Transformation of South India

When we think of north and south India today, we think favourably of the south. But, writes Pranay Kotasthane, this is a recent phenomenon. His article is based on a book called The Paradox of India's North–South Divide.

 

Imagine this. After independence, one report identified “UP (and Bihar) as the best governed states in the 1950s”!

“In the first three decades since Independence, a significant number of people from the South went to the northern and western Indian cities in search of jobs… There was no such migration from the North to the South.”

 

And yet, even back then, BR Ambedkar wrote in Thoughts on Linguistic States:

“The North is conservative. The South is progressive. The North is superstitious, the South is rational. The South is educationally forward, the North is educationally backward. The culture of the South is modern. The culture of the North is ancient.”

Either Ambedkar was overstating things, or it took a really long time for the above-mentioned cultural differences to translate into economic growth.

 

Even today, we have some misconceptions. Did you know this?

“Kerala’s population density is higher than UP (2011 census)… Rajasthan and MP are sparsely populated because of the Thar desert and dense forests respectively.”

The authors of that book in fact speculate that a densely populated South might have made itself easier to govern.

 

So what caused the transformation of the South? The authors cite several possible reasons. One, the South started making higher investments in human capital, particularly technical education, right from independence. This took a long while to show economic results, even as the capability was getting built quietly and slowly.

 

Two, the liberalization of 1991.

“The South finally started showing results when the state got out of the way as a result of liberalisation. The unlocking of human potential needed the locking down of state power over the economy.”

 

Three, the roving v/s stationary bandit hypothesis. What’s that? The North had roving bandits as rulers:

“Those in power were in a hurry to run away with the loot.”

While the South had stationary bandits:

“Those in power did enrich themselves, but through seeking rents from generating economic value and providing some public goods.”

 

It sure makes for an interesting viewpoint.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"