April 9: Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi today made a pitch for his model of development to be replicated across the country, a suggestion that immediately triggered derision from the Janata Dal (United) in Bihar.

Modi, who was addressing leading industrialists in Calcutta this morning, had in his speech taken care to explain the Gujarat model — with equal emphasis on the agriculture, industry and services sectors — and how his government successfully brought an additional 18 lakh hectares under cultivation even while pursuing aggressive industrialisation.

In an attempt to show the human face of his government, Modi also reeled out an entire gamut of initiatives, ranging from cataract operation of cattle to regular medical check-up of students.

During the Q&A session that followed, Deloitte Consulting managing director Roopen Roy asked Modi if the Gujarat model — with its equal focus on sectors backed up by the state’s rich tradition of entrepreneurship and business — could be replicated or adapted in other states, especially agricultural ones like Bihar.

Modi, who was speaking in Hindi, did not mention Bihar or any other state by name but made it clear his model had been successful in achieving double digit growth, besides taking care of human development indicators.

“Look, in a country as diverse and complex as ours, one model cannot work even in two neighbouring districts. But the direction (given by the model), its basic philosophy and overall strategy work. Depending on the requirement of a state, modification is required,” he said. “Not ‘Modi-fication,”’ Modi added to deafening applause at the hallowed portals of the Oberoi Grand hotel.

If the reply earned him kudos from industrialists in Calcutta, Modi’s model vision had the JD(U) seeing red.

“Narendra Modi is in a hurry to become PM,” said JD(U) general secretary and national spokesman Shivanand Tiwari.

Another spokesman, Neeraj Kumar, bluntly rejected the Gujarat chief minister’s suggestion, saying: “The Bihar model of development stipulates inclusive growth with justice which the Centre and many other states have emulated. We do not need suggestions from others.”

Observers described the JD(U)’s sharp retort on Modi more as a “reflection” of the growing hostility between the Bihar NDA allies rather than a balanced assessment of the development models followed by the Gujarat CM and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar.

In fact, experts found many similarities in the governance methods of the two. “Both leaders have earned popularity for carrying out development work in their respective states. While the Bihar CM succeeded in spreading the network of quality roads, Modi has taken power generation from 6,000MW in 2006 to over 25,000MW now, expediting the process of industrialisation,” said a Patna economist under cover of anonymity.

This economist pointed out how the two leaders, though poles apart in their political ideologies, had emulated each other in the context of governance. “The Gujarat Assembly recently passed a legislation ensuring 50 per cent reservation to women in the local bodies. Nitish had done it six years ago,” he said.

In 2006, Nitish’s deputy, Sushil Kumar Modi, had been given a PowerPoint presentation by representatives of 15 Gujarat government departments on how to speed up the process of development. Sushil Modi and the Bihar officials who had accompanied him were overwhelmed. “We had returned enriched,” a senior Bihar official had said.

Of late, the Nitish government has decided to emulate the public distribution system adopted by BJP-ruled Chhattisgarh. It has already emulated the right to public service act from another BJP-ruled state, Madhya Pradesh.

Sushil Modi tried to put the things in perspective when he was asked to comment on Narendra Modi’s suggestion today. “One state learns from another and both benefit mutually in their journey of development,” Sushil Modi said. “Now, Karnataka has shown interest in learning the model of the right to public service act that we have implemented. Everything should not be seen though the prism of politics.”