Good Governance

There is this subject we have called Indian Society in Transition-where our guest faculty more or less talks about the great Indian urban-rural divide,how the poor grow more poorer while the rich get richer and....
And today we got to view this Assamese or Bengali or Oriyan short film-where this girl called Laali wants to go to school but her parents want her to graze goats.So she studies without her ppl knowing.When they find out they get angry.Then her mom falls sick and she doesnt take the proper dosage because her husband is illiterate and cant read the presciption.So they have to take her to the city hospital which will cost money hence warranting a trip to the mahajan.The mahajan tries to swindle the father which Laali manages to thwart.Father learns his lesson and Laali gets to attend school.
During the discussion our faculty talked about good governance and Corruption Vs. Inefficiency.And this was where this classmate of mine cited S.M.Krishna and Chandrababu Naidu.Vhandrababu Naidu was after all voted the best Chief Minister.So why wasnt he re-elected?Anti encumbancy factor did him in?Or was it that his over zealousness in projecting Hyderabad as Cyderabad that did him in.If my memory serves me right think I read in India Today as to how most ppl in the rural areas voted for the Congress-simply cos he did nothing for them!!
This set me thinking.Was Chandrababu Naidu's model wrong?After all you cant concentrate on all areas simultaneously.And not all areas will respond to these development works in a similar manner.So you would first start out with areas you think will respond more to whatever it is that you will carry out.And the trickle down effect works faster.Making a farmer or a craftsman rich and then making him buy computers will take long time.But make a software company rich,make the s/w engineer grow richer-he goes out , spends more money-perhaps more on mobiles and cars and such things but also on other things.He doesnt buy more food just because he earns more than he once did but then more money is in circulation and this money does reach the "lower rungs" of the society.And this takes comparativly less time to achieve.Isnt this just what Chandrababu Naidu was trying to do?
But then the ethical question is that can you always shrug and say this serves the majority and that the maximum good to the maximum people is always the right option?The rural community isnt the minority-after all most of the Indian population lives in villages.However there is more of money circulation in the cities and towns than in villages perhaps because there arent as many reasons and ways to spend in a village than in a city.Hence money passes more hands and more ppl are benefitted.And hence,though it may seem as if just one particular sector was being given more priority, in fact this model serves the purpose and for all!