Chief minister or CEO?
(May 31, 2004)Maybe it's too much to expect one man, like a Naidu or a Krishna, to look into the interests of both a city and a state
THE verdict is clear. Both Mr Chandrababu Naidu and Mr S.M. Krishna have been voted out of Office. Both were widely respected for their progressive measures, their clean image and their sense of urgency in taking their states forward in time. There is no question about their commitment, hard work and sense of purpose. Yet, they were dealt an electoral blow that has left many wondering what went wrong. The easy answer, of course, is that both had a pro-urban image and, despite their efforts to represent the cause of their states, were seen as the CEOs of Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively. The conflict in the mind of the voter has been this: does the state need a chief minister or a CEO? Charged with urban leanings, both have been voted out. Yet, the issue is not about personalities. It lies deeper.
The fundamental question is: how reasonable is it to combine both roles? A bustling metropolitan city requires the dynamism of a CEO, but a state requires a very different style and content. Populism and developmental theory do not mix well. It is time to ask ourselves if it is too much to expect one man to represent both the interests. Just look at the numbers to get a perspective of what we are talking about here.
Andhra Pradesh has a population of 75 million. Of this, Hyderabad alone has 7 million in 0.6% of the total area of the state. Karnataka has a population of 52 million and Bangalore has 6.5 million - 12.5% of the population of the state within just 1% of the total land mass. Now a look at their international counterparts: compared to Hyderabad's 7 million and Bangalore's 6.5 million, Singapore has 4.6 million, New York City has 8 million and Tokyo has 3.5 million.
The point is simple. We are underestimating the complexity of managing the two cities, and missing a point in making electoral judgment on the work done by two outstanding men who will be remembered for their vision and dynamism. These two men made their cities global brands and brought a new meaning to the word, India. I think we are also missing a major issue here: both Hyderabad and Bangalore should be given statehood in their own right. The task of city building is far from over and both cities have headroom to become developmental models for modern India. However, left in the current state of things, they will always be at variance with the needs of their respective larger states, and it will be impossible to balance priorities for any administration.
There is a danger of populism overtaking concrete issues concerning development. It will be far more realistic to manage the two states as subjects of separate focus from Hyderabad and Bangalore. The way you address development in a rural context, with its underlying complexities, is different from how you look at it in an urban context. In terms of planning and administering, they present very different challenges and often require very different talents.
We need concurrent development of both the non-urban and the urban sector. Any attempt to combine the two from a structural and leadership standpoint will be extremely difficult. Given the archaic nature of political thinking in the country, there is also an inherent danger that successive governments will overcorrect what they may think as the Naidu or the Krishna syndrome. This will not solve any problem. Today, close to 28% of the Indian population lives in urban areas and in a decade and a half, that will touch 41%. The energy needed to manage the cities will be so huge that any government that tries to do so while pretending to place rural development on the same plate is likely to fail in both. The nation's ability to attract investments depends on the viability of its cities. They are national resources. It is in our best interest to recognise the core issue. This column would therefore argue that serious thought be given to grant statehood to Hyderabad and Bangalore - that, and not doubting Mr Naidu or Mr Krishna's true love is the crux of the matter. Maybe, after all, we do need them as CEOs of their respective city-states.
