India 2014

[Sbane]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

[ag]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

Bangalore is not on your list of 4 major cities. And they are doing fine, it seems. Same with Hyderabad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why "most of the FDI <should> flow to" the other four cities.

[Sbane]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

Bangalore is not on your list of 4 major cities. And they are doing fine, it seems. Same with Hyderabad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why "most of the FDI <should> flow to" the other four cities.

Uhh, traditionally Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata were considered the 4 major metros. Certainly true for the first 50 years of India's existence. Then you had cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore and yes, Ahmedabad, rise to challenge that paradigm, especially with regards to Kolkata due to their commie governance.

Also, of course most investment flows to the major cities. That doesn't mean smaller cities can't get investment, but they are at more of a disadvantage and have to make up for it. Why has Ahmedabad gotten so much more investment and growth than other comparable cities like Patna or Lucknow?

I don't understand why we are debating this. Gujarat has obviously capitalized very well on the opportunities they have had. Of course they are not alone. I didn't mean to imply that, but Gujarat is definitely in the top and a state to emulate. That doesn't mean you need to go out there and immediately murder a 1,000 Muslims. Take the good, leave the bad etc etc.

[ag]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

Bangalore is not on your list of 4 major cities. And they are doing fine, it seems. Same with Hyderabad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why "most of the FDI <should> flow to" the other four cities.

Uhh, traditionally Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata were considered the 4 major metros. Certainly true for the first 50 years of India's existence. Then you had cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore and yes, Ahmedabad, rise to challenge that paradigm, especially with regards to Kolkata due to their commie governance.

Also, of course most investment flows to the major cities. That doesn't mean smaller cities can't get investment, but they are at more of a disadvantage and have to make up for it. Why has Ahmedabad gotten so much more investment and growth than other comparable cities like Patna or Lucknow?

I don't understand why we are debating this. Gujarat has obviously capitalized very well on the opportunities they have had. Of course they are not alone. I didn't mean to imply that, but Gujarat is definitely in the top and a state to emulate. That doesn't mean you need to go out there and immediately murder a 1,000 Muslims. Take the good, leave the bad etc etc.

There would have been nothing to argue about, had Modi done the right thing and killed himself years ago )

[jaichind]

It is interesting that OUTLOOK magazine just came out with an article which looks at the claim about the boost of economic performance in Gujarat under Modi.  It came out with a very similar conclusion I reached.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?289889

"Therefore, if awards must be given, Bihar deserves the prize for the most dramatic turnaround in the 2000s. Gujarat gets credit for having steadily been on top of the league in terms of both the level of per capita income and its growth rate, but has to share the honours with Maharashtra and Haryana in that category. However, there is no evidence of any significant growth acceleration in Gujarat in the 2000s."

"Thus, the HDI rankings of states present a different story than their rankings of per capita income levels or growth rates, with one exception. The only state that is in the top 3 in all the rankings so far is Maharashtra. Otherwise, the top prize for HDI goes to Kerala, and “the most improved in the 2000s” prize goes to Bihar."

"On the contrary, states that are leaders on the growth dimension are found to perform worse on inequality. For example, it’s evident from Table 7 that while inequality in Gujarat was lower than the national average in the ’80s and ’90s, it actually rose to levels above the national average in the 2000s. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, too, have consistently recorded higher levels of inequality than the rest of India, with Kerala showing a sharp spike in the 2000s."

"In particular, this is what we tried to figure out: did a state that has for a long time been one of the most developed states in terms of per capita income, and was already improving at a rate higher than the rest of the country, accelerate further and significantly increase its growth margin under Modi’s stewardship? Our analysis shows that this did not happen. Both Maharashtra and Gujarat improved upon an already impressive growth trajectory in the 2000s, but the margin of improvement was too small to be statistically meaningful. So while Gujarat’s overall record is undoubtedly very good all through the last three decades, its performance in the 2000s does not seem to justify the wild euphoria and exuberant optimism about Modi’s economic leadership."

This chart, from the article



Is the crux of my point.  Of course Gujarat grew fast in 2000-2010 period.  But so did the rest of India.  In fact before Modi, Gujarat outperformed rest of India in terms of growth where as under Modi it was pretty much average.  

Remember, my point is not that what Gujarat accomplished in 2000-2010 was not impressive.  I have too many friends from work that are frequent visitors to Gujarat for me not to be aware of that.  It is more about what Gujarat under Modi did relative to India and relative to what Gujarat accomplished to rest of India in the 1980s and 1990s.  Once we takes that into account, Modi did not really alter the development curve of Gujarat, or no more than other CMs of other states of India.

[Tender Branson]

This election starts today and lasts about 1 month.

815 million people are eligible to vote.

Up by 100 million from the 2009 elections.

It's the largest election ever on the planet.

[Tender Branson]

Info chart:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/06/the-worlds-biggest-election-starts-monday

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-kicks-off-worlds-largest-election/2014/04/06/7e0da544-be05-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html

[jaichind]

Latest updates

1) TDP-BJP alliance sealed in Telangana and AP.  At the grass roots level this does not seem popular as both TDP and BJP at the cadre level feel they are stronger than public perception and the perception of the other party.  As a result many at the grassroots level for both parities felt their leadership gave too much away.   There might be various mini-revolts.  How well this works out for TDP-BJP really depends on how salient the Telangana issue will be.  If it is very salient then  BJP could drag down TDP in AP just like TDP could drag down BJP in Telangana.
2) Final polls out before the poll lock-down.  CNN-IBN poll has NDA at 240 versus UPA at 117 with NDA vote share at 38% versus UPA vote share at 28%.  NDTV has NDA at 259 versus UPA at 123 with NDA vote share at 33% and UPA vote share at 27%.  While these polls might exaggerate the NDA advantage, especially in places like UP, Bihar and other Northern states, it is clear that NDA will have the numbers to for the government with outside support and most likely with Modi as PM.
3) Modi to contest in religious significant district Varanasi in UP in addition to contesting a seat in Gujarat.  AAP leader and former Delhi PM Kejriwal also to contest in Varanasi as a way to push anti-BJP vote to AAP across the country.  Overall AAP fortunes has been on the decline.  AAP could do well in Delhi, Haryana, and part of urban Maharashtra but is unlikely to win seats elsewhere.

[jaichind]

My prediction



BJP  189
NDA  226

INC  109
UPA  137

[Gustaf]

Google is delivering more and more stuff like this, it seems:

http://www.google.co.in/elections/ed/in/districts

[ag]

AAP mde a big mistake by contesting everywhere. They simply do not have the money. If they concentrated, they might have gotten 10 or even 15 seats. This way they would be lucky with 4 or 5.

Anyway, fascist government in India all but certain. Just hope Indian democracy is strong enough to survive it. If I were an Indian, I would be looking for a way out of the country.

[Sbane]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

[ag]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

[jaichind]

http://ibnlive.in.com/general-elections-2014/india-election/

is pretty good too

[jaichind]

At this stage, it does look like NDA will be the largest formation after the election and with enough margin that most likely NDA will form the government with Modi at PM.  My projections not as positive as media polls on NDA performance and if anything I think the risk is on the downside for NDA relative to media polls and my prediction.  It could be I have a pro-INC bias but I will lay out my thoughts on this.  

The main BJP strategy this year is the following:  First, get the middle class vote based on the Modi brand as genius economic manger.  Then add to it the upper caste vote based on the old BJP brand as the party of upper caste Hindus.  Then run non-upper caste candidates and project Modi’s non-upper caste background to grab a significant share of the OBC vote while hoping the upper caste does not get too upset at this and still vote BJP.  Lastly, in areas of high Muslim population as well as areas where there are communal tension, run a low key rapid Hindu radical campaign to consolidate the anti-Muslim vote at the grassroots level and hope that the rising urban middle class voters attracted to Modi’s economic management skills do not notice.  

If this strategy is carried out correctly and the contradictions managed it will give BJP a solid victory.  What could go wrong?  Well, there is the risk of Muslim vote consolidation against the BJP in places like UP and Bihar.  That by itself is not a problem if the consolidation is taking place behind non-INC candidates.  The main risk is if INC is viewed at the ground level as doing better than expected, then the Muslim vote will consolidate behind the UPA, this in turn would drive upper caste voters who resent being sidelined by the BJP push for OBC votes to also support UPA.  The BJP is making the gamble that this will not take place given the overall anti-UPA trend at the ground level.  The BJP strategy contains seeds of splitting the BJP internally between upper castes on one side and OBC on the other side.  The BJP is a cadre party and there is resentment at the Modi personality based cult style of politics and there are resentments there too.   There are rumors of secret BJP faction called the “160 club” where they want to undermine the BJP to make sure BJP gets around 160 seats versus 200 seats which would mean that for the BJP to form the government Modi will have to be dumped.  None of this will cause problems if the INC stays weak.  But if INC does better than the polls expect and voters at the ground level sense this then the BJP strategy could be in trouble.  I think there is where the downside is.

So then the question is the media polls reflective on what is taking place on the ground.  Since many of them comes up with similar results one does have to give them significant weight.  Some as of the polls does confuse me which leads me to believe that perhaps they overstate the BJP advantage where media hype about Modi then feeds various opinion poll results which then feed the hype some more.  Let’s take the example of Jharkhand.  It is mostly made up of tribals but the BJP does historically have a good voter base there.  Opinion polls show the BJP has a medium to large lead over INC-JMM-RJD.  This does not seem to make much sense to me.  None of the BJP strategy would indicate why this would be the result.  The history of Jharkhand elections are mostly about right alliance building to cobbling up various voter bases into a winning combination.  BJP does well in Jharkhand when it has an alliance with JD(U) who also has a base in Jharkhand and when INC and JMM are split.  Now that BJP threat has scared INC, JMM and RJD into an alliance this should be a solid block to very well.  Yet we find that INC-JMM-RLD a good deal behind BJP that is without an alliance with JD(U).  You can say that the Jharkhand state government led by JMM-INC-RLD is not doing well and the BJP is benefiting from that.  But I would say that JVM and AJSU have significant voter bases in Jharkhand as well and I do not see why the anti-INC-JMM-RJD vote should not be split between BJP, JD(U), JVM, and AJSU.  My take on it is that there is a anti-INC-JMM-RLD vote and when asked by media polls they say they are for BJP given that Modi is all over the media and is well known. When they actually vote they will revert to local factors and split among BJP, JD(U), JVM, and AJSU.  Of course if the polls might be "wrong in Jharkhand then they could have similar issues in other states too in overstating the NDA advantage.

Of course that is one interpretation of what will take place.  It could be that this election will end up being a national election based on the Modi personality/brand (like Indira Gandhi in 1971) and alliance building of voting blocs based on caste or tribal loyalties do not matter.   If so then the media polls are right and in fact might underestimate the NDA advantage.  

[jaichind]

One funny thing Modi running in the Lok Shabha elections is that the papers he has to file to run would also indicate his marital status.  Modi in theory is a bachelor but there are persistent rumors that he is married when he was very young but lied about it when he joined the Hindu nationalist group RSS which prefers its members not to be married when it comes to promotion within the organization. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/india-2014-elections-bizarre-mystery-surrounding-narendra-modis-alleged-wife-1561855

talks about this.  As there is a women which is retired teacher that claimed she was married to Modi but he left her to join RSS.  Modi has dodged this question for a while so his papers will be scrutinized by media outlets not friendly to BJP when it is made public.

[Sbane]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

Oh, your post is just amusing because Congress/caste party economic policies actually do force  many people to leave India.

[Sbane]

Jaichind, upper caste people are more upset at OBC reservations than with caste rivalry. As long as the BJP is perceived as the anti-reservation party (whether or not they are), they will get upper caste votes. At least in the cities, I can guarantee upper caste votes flowing heavily to the BJP (with a big swing from 2009 as we all know). Maybe things are different in the rural areas? I guess we will find out.

[ag]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

Oh, your post is just amusing because Congress/caste party economic policies actually do force  many people to leave India.

Here it is not about economics, but about being alive, unfortunately. Mind what I am saying: if Modi is PM, he will spill blood. And a lot of it.

[Sbane]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

Oh, your post is just amusing because Congress/caste party economic policies actually do force  many people to leave India.

Here it is not about economics, but about being alive, unfortunately. Mind what I am saying: if Modi is PM, he will spill blood. And a lot of it.

I like the "160 club" plan and considering the fact that BJP does tend to overpoll, that could end up happening.

[Sbane]

Although AG, why are you so concerned about Modi spilling blood? Even if the BJP does really well, they will need allies. And the only way he will get those allies is by tamping down on the Hindutva, which is precisely what has been done in this election. Of course it is going on at the grasroots level in UP and Bihar where the BJP needs the hick vote, but they can't form a national coalition based on that. They can only form it based on economic progress, which is what Modi and the BJP has been hammering the Congress on. So why would he ruin that coalition with anti-muslim violence?

Anyways, here is an interesting article on the place of Hindutva and the BJP this year:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-hindutva-variant-of-neoliberalism/article5868196.ece

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-04-04/news/48866852_1_vote-share-rahul-sinha-state-bjp-leader
An article talking about the BJP vote doubling in WB. They think they will win 4 seats but I am not sure about that, unless there is a huge swing in those districts in the western part of WB with low muslim populations. And Darjeeling is interesting since the BJP is traditionally in favor of creating more states and is supported by the separatist party there. Although Baichung Bhutia, the most famous soccer player in India of Gorkha descent, is contesting that seat for TMC. Should be close.

Also, I should mention that the Kolkata seats are drawn as a perfect anti-BJP (or anti-middle class) gerrymander. The middle class areas are almost perfectly split between south Kolkata, Jadavpur and Barasat. Barasat is especially heinous as it lops in Bidhannagar and New Town (these two areas are the newer planned middle class areas) with places like Madhyamgram which is a working class exurban mess as well as rural areas which are heavily muslim. North Kolkata and the Howrah side of the river is almost all working class as well so the BJP has no chance in Kolkata despite getting a decent vote share in the city.

[jaichind]

Ah ha. ..

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Jashodaben-is-my-wife-Narendra-Modi-admits-under-oath/articleshow/33521705.cms

"Married at 17 to a bride about his age, BJP's PM candidate Narendra Modi has admitted for the first time under oath that he has a wife.  In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat, which he filed amid much fanfare on Wednesday, he entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. She is a retired school teacher in Brahmanwada, a village about 35km from Modi's hometown, Vadnagar." 

This pretty much admits that Modi's entire career in RSS was based on a lie. 

[jaichind]

Jaichind, upper caste people are more upset at OBC reservations than with caste rivalry. As long as the BJP is perceived as the anti-reservation party (whether or not they are), they will get upper caste votes. At least in the cities, I can guarantee upper caste votes flowing heavily to the BJP (with a big swing from 2009 as we all know). Maybe things are different in the rural areas? I guess we will find out.

I agree with your analysis.  The upper backlash against BJP, if it were to take place, would be in rural areas.  It would be in rural areas in UP and Bihar where Modi nominated OBC candidates over the objections of the upper caste cadres of the BJP.  We will see how that plays out.

[jaichind]

AG.  I have to agree with Sbane on Modi.

While I disliked Modi for
1) Being at least directly responsible for the murder of several thousands people in the 2002 riots just to win an election
2) Being all talk and no real action but somehow have created an entire cottage industry around his economic management genius.

I sort of feel that if and when Modi comes to power as PM, he will understand that he was most elected based on the assumption that he will be an effect administrator of the economy.  Running a semi-fascist state where 170 million Muslims are systematically persecuted does not seem a good way to grow the economy.  Not only would put 13% of the population in a category where they are not economically productive,  the surge of Muslim radical terrorism as a result would wreck the economy and lead to Modi being thrown out of power.

I am with Milton Friedman: "The goal is not to elect good people, the goal should be to give bad people incentives to do good things"

Of course in my view when Modi comes to power it will be a disappointment to both the middle class and foreign investors.   Not just because Modi is all talk and no action but the fact is these days economic development in India is more a function what happens at the state government level and not the federal government level.   So I am not even sure what he can do without various state government support to push up economic growth.  He could potentially succeed but the more likely scenario is that it will be a disappointment.