Blaming Political Instability

Sunday’s Economic Time’s carries an article on the downard trend of the Karnataka State’s GDP. What leaves me wondering is, the GDP of the state has grown up from the figure’s they themselves have shown in the exhibits, it looks like the economy has actually taken a U turn. Agree that from a 10+ GDP it came down to six, but over the last two years, it has again gone up to 8.6. And, yes ET calls it due to political instability. What about the financial crisis in between?

May be a part of it is due to the political instability, but however conducive the government is trying to make the atmosphere why are the opposition ruining the chances of the state. The flowers of Karnataka’s success bloomed during SM Krishna’s tenure, however while the Governemnt had planned to target other grown Tier-2 cities as the next IT/ Bio destinations, the father-son duo in between changed the landscape.

I remember having read an article which promoted Ram Nagar near Bangalore as an Investment destination. With almost zero infrastructure, who would go there? Was this done to serve the political ambitions of a few? If it is so, the state’s loss has been other states’ gains. If someone has blocked a pre-planned agenda, to get their plans actioned, probably that cannot be termed as political instability.

Mohandas Pai has rightly quoted that “There is a big disconnect between potential and actual action… this gap has only widened.” So how can someone blame political instability as the reason for this GDP fall and how can one ignore the now rising GDP again?

Advertisements

101st!

Well, just did not realize that I had completed 100 posts on my blog :), so randomly posting this.

The Two States

It has been really interesting to follow the news channels over the past week. While AFAQs quoted dipping figures on the News channels due to the Breaking News not being so well accepted by audience and what I would call as the local channel menace (I still think TV9/ Suvarna should change their style of reporting than sensationalization), the same report would probably have changed given the US Army’s capturing of the most dreaded man in the world.

While his capture may have made many feel happy, the location might have come as a surprise for many. India for instance has been stressing that the neighboring country has been harboring the most wanted men for long. But probably the statements were not deemed trustworthy and here it is! How he found his abode there and why it always happens in that country, I would probably cite the reason of the country being a failed state.

Historically, Pakistan was created to satisfy the ego of Jinnah, who proclaimed himself to be their sole leader, whereas India elected Nehru rather democratically (Hmm…. ). The intention of the two nations two has been different. While Indias focus has been on growth and good external relations, for Pakistan it has been just the mud slinging with India or just proving its military might over Kashmir. The focus of the leadership of the two nations have been different as well. The same can be observed if you just browse through the history of the leaders and their action within and beyon the two countries. A larger debate on this needs much more introspection and I am actually working towards collecting some literature on this stuff.

So I leave this post with this question. Is it the quality of the leaders who have ruled the two states that have created such a difference in the nations that were created out of the undivided India? My take – Yes.

Btw, Thanks to Sameer, my post on Great Lakes got published in MBA Crystal Ball, the link to the post is as below.

http://www.mbacrystalball.com/blog/2011/05/08/great-lakes-chennai-1-year-mba-amar-gets-nostalgic/