By Rajiv Shah Our tête-à -tête, which lasted for more than an hour, centred on a document about which I knew virtually nothing. My critics may well ask how someone who covered the Gujarat government for nearly 14 years—and retired as the political editor of The Times of India in January 2013—could be unaware of it.
Be that as it may, the document titled Viksit Gujarat 2047, released in January 2024, prompted me to take a closer look at its 140 pages after downloading it from the Gujarat government’s Planning Department website. A scan of media reports suggested that the coverage had focused mainly on its overwhelmingly positive, forward-looking framework and the roadmaps it lays out for achieving its goals.
Ironically, a closer reading revealed several shortcomings and challenges that the state must address to achieve the “vision” set for 2047. These are not framed as failures of decades-long BJP rule in Gujarat — including the period under Narendra Modi (2001–2014). Rather, they are couched as “areas for further improvement” or “key focus areas.”
Let me begin with these so-called areas of improvement, most of which fall within the social sector. My reading of the document suggests that these problem areas are treated as if they exist independently of the socio-economic realities that shape them.
The document highlights that malnutrition remains a significant challenge. It states that 39% of children under five are stunted, 40% are underweight, and 25% are wasted—higher than the national average for wasting. It also acknowledges that 65% of women (aged 15–49) are anaemic.
Further, 56.7% of the state’s total disease burden now comes from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Rising rates of obesity and high-risk waist-hip ratios among both men and women are noted as growing concerns.
Yet the state suffers from an inadequate health workforce and infrastructure. Gujarat has only around 12 doctors per 10,000 population—lower than middle-income and high-income countries. There is a shortage of functional 24×7 primary health centres (PHCs) in rural areas and a 52% shortfall in urban PHCs. District hospitals have fewer beds per 100,000 people than states such as Karnataka and Kerala.
In education and skilling, the document notes low enrolment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Only 18% of students in Gujarat opt for the science stream after Class 10, compared to the national average of 42%. This is identified as a critical gap for a state aspiring to lead in technology and future industries.
Educational disparities persist. The gender parity index in higher education is 0.87, indicating fewer women than men. The gross enrolment ratio for Scheduled Tribes (STs) in higher education is 18%, compared to the state average of 22%.
The document admits that only 3% of those aged 15 and above receive formal vocational training—an acknowledged bottleneck in building a skilled workforce. It provides a detailed table of sector-wise skill shortages across automobiles, textiles, food processing, and electronics, highlighting the need for upskilling in areas such as advanced welding, bioinstrumentation, and new technologies.
It also notes that only about 35% of schools have a pupil-teacher ratio below 30, implying that most schools exceed this threshold, potentially affecting educational quality.
Although Gujarat’s rulers have long claimed that the state is an industrial powerhouse, the document reveals a concentration in low-value-added manufacturing. Half of Gujarat’s manufacturing gross value added (GVA) comes from just three sectors: chemicals, oil and gas, and metals. This underscores the need for diversification into higher-value industries.
Regional imbalance is another concern. Nearly 64% of the state’s industrial GVA comes from just five of its 33 districts, reflecting geographical concentration and the need to distribute industrial development more evenly.
Even the services sector is not spared. Despite its economic size, Gujarat contributes only 6.2% to India’s services GVA, a figure the document considers below potential. It attributes this partly to fragmented governance: multiple sector-wise bodies oversee services, necessitating coordinated planning and development — an indication of a siloed administrative structure.
The tourism sector is similarly limited. Tourist footfall is heavily concentrated in spiritual (42%) and business (26%) tourism. Leisure tourism attracts only 14% of visitors, particularly from outside the state and from abroad. Coastal, adventure, and eco-tourism remain “underdeveloped” due to inadequate ancillary infrastructure such as food stalls, cafés, and recreational facilities.
A high 98.7% of tourists are domestic, with 63% originating from within Gujarat itself—suggesting a failure to attract high-spending international and inter-state visitors. Ahmedabad airport has direct connectivity with only three of India’s top ten source countries for international tourists.
Tourists within Gujarat remain heavily dependent on road travel (“65% of the modal mix”), which is costlier and less sustainable than rail or waterways. Despite having 20% of India’s coastline, the state suffers from poor rail and road links to coastal areas, and the low draft at ports limits the docking of larger vessels.
The document notes that while Gujarat’s average per capita income exceeds the national average, the average farm household income (₹12,631 per month) is less than half that of top-performing states such as Punjab (₹26,701). Irrigation deficits persist: in 19 of 33 districts, the gross cropped area under irrigation remains below the 70% target. Large arid and semi-arid zones worsen the situation.
 |
| Ahmedabad’s reducing green spaces over 4 decades |
The document concedes that Gujarat ranks poorly on the multidimensional poverty index (MPI): 23rd among 36 states and Union Territories, according to NITI Aayog. Yet it omits the paradox that such poverty persists alongside the state’s claims of high economic growth. The low MPI ranking is driven by 11 eastern border districts, reflecting stark regional disparities.
Urban areas also face environmental and resource stresses. Rajkot suffers from water scarcity, while Jamnagar faces cyclones and floods. A study cited in the document shows that Ahmedabad’s green spaces have declined over four decades due to rising urban density. Not a single Gujarat city features in the top 100 of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index.
This situation is attributed to weak urban governance. Urban local bodies need the “right skill sets” and stronger revenue streams to achieve financial autonomy.
Despite these challenges, the document—prepared in collaboration with NITI Aayog and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG)—sets ambitious goals: transforming Gujarat into a $3.5 trillion economy by 2047, achieving per capita income exceeding $38,000, ensuring 100% universal health coverage, securing more than 90% green power use in industries, and maintaining a 14–15% nominal CAGR till 2030, tapering to 12–13% thereafter.
One wonders whether these targets sufficiently consider global economic headwinds such as inflation, geopolitical risks, and potential slowdowns. Scaling from a $259 billion economy in FY22 to $3.5 trillion would require unprecedented consistency, especially in high-value sectors like semiconductors and green hydrogen, where Gujarat aims to account for more than 40% of India’s goods exports.
The absence of detailed roadmaps appears to be a key weakness. For example, the goal of 100% wastewater recycling—benchmarking Singapore—is not accompanied by specified budgets or phased rollouts.
There also seems to be a lack of comprehensive monitoring tools, such as digital dashboards to track net-zero progress by 2047, even as the vision emphasises growth in pollution-heavy manufacturing sectors like chemicals and oil.
The acknowledgements section lavishes praise on Prime Minister Modi and Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel, presenting the vision as an extension of their leadership. This promotional tone—reinforced by a cover page featuring their portraits alongside state icons—creates the impression of a political narrative rather than a neutral policy framework. While the involvement of NITI Aayog and BCG lends credibility, the heavy emphasis on government figures risks alienating diverse stakeholders.
Governance reforms are framed in technocratic terms—digital records, paperless administration—but accountability mechanisms remain weak. The reliance on committees and bureaucratic leadership suggests a top-down approach, with limited evidence of participatory consultation beyond industry bodies such as CII and FICCI.
Comments