The growing regional divide in India

I am back in the country I grew up in during the 1960s and 1970s. As India wrapped up a highly charged national election, I could not help but see India through the lens of my own professional formation. My views and perspectives are tinted by my many years of involvement in government in Germany, both at the state and federal level.
Strange as that may initially sound, having that as a professional background is actually a very helpful guide to begin to comprehend something as complex as India’s democracy.
For me, it is no surprise that the largest and most diverse democracy in the world is a federation with strong regional state powers. Constituting India as a federation following independence, along language lines, was the decisive break from the completely centralized political set-up of its erstwhile colonial master.
In the last decades, the trend towards more regionalization picked up steam. It is fundamentally transforming Indian democracy — and creating a colorful political map rooted in its 28 states. (The new state of Telangana will be created on June 2, 2014, bringing the total to 29 states).
I found this tension between the federal and regional dimension to be one of the major factors in this election. On the one hand, Narendra Modi chose to run on his record as Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat.
While Indians contend that Gujaratis have the natural entrepreneurial gene anyway, Modi clearly created a business-friendly environment for such a mind-set to prevail during his years in office. Given the slump in India’s overall economic performance during the past decade or so, his message of economic development has resonated not just with the business community, but also the growing and ever more assertive urban middle classes.
This was mirrored in Modi’s media-oriented campaign, largely financed by big business. It created the impression of a nationwide “Modi wave“ — obliterating the fact that India is still largely rural.
Yet, even in villages across the country there is a sense that India needs a new development surge and that one might emulate what has been touted as the Gujarati Model of economic development.
In any case, this was the first time that a former Chief Minister ran for Prime Minister on the basis of his record in running a state. Even when the discussion focuses on the dark side of his role in pogroms by Hindus against Muslims during that tenure, it was his record in Gujarat that polarized voters.
The prospective prime minister put forth by the Congress Party, Rahul Gandhi, relied on the charisma of the family name. But he had no executive experience and thus no own operational model to point to and that worked against him and his party.
The historic governing majority won by Narendra Modi has created the impression that a national “modi wave” has carried all before it and obliterated the regional differences and political parties.
A closer look at the election outcome reveals a different picture. In the first place, India’s winner-take-all, constituency-based electoral system vastly exaggerated the distance between Modi’s triumphant BJP party and the Congress party as well as the regional parties.
In truth, the BJP garnered little more than 30% of the popular vote while the Congress party got around 20%. A full 50%, or one half the Indian electorate, preferred one of the regional parties. If India had a European style system of proportional representation, Mr. Modi would have a lot of coalition building to do.
Even more interesting is the clear North South-divide apparent in the results. Let’s take a look at India’s southern States. In Tamil Nadu, J.Jayalalita’s AIADMK romped home, winning all but two of the 39 constituencies on the basis of her Tamilean development model.
In Andhra Pradesh, the two regional Parties took about 2/3 of the seats, while in Odisha the party of sitting Chief Minster Naveen Pattanaik won everything but one lone seat.
In Kerala, 14 of the 20 twenty constituencies went to the traditional Congress and Communist parties, who have alternately run the state for the past decades. And in Karnataka, the other remaining southern state, the Congress party ran an extremely close second to Modi’s BJP.
In fact, the Congress party has become almost a wholly South Indian party with a majority of its seats won below the Bombay line. In Bengal, too, Mamata Banerjee’s “Trinamool (grass roots) Congress” took 34 of 42 seats.
Given these results, it would be dangerous for Modi to fall prey to any “national mandate” hype. Disregarding the unbroken Indian trend towards regional self-affirmation, particularly in the South, runs the risk of turning regionalism from a constructive into a centrifugal force.
India is not only the North Indian, Hindu and Hindi belt, which voted solidly for Modi. Pursuing truly national policies and actually implementing them means working together with the states and regional interests by means of a cooperative federalism.
There will still be grand bargaining by regional leaders as they try to get maximum traction for their state in exchange for supporting, or joining, the new national government coalition.
Already, Tamil Nadu’s Jayalalitha (AIDMK) wants financing of infrastructure and mediation in water disputes with neighboring states Kerala and Karnataka. Note that the same coalition game will be played for an alternative “third front” majority, one comprising the Congress, the Aam Admi and regional parties.
All of this makes evident the extent to which Indian politics has experienced a profound shift to a regional, state-rooted political model. In fact, to understand Indian politics means fathoming the currents and eddies of its regional forces — a grand exercise in mega-complexity at any moment.
And the process will continue, including the formation of new states. On June 2, 2014, the large state of Andhra Pradesh will split into Telengana and Seemandhra. For the next 10 years, they will share their former common capital Hyderabad.
Then, Seemandra will build a new state capital from scratch. There is even talk that, as part of this process, some ministries and agencies could relocate from Delhi. That would eventually give India a Northern and a Southern capital city.  That is much as in (much smaller) Germany, where government ministries are generally now located in Berlin in the country’s east, while some have remained in Bonn, the previous (Western) capital.
    The Globalist

 

The growing regional divide in India

I am back in the country I grew up in during the 1960s and 1970s. As India wrapped up a highly charged national election, I could not help but see India through the lens of my own professional formation. My views and perspectives are tinted by my many years of involvement in government in Germany, both at the state and federal level. Strange as that may initially sound, having that as a professional background is actually a very helpful guide to begin to comprehend something as complex as Indias democracy. For me, it is no surprise that the largest and most diverse democracy in the world is a federation with strong regional state powers. Constituting India as a federation following independence, along language lines, was the decisive break from the completely centralized political set-up of its erstwhile colonial master. In the last decades, the trend towards more regionalization picked up steam. It is fundamentally transforming Indian democracy and creating a colorful political map rooted in its 28 states. (The new state of Telangana will be created on June 2, 2014, bringing the total to 29 states). I found this tension between the federal and regional dimension to be one of the major factors in this election. On the one hand, Narendra Modi chose to run on his record as Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat. While Indians contend that Gujaratis have the natural entrepreneurial gene anyway, Modi clearly created a business-friendly environment for such a mind-set to prevail during his years in office. Given the slump in Indias overall economic performance during the past decade or so, his message of economic development has resonated not just with the business community, but also the growing and ever more assertive urban middle classes. This was mirrored in Modis media-oriented campaign, largely financed by big business. It created the impression of a nationwide Modi wave obliterating the fact that India is still largely rural. Yet, even in villages across the country there is a sense that India needs a new development surge and that one might emulate what has been touted as the Gujarati Model of economic development. In any case, this was the first time that a former Chief Minister ran for Prime Minister on the basis of his record in running a state. Even when the discussion focuses on the dark side of his role in pogroms by Hindus against Muslims during that tenure, it was his record in Gujarat that polarized voters. The prospective prime minister put forth by the Congress Party, Rahul Gandhi, relied on the charisma of the family name. But he had no executive experience and thus no own operational model to point to and that worked against him and his party. The historic governing majority won by Narendra Modi has created the impression that a national modi wave has carried all before it and obliterated the regional differences and political parties. A closer look at the election outcome reveals a different picture. In the first place, Indias winner-take-all, constituency-based electoral system vastly exaggerated the distance between Modis triumphant BJP party and the Congress party as well as the regional parties. In truth, the BJP garnered little more than 30% of the popular vote while the Congress party got around 20%. A full 50%, or one half the Indian electorate, preferred one of the regional parties. If India had a European style system of proportional representation, Mr. Modi would have a lot of coalition building to do. Even more interesting is the clear North South-divide apparent in the results. Lets take a look at Indias southern States. In Tamil Nadu, J.Jayalalitas AIADMK romped home, winning all but two of the 39 constituencies on the basis of her Tamilean development model. In Andhra Pradesh, the two regional Parties took about 2/3 of the seats, while in Odisha the party of sitting Chief Minster Naveen Pattanaik won everything but one lone seat. In Kerala, 14 of the 20 twenty constituencies went to the traditional Congress and Communist parties, who have alternately run the state for the past decades. And in Karnataka, the other remaining southern state, the Congress party ran an extremely close second to Modis BJP. In fact, the Congress party has become almost a wholly South Indian party with a majority of its seats won below the Bombay line. In Bengal, too, Mamata Banerjees Trinamool (grass roots) Congress took 34 of 42 seats. Given these results, it would be dangerous for Modi to fall prey to any national mandate hype. Disregarding the unbroken Indian trend towards regional self-affirmation, particularly in the South, runs the risk of turning regionalism from a constructive into a centrifugal force. India is not only the North Indian, Hindu and Hindi belt, which voted solidly for Modi. Pursuing truly national policies and actually implementing them means working together with the states and regional interests by means of a cooperative federalism. There will still be grand bargaining by regional leaders as they try to get maximum traction for their state in exchange for supporting, or joining, the new national government coalition. Already, Tamil Nadus Jayalalitha (AIDMK) wants financing of infrastructure and mediation in water disputes with neighboring states Kerala and Karnataka. Note that the same coalition game will be played for an alternative third front majority, one comprising the Congress, the Aam Admi and regional parties. All of this makes evident the extent to which Indian politics has experienced a profound shift to a regional, state-rooted political model. In fact, to understand Indian politics means fathoming the currents and eddies of its regional forces a grand exercise in mega-complexity at any moment. And the process will continue, including the formation of new states. On June 2, 2014, the large state of Andhra Pradesh will split into Telengana and Seemandhra. For the next 10 years, they will share their former common capital Hyderabad. Then, Seemandra will build a new state capital from scratch. There is even talk that, as part of this process, some ministries and agencies could relocate from Delhi. That would eventually give India a Northern and a Southern capital city. That is much as in (much smaller) Germany, where government ministries are generally now located in Berlin in the countrys east, while some have remained in Bonn, the previous (Western) capital. The Globalist