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.

Reply via email to