What kind of development philosophy would suit Uttarakhand best? The people of the state decided they would do better if disassociated from Uttar Pradesh. Have developments since then vindicated the decision? An overwhelming majority would say yes. However, if asked whether they are satisfied with what has happened since the state was formed, a similar number would say no. What have been the shortcomings? The answer would be that the hills and the folk living there have not benefited as had been hoped – the reason for this being a lack of vision.
Per capita income has considerably increased, but the income disparity creates distortions. There are too many people who do not have the money to even benefit from the amenities that have become available – mostly in the private sector. Quite obviously, despite a substantial amount being spent by government, the people are not proportionately benefiting. Very probably the priorities and plans are unsuitable.
Many of the problems are common to all of India, only exaggerated here because of the difficult geography of the state. The demographic bump requires jobs for youth. Unfortunately, the definition of a job in this part of the world is a ‘secure’ government one. On the other hand, the development philosophy for the state requires a leaner set-up. Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, the work force has increased in the traditional way, generating a massive salary and pension bill. One need only go to the Vidhan Sabha, the Secretariat and various government offices to see a large number of people just lounging around in the corridors and rooms, doing very little.
Unfortunately, the contribution of this work force to better governance is abysmally low, simply because theirs are not the skills the state needs. Adding to this is the old attitude of the workers, who want ‘parity’ in everything with the best paid government employees at the Centre, which has meant years of ceaseless agitations. Temporary and ad-hoc workers want regularisation; then they want a certain number of promotions, the latest in perks and salaries, the ‘old pension scheme’, etc. The poor taxpayer, who gets development from only what is left over in the budget, has to pay for everything.
Those in charge of running the state must adopt what may be described as a ‘lower middle class’ approach. Just as a family belonging to this section recognises the lack of resources and prioritises investment in the future through education and nurture of the children, the state too should look to benefiting the coming generations. The present generation must make the sacrifices necessary, just as the parents do in the family. The number of jobs will not come down, only their nature will change. The skills imparted to the youth have to be suited to the coming times. Nothing else will work.
