Tale of two cities- Faridabad and Gurgaon
Published on the Globalist
This mention of Faridabad is adapted from India Grows at Night: A Liberal Case for a Strong State (Penguin) by Gurcharan Das. Copyright © 2012 by Gurcharan Das.
Indians are baffled by the rise of their country. And for good reason. Consider this tale of two towns on the outskirts of Delhi — Gurgaon and Faridabad.
In 1980, Faridabad had an active municipality, fertile agriculture, a direct railway line to Delhi, a host of well-known industries and state government determined to showcase it as the state of Haryana’s future. Gurgaon, located in the same state, was at the time a sleepy village with rocky soil and pitiable agriculture. It had no local government, no railway link and no industry. Compared to pampered Faridabad, it was wilderness.
Twenty-five years later, Gurgaon had become the symbol of a rising India and an engine of international growth. It now has dozens of shiny skyscrapers, 26 shopping malls, seven golf courses and countless luxury showrooms of global brands. It has 32 million square feet of commercial space and hosts the Indian offices of some of the world’s largest corporations. Its economy is reflected in fabled apartment complexes with swimming pools, spas and saunas, which vie with the best-gated communities anywhere.
Meanwhile, Faridabad remained sad and scraggly. It is groaning under a corrupt, self-important municipality. How did this happen? Gurgaon’s erstwhile disadvantage — that it was more or less ignored by the rapacious state government — turned out to be an advantage. It meant less red tape and fewer bureaucrats who could block its development.
|
Gurgaon flourished primarily because of its self-reliant citizens, who did not sit around and wait for the government. They dug wells to get water. They put in diesel generators to make up for the state electricity board’s failure.
They also employed security guards — rather than depend on the police. They used cell phones — instead of landlines of the state-run telephone company. And they used couriers rather than the post office.
Some buildings even installed sewage treatment plants. Since teachers and doctors, although on the state’s payroll, did not show up at government schools and health centers, the citizens opened cheap private schools and clinics. Crucially, they even did so in the slums, where fees were as low as Rs 200 ($4) per month.
Modern India is in some ways Gurgaon writ large. When Indians witnessed the stupendous rise of the IT industry and of cities like Gurgaon, they began to ask, “Why do we need a government at all, with corrupt politicians and unresponsive bureaucrats?” And they came to say mockingly, “India grows at night when the government sleeps.” To rise without the state is a brave thing. But is it wise or sustainable? Gurgaon would clearly be better off with a functioning public drainage system, reliable water and electricity, good schools, roads and parks, as well as a decent public transportation system.
Ultimately, Faridabad and Gurgaon are both the wrong models of governance for India’s future. If red tape and corruption are the downside of Faridabad’s model, the problem with Gurgaon’s laissez faire model is the lack of basic services. While India’s economic rise is a good thing and necessary for lifting the poor, it is not sufficient. We also need honest policemen, diligent officials, functioning schools and primary health centers. In short, India needs a strong liberal-minded state.