Why Mallika Sarabhai has got Modi’s 'pro-rich attitude' wrong

Speaking to Firstpost, BJP’s political opponent Mallika Sarabhai referred to the Narendra Modi government’s policy as “pro-rich”, adding that “nothing is ever done to help” the small and medium enterprises and that fertile land is given away to the rich. As appealing as this characterisation sounds, it presents a sophistic understanding of Modi’s governance drive in a nation of rich potential. On the point of giving away fertile land, the record shows that while the Modi government has largely allotted kharaba land (wasteland) to big industries, Congress governments have given away extremely fertile land in large numbers (for example, Vapi) to set up full-fledged industrial clusters. Sarabhai’s blind eye to this fact is surprising, to say the least. [caption id=“attachment_526758” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Mallika Sarabhai. Pic courtesy IBNLive[/caption] The “pro-rich” accusation made by Sarabhai requires elaboration. As a general rule, governments should not interfere with or assist private businesses, leaving it instead to the risk-reward dynamics of the market. That said, a state may realise that the existing environment does not enthuse, for example, certain sectors such as IT or auto. While the IT sector may not employ lakhs and lakhs, it can employ some of the best brains, who would otherwise work for the Googles and Microsofts. It can usher in innovation and quality, making businesses and systems that much simpler. Undoubtedly, unemployment remains a big challenge given the rapid mechanical innovations displacing labour. Nonetheless, the importance of attractive business environments resulting in a widespread stimulation of economic activity and opportunity, particularly in a nation where one of the biggest employers is self-enterprise, cannot be ignored. Should this then mean that governments should be keener to create an enabling environment for the mega entities? Given the ripple effect resulting from the setting up of one mega project, the answer is in the affirmative. For example, a Tata Nano plant in the hitherto undeveloped area of Sanand would result in 500-odd vendors setting up shops in the vicinity in addition to thousands of ancillary and allied industries. From a five-star hotel to a small inn, an exquisite multi-cuisine restaurant to an affordable chaiwallah – all can set up their businesses there due to the increased visitation in that area. And, in addition to the fact that the tea vendor and the hotel employees – regardless of their religion or caste – can help light their kitchen fire, the dignity of labour they experience creates an intangible, yet valuable, social upliftment which rubs off on several others. Sarabhai would ask why a state needs to give these benefits to “these rich industrialists”? Do these entities have an option of relocating elsewhere in India? In arriving at her simplistic ill-informed conclusion, Sarabhai grossly ignores the incentives offered by other Indian states and how Gujarat stands to lose if it does not compete. Can governments offer this assistance forever? The answer is an obvious no. If the sector has picked up pace, a rational government’s role in creating the enabling environment should gradually decrease. Is this what the Modi government intends to do? In his interview to The Wall Street Journal, Modi made a vital point with remarkable thoughtful clarity on the government’s facilitative role. When asked of his plans for the auto sector, Modi said that “for me as chief minister, my thinking about the auto sector is over. I will not spare a single second for the auto sector – it is already over. Now, naturally people will come and they will do their business”. Therefore, while Sarabhai and the Gujarat Congress see Modi’s governance drive as giving “crorepati” industries a “free ride”, it is, in fact, a real generation of capital assets in strategically identified sectors, leading to a real opportunities and a real increase in revenues to the state exchequer to enable funding several schemes and programs. If Gujarat Congress wants to seize the lands allotted by the Modi government to such industries, or if Sarabhai thinks Modi government’s attitude is “pro-rich”, one may rightfully ask what alternative are they prescribing? Do they have in mind enlarging government spending to directly fill the stomachs of people? It seems so. And, even with that approach, the beneficiaries often get replaced, depending on which identity is politically helpful at that time. And where would the money for such large spending come from? Where does it come from today to fund Sonia Gandhi’s mega social welfare programs such as MGNREGA? If Sarabhai and Congress want Gujarat to be a debt-ridden state living on foreign aid and creating alarming levels of deficit, they might as well present that truth to the people in this election. They might as well tell the tea vendor that, instead of earning his bread by making delightful tea for top executives of a giant business, he must patiently await the government’s crumbs, particularly if he happens to be born with a favourable identity. And, while the world will shower its monies on us the way governments shower their crumbs on the poor, it must dawn upon people that gone are the days when the appeal of Mahatma Gandhi made the world respect us despite the beggary on display. Self-sufficiency is what is now required to sustain this respect. As Western nations realise the potential of an average Indian who excels when foreign businesses absorb him, the average Indian at home demands a proactive government facilitating an optimal exploitation of the State’s potential. Hurling ‘pro-rich’ accusations against proactive governments —given how the wave of socialism has gripped our nation for decades and ruined the growth impulse — is only an act of political convenience. Going against it requires the three Cs – clarity, courage and conviction. The Sarabhais of India must realise that when the aspirant youth of the youngest nation appreciates the latter, it knows exactly what it is doing.