From Business World of 10 May 2004. Chandrababu Naidu is an honest, idealistic politician; in the late 1990s, he called me to help him do reforms in Andhra. He has persisted despite reverses; he came back to power in 2014.
Even Reformers have to deliver
The spectacular fall of Chandrababu Naidu has shaken the
throne in Delhi and is reverberating as far as Washington. For here was a man
who was consistent in espousal of reforms, who was wholeheartedly devoted to
the cause of his state, and who steadfastly abjured the double-speak and
opportunism of the average Indian politician.
The fall of 229 points in the sensex, which occurred even though the market
had registered the impending defeat of the Telugu Desam Party which exit polls
had predicted, reflected the shock waves that spread through India’s capitalist
world.
It is unreasonable to expect that
politicians, even so estimable as Chandrababu Naidu, so amiable as Digvijay
Singh or so lovable as Atal Behari Vajpayee, should retain power forever. But
it is not unreasonable to believe that even the electorate would reward good
work; and of good work there is very visible evidence in the glass towers, the
sleek flyovers and spanking clean streets of Hyderabad. The trouble is, TDP did
poorly even in Hyderabad.
It must also bring some humility
to the media that their common reader had not even heard of Y Rajasekhara
Reddy, who is likely to succeed Chandrababu Naidu. He went on day after day,
month after month, pricking the balloons of Chandrababu Naidu’s achievements
in the Andhra Pradesh assembly. But he did so in Telugu, and none of the
pundits had patience for either Telugu or the assembly.
The upset will receive much
attention from analysts. They will run a number of horses. The most facile
explanation is anti-incumbency. It received unexpected vigour last October,
when the governments of Digvijay Singh and Ashok Gehlot were turfed out. Both
chief ministers were believed to be competent, and to have done as well for
their states as possible. Although Ajit Jogi’s reputation had been besmirched
by his alleged association with the sting operation on Dilip Singh Judeo, he
was believed to have administered his state well. The fall of all three gave
anti-incumbency fresh plausibility. But it is an explanation that will be right
50 per cent of the times by sheer chance; and in short enough series it can be
right even more often. It is a mindless explanation which will never lose its
appeal.
The next explanation will blame
the people. They do not understand economic reforms, that sophisticated body of
doctrinal policies worked out at considerable cost by expensive economists paid
by wealthy institutions. More seriously, reforms require the dismantling of
subsidies and cross-subsidies, which is bound to be unpopular. The passions
that the World Bank and its hangers-on provoke across the globe lends credence
to this explanation. Except that Chandrababu Naidu was well aware of the danger
of cutting subsidies, and he did it in severe moderation. Anyway, he had
stopped doing it in the past two years.
The third explanation would be to
blame gods. This is likely to come most easily to Chandrababu Naidu, for he is
a devout man. He was nearly blown up by People’s War terrorists, the very ones
whom he tried to befriend, when he was on his way to worship the lord of
Tirupati; and when he recovered from the injuries he suffered then, the first
thing he did was to go to Tirupati. He would not blame his gods; but he could
with justice blame Indra, the god with a thunderbolt. For the rains have
neglected Andhra Pradesh for three years out of the last five.
But there is a fourth possibility
which should be considered: that while Chandrababu Naidu had great intentions
of doing reforms and running an ideal government, his plans did not suit his
civil servants and they sabotaged him. This may be a surprising thing to say
about a man who loved micromanagement, a man who had the whole state in his
laptop, a man who was on the phone to his district collectors every day. But
that precisely was his undoing. Although Chandrababu Naidu was driven by love
of Andhra and a passion for good government, he was a poor judge of men and
women. It is an unfortunate fact of India’s governments that those in power are
soon surrounded by incompetent sycophants. It requires unusual perceptivity and
self-confidence amongst rulers to thrust these swarms aside and put competent
people in senior positions. And competent people hate being micro-managed. This
is a boon for someone who wants big achievements; delegating to bright people
acts as a tremendous force multiplier. But it is extremely uncomfortable for a
micro-manager – so uncomfortable that Chandrababu Naidu did not even attempt
it. In the end, he was pulled down by all-round mediocrity.
