revolution which lifted agriculture productivity substantially in western UP, the post-1974 period saw a significant improvement in the total income of the state. For sometime, the state achieved a growth of 5%-7% per annum, which was, in fact, higher than the national GDP growth of 5.3%. But this gain was frittered away in per capita terms as the growth rate of population increased from 1.8% per annum in 1961-71 to 2.3% in 1971-81. This was marginally higher than the country's population growth rate. In the years after India launched its economic reforms in 1991, UP saw an annual average growth of less than 3%, lower than the country's growth rate of close to 6%. Consequently, the state's per capita income was 35% lower than the national average in 1994-95. The situation hasn't changed much in recent years. It is this trend which Mayawati has to reverse. She will also have to deal with intra-UP disparities too. Western Uttar Pradesh is agriculturally prosperous and relatively industrialised. On the other hand, eastern UP is generally marked by low agricultural growth, low industrialisation and urbanisation. Clearly, Mayawati has a complex task on her hands.