Pimples

Mr Deve Gowda strikes back.

A day after a close-door meeting with Infosys chief mentor Narayana Murthy, former prime minister H D Deve Gowda ridiculed Mr Murthy for his suggestion on urban governance ...

At a press conference in Bangalore on Sunday, Mr Gowda was critical of Mr Murthy’s suggestion for shifting the focus in the State to urban governance and setting up urban bodies on the lines of grama sabhas. Mr Gowda remarked that “the views of high-profile and elite personalities are different from ground reality.” Mr Gowda wondered if Mr Murthy knew the problems of rural life.

He also sought comparison of employment generated by such companies including Infosys, which have taken government land, with other IT firms like Wipro, HP and IBM which have not been provided any government land.

Mr Gowda said: “I am sure companies like Wipro, Intel, Accenture, IBM, HP and Honeywell, which have not been allotted government land and functioning mostly in rented buildings, account for more than 85 per cent jobs provided by the IT firms in Bangalore.”
...
He alleged that a number of companies, including a few IT firms, had not fully utilised the government land allotted to them to preserve the land for real estate purpose.

Let's try to enumerate the problems with his statements.

1. Just saying that "high-profile" and "elite" personalities (as he puts it) are not aware of the ground realities is not enough. He needs to specify what exactly are the facts on the ground that make the proposal ineffective. The presentation was by Ramesh Ramanathan of Janaagraha who has been working extremely closely with the government and local bodies for more than five years. What exactly has eluded him that hasn't escaped Deve Gowda?

Let's see what the proposal was. From the previous day's DH:

Mr Ramanathan mooted the concept of urban citizen bodies, wherein citizens would have a greater say in urban governance. He also made a strong pitch for urban decentralisation and a “credible coordination mechanism” between civic agencies.

The Infosys chief said today Bangalore was hobbled by myriad problems. Tomorrow, it could be the turn of smaller cities like Mysore and Hubli. “We need to think beyond infrastructure and Bangalore. We need to tackle urban issues such as poor quality of life, housing, education, water and sanitation. We need to put our heads together, look ahead and plan accordingly,” Mr Murthy told reporters after the meeting. Mr Murthy said Karnataka had a concrete system for rural governance, but lacked the same for urban areas. He felt the economic opportunities in cities could be leveraged by putting in place a robust structure for urban governance.

I don't see anything elitist in that. Mr Ramanathan has been putting out these ideas for sometime now. Here and here for instance. He also has the figures: With a population of 3.2 crores, rural Karnataka has 84,168 representatives - at the zilla, taluk, gram panchayat levels. With 1.7 crore people, urban Karnataka has 5,023 representatives - at the city corporation, city municipal corporation, town municipal council, and town panchayat levels. That is a representative for every 380 rural persons, but one for every 3,400 urbal persons. 100 rimes more representation in the rural areas than at the urban areas. As he puts it:

Measured one way, the distance between citizens and their elected representatives is almost 10 times greater in urban areas than rural Karnataka; in Bangalore, 100 times greater, explaining the relative anonymity of local governments in towns and cities.

In addition to this, the gram sabha in the rural areas has got legitimacy, if not actual on-the-ground usage, with the idea that every registered voter should participate in decision-making. In contrast, the urban areas have a concept of the wards committee, hampered by the combination of a debatable nomination process, limited citizen representation and an ambiguous mandate.

So where is the problem with this idea? What are the realities that intrude?

2. He asks if Mr Murthy knows the problems of rural life. Not relevant to this conversation. I don't think Mr Murthy is suggesting that the government ignore rural areas. He is suggesting a way to ease the urban situation. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

3. He links the land allegedly "given" by the government to Infosys to the employment generated by the latter. I give up on this one. I don't understand what he is trying to say.

4. His accusation that "some" IT companies are playing the real estate game on the side too doesn't make too much sense. Are these individuals in the companies making hay? I can't believe that. On the other hand, if it is the entire company making killings in the real estate market - that does not hold much water either. A $2 billion company doesn't need to make a few crores on land. It has no material impact on anything.

So one can only conclude that Mr Gowda is talking through his hat. But it is not hard to see where this angst comes from :

He alleged that there was a systematic malicious campaign from some quarters in the IT sector to brand the coalition government as anti-IT and one with no interest to improve Bangalore infrastructure.

Politicking as usual.

Reading this news report on the front page of DH today I was reminded of one thing. In the preface to Volume 1 of Anton Chekhov's short stories by Raduga Publications, Maxim Gorky recalls his impressions of Chekhov. In it he recounts a visit of a government prosecutor to Chekhov at his house. The prosecutor begins by trying to engage Chekhov with his analysis of one of Chekhov's characters. Realising that he is putting it on, Chekhov switches to lighter topics which really engage the prosecutor. After the prosecutor leaves, Chekhov says this about him (a bit unfairly according to me):

"And it's pimples like that on the backside of justice who dispose of the destinies of men."

One would be hardpressed to think of something which would make the above description not fit people like Mr Gowda.