I grew up in Chennai so I’m biased towards the TN model.
TN has been lucky that occasionally it has had decent leaders in one aspect or other, the state socially is also ahead due to continuous political Dravidian revolutions, that has helped create inclusive development.
TN has a rich Tamil history, with a Tamil diaspora around the world with intellectual capacity that has worked in creating a self belief among Tamizhans.(Telugu folks will overtake this aspect soon though).
Now issues with TN: political pettiness, the state saw lot of violence between the two dravidian parties when I was growing up, the dominant caste of Vaaniyar(has a political party) has been a pain and a hurdle towards ending Dalit violence in TN hotspots.
Hero worship is crazy in TN almost leading to violence or stampedes.
I do think TN can learn from Gujarat and Gujarat can learn from them.. I also the right balance is struck between the two Telugu states..in the next 10 years it will be visible, if the two telugu states hadn’t separated they would be ahead of TN right now in GDP.
I have limited knowledge on Tamil Nadu but two points I find interesting.
Madras, Calcutta and Bombay were the three great Presidency Towns in colonial India, where the East India Company dug its earliest and deepest roots. Madras was the earliest major settlement, emerging as a leading Asian port from the 1660s to the 1730s. Its prominence faded with the rise of Calcutta, but it remained a major administrative hub and home to some of the earliest educational institutions. These helped nurture a professional, rather than commercial, middle class.
Calcutta would itself be eclipsed by Bombay. Calcutta’s economy was dominated by British managing agencies (‘expatriate capitalism’). Bombay’s industrialisation on the other hand was driven by Indian capital (‘indigenous capitalism’), much of it accumulated through opium trade and later redeployed into cotton textiles and other industries. Bombay would also become a global hub connected to global markets through the Suez Canal. Calcutta’s economy was more oriented towards the Indian hinterland and therefore more inward focussed.
All of this left Bombay in better shape to consolidate itself as Indian financial heart in the independence period. Calcutta on the other hand suffered decline, adversely impacted by partition (loss of the hinterland), the ‘freight equalisation’ policy (which reduced its locational advantage) and a more intense labour conflict.
Perhaps most interesting was Madras. In 1947, it was a a conservative trading post with a relatively modest industrial base. But its early emphasis on universal schooling and technical education laid the foundation for a deep talent tool - one that would later power the state’s manufacturing, engineering and IT sectors.
The second point is to consider the legacies of two of its most famous politicians: Rajaji (Rajagopalachari) and Periyar (E.V. Ramaswamy). The former was a famous national statesmen. He was a devoted Gandhian, a conservative and someone who believed in minimal interference from the state (see post #10). Yet, it was the latter - Periyar - who arguably shaped the long-term trajectory of the state, more profoundly. He launched the the Self-Respect movement in 1925, which attacked the caste system, religious superstition and gender inequality. The Justice Party that he led, also promoted compulsory education and the empowerment of the non-Brahmin groups. He also championed Dravidian identity, an ideology which fuelled regional pride and sense of distinct cultural identity, and which later became a foundation for DMK and AIADMK.
The consistent political focus on social justice, therefore had deep roots in the state. Education was seen as a key tool of empowerment. The unique political culture, centred on social justice, has done much to shape the later economic success.
