Skip to main content

Not so Vibrant Gujarat

In case Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi wins the forthcoming assembly polls – which he is likely to with a comfortable margin, if one goes by pollsters’ predictions – we will witness yet another biennial Modi show, the sixth Vibrant Gujarat global summit. Gujarat’s bureaucrats, sure of Modi victory, haven’t left any stone unturned to make preparations for the show, to take place at Mahatma Mandir, a convention centre not very far from Sachivalaya in Gandhinagar. Industrial Extension Bureau, propaganda wing of the state industries department, has printed thousands of folders “welcoming” investors at the “Vibrant Gujarat global business hub”, asking them: “Block your diary for January 11-13, 2013.” Partner countries have been declared – Japan and Canada; and partner organizations are Japan External Trade Organization, US-India Business Council and Australia-India Business Council. A folder, carrying a Modi photograph, quotes him to say: “Gujarat is emerging as a globally preferred place to live in and to do business.”
All of this didn’t amuse me as much as the “highlights” of the last show, which took place in 2011, especially its “outcome” section in the folder. It proudly declares that 8,380 memorandums of understanding (MoUs) were signed with “prospective investors”, more than “100 political leaders, senior diplomats and captains of industry” were on the dais, and “around 460 tieups with leading institutions from across the globe for knowledge exchange” took place. Further, there were 150 B2B (business to business) and B2G (business to government) “meetings.” Good enough. But what’s singularly missing is the amount for which MoUs were signed, something which Modi personally took pride in declaring at the end of the last show. I remember how principal secretary, industries, Maheshwar Sahu, who wounded up the show with all the data, left it to Modi to declare the MoU amount. Modi stood up, and amidst a huge applause from his supporters, who had thronged the occasion, declared it was Rs 21 lakh crore!
I was at a loss. Why is the folder, prepared so meticulously, quiet about the amount? The MoUs amount had been rising by geometrical proportions. It was 14 billion dollars in 2003, 20 billion in 2005, 152 billion in 2007, 241 billion dollars in 2009, and finally 463 billion dollars at the last show. What a grand success, one would wonder, considering that the total amount for which MoUs have been signed up almost equals the Planning Commission’s outlay for India in the 11th five year plan! I decided to informally chat with some of those who were involved in the past shows and, also, with those who are preparing for the next show, in January, in order to get a feel of what was happening. One of them, apparently, joked, “There’s going to be a target – one trillion dollars, just go and find out. Modi will win the polls and distribute it to us all. Am giving you inside info, about which industries department people are not aware of.” He looked straight, smiled, kept me guessing, and we parted ways.
I posed a question to another bureaucrat. What will be the highlight of the next summit? And this is what he said: “Last time, we covered an exhibition area of 35,000 sq metres. This time it will be 1 lakh sq metres.” I asked: “And what will be the amount for which MoUs will be signed?”, to which he replied, “There’s no focus on MoUs. Discussions will take place on different issues, tie-ups may happen, but no MoUs.” I asked him further, “Why this? Change in strategy?” And he became frank: “There was a rat-race during the past summits to sign MoUs. Targets were given, which we had to fulfill, whether we liked it or not. Industrialists didn’t choose the amount for which MoUs were to be signed; we would suggest it.” He added, “The ports department, for instance, was given the target of Rs 90,000 crore for the 2011 summit, which was over-fulfilled, reaching Rs 1.10 lakh crore, and same was the case with other key sectors like power, petrochemicals, automobiles and engineering. Invitations were forwarded to only those who had told us in advance about their desire to sign up MoU. If the targets seemed difficult, we would ask the investor to add a zero or two. Rs 300 crore, for instance, would easily become Rs 3,000 crore.”
Indeed, I was personally witness to how it all happened in the past. Invitations were a gateway to sign MoUs and stand next to Modi. Higher the amount, closer you would be standing with Modi for the photo session, which would happen at the end of each MoU signing ceremony. The ceremonies would invariably happen in the midst of seminars. Modi would enter in for MoU with a grand announcement, reminiscent of the sultan of the olden days stepping into the durbar with “hoshiyar, khabardar”. The top expert lecturing the seminar would be asked to stop, allow the MoUs to happen. The total amount of MoUs would be announced. Once MoUs and the photo session would end, Modi would move out, giving a successful smile, taking along with him most of the crowd that attended the seminar. The organizers would be forced to end the seminar midway. “Be assured, nothing of the sort will happen this time”, the bureaucrat tried to convince me, adding, “The focus, instead, would be on knowledge tie-ups – on manufacturing, sustainable development, R&D, human capital, service sector, renewable energy, ports, agribusiness.”
Why this sudden stop to the target-based approach? This is how he explained: “The target-based approach had its own negative points. Even in case the investor had implemented the project, the amount for which it was implemented would be quite small. An investor would sign a MoU for Rs 3,000 crore, but would invest just Rs 300 crore, reflecting his real capacity. It’s a strange predicament: 70 per cent of the investors who had signed up MoUs at 2009 summit have already invested in Gujarat, but for just 15 per cent of the total amount!” Another bureaucrat, who was a key person monitoring MoUs during all past summits, informed me, “I had personally advised the government to stop the target-based approach after the 2005 summit. But nobody cared. Everyone, including the then chief secretary D Rajagopalan, insisted that things should look big, even if they are not. We invited lot of negative publicity, though we had reason to rejoice.”
Yet another bureaucrat revealed, “Monitoring of MoUs has come to a standstill today.” At the past three review meetings on Vibrant Gujarat in Sachivalaya, held over the last six months under the captainship of Gujarat chief secretary AK Joti, “there was no discussion on the progress made at the summits, because the achievement in value terms looked extremely pathetic.” Why this? I wondered. And he answered, “Previously I was involved in monitoring the progress of each MoU, asking departments concerned to send the progress report regularly. I used to get good response. This helped keep keen investors alert. My role has changed. Instead of monitoring, I directly deal with investors, and know what’s the problem. My interaction with investors suggests that many of those who had signed up MoUs saw it as the government promise to give them cheap land. Some of them would just give a phone call, telling me to reserve a particular piece of land. As for the project per se, few seemed to care.”


Popular posts from this blog

Surprised? Communist candidate in Ahmedabad bypoll in a Hindutva bastion

On October 11, 2019 morning, as I was scanning through daily news online (I don’t read papers now), I found that both BJP and Congress candidates from Ahmedabad’s Amraiwadi assembly constituency, which fell vacant following the victory of its BJP MLA in the Lok Sabha polls, have been asked to explain as to why they had cash in hand for election campaign, and why they did not deposit their money in a bank account. Fighting the bypoll, BJP’s Jagdish Patel and Congress’ Dharmendra Patel had declared they possessed Rs 1.81 lakh and Rs 1.70 lakh as cash in hand, respectively, for election expenditure.

Tree-felling for greenery? Gujarat govt 'accepted' proposal; awaits implementation

The other day, I went to Nadiad, a town in Central Gujarat, about 55 kilometres from Ahmedabad. For a change, I took an alternate route, which falls between two toll roads – the Expressway and the National Highway. What surprised me was, I saw truckloads of wooden logs moving to and fro on this state highway soon after I left Ahmedabad. I was immediately reminded of a "tree enthusiast" I had met in 2007. Introduced by former chief secretary PK Laheri, who was then chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd (SSNNL), Jayantibhai Lakdawala came to my Times of India office in Gandhinagar with a unique proposal, which, he said, he had put up before the Gujarat government to grow more trees.

What was wrong with Rahul Gandhi's Chowkidar chor hai campaign?

A few days back, I came across an interesting Facebook post by Vinod Chand, an FB friend. I always read his comments with great interest. This one was on Rahul Gandhi launching what he called “a broadside on Narendra Modi” during the initial phase of the campaign during the last Lok Sabha polls -- “Chowkidar chor hai.” However, during the later phase of the campaign the slogan appeared to have been dropped, not because it seemed derogatory, but perhaps because it was not having the “desired impact.”

When Gandhi said Congress can 'only die with the nation'; warned of its weedy growth

I don’t recall when, why and how, but I have been under the impression for decades that Mahatma Gandhi wanted the Congress dissolved after India attained Independence. However, a few days ago, I was pleasantly surprised on seeing a Facebook post by Hari Desai, a well-known Gujarati journalist and a Sardar Patel expert, putting on record and claiming that this, indeed, was never the case. Desai released the photograph of “Harijan”, edited by Gandhi himself, dated February 1, 1948, which carried an article by Gandhi written on January 27, 1948, three days before he was murdered, clearly stating that the “Indian National Congress ... cannot be allowed to die”, and that it can “only die with the nation.”

A top Gujarat High Court lawyer who lived and worked for the underprivileged

When I came to Ahmedabad to join as assistant editor of the Times of India in 1993, I didn’t know Girish Patel was a senior advocate of the Gujarat High Court. Apart from assisting the then editor, Tushar Bhatt, my job was to specifically look after the editorial page, which also meant I should be selecting from among the letters to the editor that we would get, edit them appropriately, and put them in the Letters to the Editor column.

Nitish Kumar a 'Modi-fied' chief minister 'refusing' to hark to reason

Yesterday, I came across an unusual Facebook post by my veteran journalist colleague, Law Kumar Mishra. It recalls an incident which took place when Mishra was posted in Rajkot as the Times of India correspondent during of the worst droughts in the region in late 1980s. At that time Amarsinh Chaudhury was Gujarat chief minister. Currently Patna, Mishra compares how Chaudhary handled drought with the way Nitish Kumar has been handling Bihar floods.

Enlightened Buddha didn't want monks to get enchanted by the glance of a woman

Some of my Dalit friends, including Martin Macwan, whom I respect as one of the best human rights activists I have met, have a great fascination for Buddhism. Nearly all Dalit rallies or functions I have attended carry with them Buddha’s photographs. Probably, one reason could be that Dalit icon Babasaheb Ambedkar converted to Buddhism because he believed this was the only religion of India which does not believe in casteism. Many Dalits, not without reason, get converted to Buddhism.

Attack on Gandhi: Where diehard Left and extreme Right appear to meet

Another Gandhi Jayanti has come and gone. Several of the top comments – some which we also published in – on this occasion hovered around US president Donald Trump calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi “father of India”. Perhaps things wouldn’t have taken a turn that it did had not Modi’s “diehard” followers like Union minister Jitendra Singh going so far as to say that those who “do not feel proud” of Trump’s comment that Modi is the “father of India”, do not consider themselves Indians.

The enigma called Amit Shah

Those were turbulent days. It was, I remember, second half of March 2002. The post-Godhra riots in Ahmedabad, as elsewhere in Gujarat, may have lost their intensity, but rioting had still not stopped. It was my first meeting with Amit Shah, Gujarat’s former minister of state for home, who has shot into prominence after the CBI arrested him in 2010 allegedly for being an accomplice in a triple murder case, involving the fake encounter of a gangster, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauserbi, and aide Tulsiram Prajapati. At that time, he was MLA from what then was one of the largest state assembly constituencies, Sarkhej, in Ahmedabad, with a voters’ strength of 10 lakh. All that I knew of him was, he was “very popular” in his constituency, almost invincible. He had just met chief minister Narendra Modi, and I had a very vague idea on his proximity to Modi, who had taken over reins in Gujarat.
Shah was coming out of the chief minister’s office (CMO), situated on the fifth floor of Block No…

Why Gujarat imposed mobile internet curfew during the Patel agitation

It was Wednesday, October 31, 1984. After finalizing the semi-left Link newsweekly, for which I worked then, the office driver boldly drove the Ambassador late at night through Delhi streets, which were already in the grip of anti-Sikh riots, erupted following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The driver squeezed his way through burning vehicles. At several places we could see houses in flames and heard painful, shrieking voices. It was a ghastly scenario, of the type I had never witnessed, or even imagined, before. I reached home, a middle class South Delhi locality; to my consolation all was quiet, though we had a Sikh neighbour.