There are three things that Karnataka is famous for today: Its information technology (IT) industry; unbridled corruption and political turmoil - it is hard to imagine that any state can actually function under seven different chief ministerships in nine years, which is what Karnataka has tried to do.
Is there some connection between corruption, political volatility and state inaction? If so, what does it bode for the future of a state that still has much work to be done in bridging major equity gaps within its population?
Ironically, the public looting of the exchequer these days can be traced back to Karnataka's pioneering role in decentralising political power through the Panchayati Raj reforms during Ramakrishna Hegde's reign as chief minister in the 1980s, which led to the formulation of the 73rd amendment to the Constitution. The combination of technology-led growth along with local-government reform in the '80s was a unique and famous strategy that hoped to generate income with equity, and was dubbed the 'Karnataka Model' of development.
Hegde did not conjure up decentralisation out of thin air. The Maharaja of Mysore, Krishnaraja Wadiyar, placed an emphasis on the expansion of local self-government in 1902. Other initiatives, in 1918 and 1926, provided significant political power as well as independent sources of revenue to local village bodies.
In fact, the Karnataka model was merely an extension of the 'Mysore Model,' say economists - a visionary policy-making exercise launched by the Maharaja, and ably advised and steered by his Diwan-cum-Chief Engineer M Visveswaraya in the early part of the twentieth century. Apart from launching large projects that built irrigation dams and good roads and providing electricity generation and free public health to the population, the Government of Mysore in 1905 also enticed J N Tata to locate the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, with a land grant and an annual subsidy. This ended up churning out highly-trained engineers and scientists in the state, and propelled science and technology innovation, essentially laying the bedrock for the IT boom today.
By the 1970s, Karnataka was growing well in excess of five per cent annually, and the Chief Minister at the time, Devaraj Urs, further transformed the socio-political landscape. He put a cap on land-ownership, introduced the notion of land to the tiller, and subsequently broke the back of the powerful Lingayat and Vokkaliga communities, which had dominated state politics since Independence. Then, Hegde's panchayat reform gave birth to rainbow coalitions with the 'Muslims, OBCs, Vokkaligas and Dalits' on one side and the Lingayats and Brahmins on the other, says political scientist James Manor, who has been studying the evolution of the state since the 1970s.
The decentralising effort became so successful that in the political sphere in Karnataka, it suddenly began to throw up political leadership from the gram panchayat level with no attached party affiliations. Now caste, even as it was ebbing in the social sphere, became the unit of differentiation in politics. Parties were mere conduits to the seat of power.
"Self-made politicians were simply going to pick a party that was most likely to win," says Narendra Pani, a professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore. The result? The dawn of the Wild West in Indian politics, where national party ideology - or even control from a central high command - was rendered meaningless or irrelevant.
Consequently, the Bangalore-centric development in the state was a gift from the heavens for politicians desperate to make money so that they could cater to their constituencies and finance future elections. One ingenious way to do so was by first notifying land for acquisition in Bangalore and then de-notifying it for a price, which allowed for massive money-making.
In the past, a state that mitigated excesses by opportunistic leaders and limited damage to institutions saw a reversal of this trend. Ostensibly, governance and policy-making also took a back seat. The high command could do nothing about it. "The illicit cash that Yeddyurappa raised was not only orchestrated entirely within Karnataka, he didn't pass it on to Delhi," says Manor. It was a local affair.
So, how corrupt have these recent politicians been compared to previous ones? "The decentralisation of corruption today makes the individual stand out. There was much more corruption in the past," says Pani. "The difference is, earlier, it was just one or two guys." Plus, while the Bharatiya Janata Party attracted most of the attention for Yedyurappa's antics, observers say all parties feasted at the trough of easy, illegal money. This time around, for the elections on May 5, Manor says it has become very difficult to orchestrate similar events and therefore no one has a clear advantage. But it is unclear as to how a fragmented political landscape will continue to affect the state.
The positive part of this phenomenon is that citizens are increasingly trying to take matters into their own hands by fashioning unusual compacts with local civic bodies in trying to enhance service delivery. Another major trend: The emergence of new political parties from the rubble of civic decay.
|
AN INSIGHT The state's record in corruption can be traced back to pioneering panchayati raj reforms in Chief Minister Hegde's time The roots of this reform lay in decentralization efforts started under the Maharaja of Mysore A visionary model, was launched by the Maharaja alongwith his Dewan M Visveswaraya, for development that Bangalore owes its success to So successful was decentralisation that it threw up political leadership from the gram panchayat level, with no attached party affiliations Caste became the unit of differentiation in politics and parties were mere conduits to power Colossal scams were brought about surrounding issues on land in Bangalore and mining in the Bellary regions, respectively Politicians were now desperate to make money so that they could cater to their constituencies and finance elections One result is that citizens are fashioning compacts with local civic bodies in trying to enhance service delivery |
