Anticipating and Pandering of the Bureaucracy to the New Government's Intent & Ideology

After the election of the new government with a ‘clear’ mandate it is now necessary to focus on the actions of the bureaucracy which forms the ‘permanent government’ in India.  While a lot of news stories have been looking at how the PM and the Ministers are starting to hold the senior bureaucrats – from having to report quickly and directly to the PMO; cleaning the offices and being on time between 9AM – 6PM; accountable, another feature of the bureaucracy that needs to be looked at closely if the pandering response of the bureaucrats. This behaviour can be described as ‘saying and doing’ what the new government ‘likes’ rather than just executing the policy decisions taken by the government.

Two closely related incidents that seem to stand out is the Intelligence Bureau’s report on the funding of NGOs (more here focusing on Greenpeace India) that are “negatively impacting economic development” and the denial of Visa to a British Academic Dr. Vera-Sanso who has been conducting research in India since 1990. The proof of the pandering is the fact that the IB’s NGO-scare report plagiarises from an old Modi speech from September 9, 2006, when he lambasted the NGOs. (A copy of the complete text of the ‘secret’ IB report can be read here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/229511459/IB-Report-NGOs-June-2014 ) The role of the IB should be brought under greater scrutiny as it has not covered itself in much glory, when it has been unable to prevent the Mumbai attacks in 2008, but is found to be quite effective in pinning the criminals, many a time falsely.

The denial of entry to a British academic Dr. Vera-Sanso, who has apparently been given to understand that it had something to do with her Gujarat visit in March 2014, seems like a knee-jerk reaction of the bureaucrats, rather than an explicit directive from the new government.

This calls for greater accountability of bureaucrats who should record the reasons for taking a decision, as in rejecting the entry of the British academic, or, even providing intelligence. Such material should then be made available, if allegations of human rights violations or corruption, are raised by anyone seeking such information. This will only be consistent with the existing Right to Information law, RTI Act 2005, which under Section, 24(1), reads as,

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.”

It is this ‘permanent government’ which should be put under greater scrutiny, apart from focusing on the functioning of the Indian Parliament.

(A good update on the issue can be read here and by Ramachandra Guha here.)

Commonalities among BRICS Nations

While the concept of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is celebrated for the 'potential' there appears to be another commonality among BRICS - diverting resources for ugly sporting spectacles ignoring peoples’ demands for badly needed public goods and provide massive opportunities for corruption and build white elephants. This is seen from the sporting 'spectacles' being held in these countries in the last few years. Here's the snapshot - Brazil - World Cup 2012; Russia - Sochi Winter Olympics; India - Commonwealth Games 2012; China - Beijing Olympics 2008 and South Africa - World Cup 2010. 

A summary of the expected expenditure and actual expenditures on the games is tabulated below:

Country	Estimated Costs
Brazil - World Cup 2014	$11.3 billion (estimate)
Russia - Winter Olympics 2014	$50 billion[1]
India – Commonwealth Games 2010	$4 billion (original estimate - $270 million)
China – Beijing Olympics 2008	$40 billion
South Africa – World Cup 2010	$3.5 billion

The events in the run-up to the Sochi Winter Olympics saw allegations of corruption, especially, from the coterie from President Putin’s inner circle.

Among the many reasons for the downfall of the government in India, the 2010 Commonwealth Games set the tone for the series of scams that beset the government. The ruling party’s Member of Parliament and Organising Committee chief Suresh Kalmadi was arrested on the basis of prima facie involvement in awarding contracts. (Not so surprisingly, the case has not attained closure with the investigating agencies managing to file charges only recently, in December 2013, and waiting for the trial to happen). In this instance the initial costs ballooned to over 15 times from $270 million to almost $4 billion. A comprehensive report brought out by an NGO - Housing and Land Rights Network reveals the systematic escalation of costs; diversion of money from other public expenditure; dislocation of people in the name of slum clearance; and of course, building white elephants.

These events contribute to dislocation/relocation of people and a concomitant securitization of the situation. This bogey is used to suppress any local opposition. It is estimated that a 100,000 - strong security force of armed police, commandos and other troops is stationed around Beijing; over 150,000 in Brazil; over 100,000 in Russia; and over 100,000 in New Delhi and 41,000 in South Africa.

These events give rise to these problems, as there are no proper policies in countries aspiring to host international events; no local consultation and involvement, especially of people from cities projected as hosts; and, a false emphasis on ‘national’ pride to host these ‘international’ events.

---

[1] For a sceptical view, see here - http://goo.gl/y7JXWH.

Permanent Campign in India

It appears that India is also going the way of the United States which is now caught in a permanent campaign mode, while also being captured by the economic elites and organized groups which represent business interests who have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

While the General Elections to the Lok Sabha have been conducted in 1951, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1977, 1980, 1984, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, the elections to State Assemblies have become asynchronous starting in late 1970s. The reasons include the back-to-back elections in 1977 and 1980, and also the increasing application of President’s Rule in various states[1].

During the last general election in 2009, only the following states - Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, went to polls for the State Assemblies, despite technically being in sync with the first general elections in 1951. (The State Reorganization carried out in 1956 did not have a major impact on the electoral cycle with major states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, etc. being in sync in the next general election of 1957).

Since then we have seen elections for Bihar in 2010; Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in 2011; Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh in 2012; and, Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Karnataka, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram in 2013.

2014 will see Assembly elections for Andhra Pradesh (or its successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana), Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Sikkim along with the general elections while Maharashtra and Haryana will go to polls at the end of the year.

While the big picture is painted above, individual states are also affected by the asynchronous electoral schedule of the panchayat and municipal elections. The exception again here is Andhra Pradesh, which conducted the elections for local bodies on April 6 and 11, 2014 (with results withheld till May 7, 2014), while the general elections were conducted on April 30, for the new state of Telangana and May 7, for the rest of Andhra Pradesh.[2]

To put the above information in context it is useful to look at a review of ‘permanent campaign’ as captured by Catherine Needham, in her article, “Brand Leaders: Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent Campaign”[3] as follows:

“The topography of the permanent campaign shifts between authors, but all share [Hugh] Heclo’s assumption that it is a ‘process seeking to manipulate sources of public approval to engage in the act of governing itself’. Common features include a prominent role for campaign consultants in government; the use of polling as a strategic device to steer policy-making and presentation; a pre-occupation with fund-raising for the next election; a media fascination with the ‘horse race’ aspects of political life; and high-stakes posturing over every issue, with public support becoming a bargaining chip between politicians, parties and interest groups.” (Emphasis Added)[4]

Not so surprisingly, we have seen an increased visibility of campaign consultants in the recent elections with global branding companies promoting the ‘India Shining’ campaign in 2004 and the ‘Jai Ho’ and “Aam Aadmi” campaign of the Congress party. In the current election campaign McCann Worldgroup, led by lyricist & adman Prasoon Joshi and Dentsu & Taproot have bagged the contracts of the BJP and Congress respectively (For more stories visit here and here.) The astronomical figure of Rupees 2000 Crores cited here, makes one wonder whether the limit on poll expenditure by candidates is even meaningful, or whether we should also be going the US way which has removed limits on donations      through the Citizens United Case[5]. It has been said that prospective candidates ‘buy’ nominations which they would have to recoup after being elected and also prepare for future elections.

One of the severe results of the ‘permanent campaign’ is the deadlock in the Indian Parliament where the ruling and opposition parties have started adopting a high-stakes posturing on every issue rather than engaging in measured debate and discussions. The antagonism has affected delivery of centrally supported or funded programs as it is the responsibility of the states to actually deliver any program.

And finally, the Indian media has taken a thorough fascination to the ‘horse race’ aspects of political life and it is epitomised in the current election season where they project Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi as locked in a ‘Prime Minsiterial’ Race.

---

[1] A detailed look between 1980-2009 needs to be done to assert these claims.

[2] One needs to look at closely at the electoral cycle for local elections in other states too, before arriving at a conclusion.

[3] Needham, Catherine. 2005. "Brand Leaders: Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent Campaign". Political Studies. 53 (2): 343-361.

[4] For more specific reading refer to Mann, Thomas E., and Norman J. Ornstein. 2000. The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute. Available at http://www.aei.org/files/2000/11/01/20040218_book188.pdf

[5] If each of the 545 winning candidates spend the poll limit of 70 lakh rupees, the total expenditure of these candidates will come to Rupees 381.5 Crores.

Legitimacy of Supreme Court of India and the Election Commission of India

We place faith in non-democratic institutions in our country such as the SC and the ECI for the seeming non-partiality of their activities without recognising the limitations of their power. 

The immense legitimacy and popularity of the  Supreme Court of India (SC) and Election Commission of India (ECI) can be attributed to their actions of delivering well on the core functions of these institutions - rendering judgements on fundamentals rights issues and organising the elections. 



These tasks have been carried out very well with the Supreme Court defining and sometimes expanding the notion of fundamental rights, which one can situate at the core of the constitution; while the ECI dramatically improved the conduct of elections by making the exercise of casting a ballot as free and fair as possible.

These two institutions have been successful in expanding the scope of their activities by adopting innovative techniques in expanding the definition of fundamental rights and also defining what constitutes a poll related activity. For example, the SC defining the issue of pollution in Delhi as a matter of right to life was welcomed by the people who applauded the introduction of CNG gas in public transport vehicles, while the introduction of electronic voting machines (EVMs) by the ECI has facilitated a freer conduct of elections and removed the term 'booth-capturing' from the lexicon of Indian elections. 

These publicly visible activities have been at the centre of the their high standing in the eyes of the people. But these actions also expose the limitations of these institutions. The exponential increase in the use of private diesel vehicles in Delhi has negated any marginal improvement in the air quality of Delhi while the use of money and doling out favours at the local level has led to some parties or candidates to develop 'safe seats'.

Holding the house to ransom!

If we need some more evidence of the opposition actually helping the government and rendering the Parliament ineffective is the call by leader of the opposition, Sushma Swaraj, who has the gumption to warn that they will decide, on a daily basis, whether the house should function on that day or not. This is so sickening that one wonders whether there is any way that we can hold these public officials, as the over reliance on the judiciary, which is already swamped with providing oversight over several cases, from issues related to violence in Gujarat to oversight of cases of corruption in the Union government.

Corruption Scandals and Lack of Accountability

India has been a witness to umpteen corruption scandals and 'resignation' of elected officials, and sometimes even the dissolution of the houses and conducting fresh elections. But one wonders whether this is real accountability, as the latest farce unfolds in Karnataka, wherein the Chief Minister was forced to resign upon the recommendations of the Lokayukta (ombudsman), but managed to have his chamcha (lackey) elected as the new chief minister. This might be a little better than what Laloo Prasad Yadav managed to do in Bihar, by anointing his wife as the new CM.

The real issue at heart is once the elected official resigns, what happens to the alleged perpetrator? This is an issue that needs to be addressed directly and immediately, as we see that the recent resignation of the CM of Maharashtra, Ashok Chavan, has not been brought to its proper conclusion - establishing guilt and punishing the guilt. This brings us to focus on the current call for the adoption of the Lok Pal Bill, which once again seems to have grandiose aims, but lacks any teeth. This addition of a legislative framework will not see a change, unless the existing rules are enforced in a free and fair manner. While my rant, might sounds like a broken record, it is high time that we stop clamoring for new laws and bodies, but rather focus on how we can enhance the abilities of existing bodies of investigation and prosecution.

Parliament Session and Consideration of Bills

The business of the Parliament of India in each session is quite demanding, but the approach of the members of the house is quite lacking. Considering that the 2011 Monsoon Session of the Parliament is supposed to consider 35 pending bills, introduce 32 new bills and replace 2 ordinances with 2 new bills, i.e. a total of 69 bills, in 26 sittings, it is shameful that the new session started off with an adjournment and saw an uproar in the Rajya Sabha. This lackadaisical approach to parliamentary business is quite sickening.
One point that stood out during my perusal of the newspaper archives of the period between 1996 and 2005, while conducting research into the coverage of the freedom of information campaign in India, is the consensus among the major national parties - the Bharatiya Janata Party and its National Democratic Alliance coalition, and the Congress Party and its United Progressive Alliance coalition; in not conducting the business of the parliament. The two coalitions have made a mockery of the proceedings of the house and have stalled the business of the house, thereby rendering the purpose of the parliament - to examine, scrutinize and decide on issues of national interest; to be ineffective.