IN a country as vast as India it is always possible that a state that comprises several ethnic and language groups will develop political ferment that will manifest in some kind of dissatisfaction. States, particularly those of the North-east, have finite natural resources. However, all of them survive on the generous financial package doled out by a patronising Central government to carry out development activities. Today, there are several Central schemes that focus on poverty alleviation. But conceiving a scheme is one thing, implementing it is quite another. There is no dearth of development funds. What is in short supply is the sincerity of the implementing authorities.
To my mind, in this country the hurdles to development are the implementers themselves — the huge army of bureaucrats who actually form a clique to serve and protect their own interests. Why should we be surprised that things either move at snail’s pace or get blocked at the office of the Block Development Officer. Sometimes we blame politicians for being venal but forget who actually runs this country. The bureaucracy is no longer faceless or voiceless. In these days of media blitzkrieg, top bureaucrats of the country and states wax eloquent on news channels. Some even go to the extent of pronouncing policies. So we ought to know where power actually resides.
The people’s dissatisfaction springs from the fact that development is neither visible nor tangible. They see other districts moving ahead and wonder why they are children of lesser gods. This real and perceived deprivation makes them look for ways and means to secure similar privileges. The rigmarole followed is to present memoranda highlighting development deficits in respective districts to their legislators or to a minister. Sadly, the representatives never pay serious heed to such memoranda. When reminded, ministers and legislators usually approach the officer heading the department concerned to see if any action can be initiated on the memo submitted. The officer, trained as he is on how to deal with idiotic natives (don’t forget the IAS is still modelled on the British Civil Services of colonial times when the natives were to be silenced and subdued and ruled over), will give the politician a long list of bullet points as to why the request of the group/groups cannot be acceded to. Once a bureaucrat has his mind set on an idea, it would be easier to stir Rip Van Winkle than to get him to revisit the idea and see if possibilities exist for him to make some positive moves.
We have grappled with this system for over half a century and see no light at the end of the tunnel. Current Union law minister Veerappa Moily once elicited opinions from diverse groups on administrative reforms. In every state, people had something to say about the faulty administrative models. Sadly, the recommendations might never see the light of day. Any attempts at administrative reforms in India are met with stiff resistance from the system. But who creates the system? Why would the bureaucracy want a more transparent system when opacity is what they thrive on? Why would they queer their own pitch when the status quo serves them so well? The bureaucracy will find every method in the book to quash anything that threatens their survival as a species. Bureaucrats must ask themselves why Maoism has raised its ugly head and why the North-east is perpetually in turmoil.
More than half a century of democracy tells us that this system does not give adequate space for different groups to verbalise their anxieties. We are told that civil society and the voting public have to create the platforms for holding the state accountable. But civil society has to have some fundamental requirements for it to coalesce into something meaningful. Those unfortunately have not emerged. We only have interest and pressure groups, each defining their parameters of action. When governments do not deliver, interest and pressure groups get raspier and crankier. They go into agitation mode. Bandhs and blockades are called. Then the government assesses the damage-creating capacity of every group and tries to break them. Finally, when the government fails on all fronts, it invites the groups for talks. Accords are signed but without any intentions of fulfilling them. We may ask why. The government is aware that every demand means reallocation of financial resources and redeployment of human resources. It also knows that conceding to the demands of one group would give rise to similar demands from other equally deprived groups.
Every problem has its genesis in the faulty implementation models we have adopted. Corruption also compounds the problems. Assam is a good case study, with Dhemaji, the North Cachar Hills and Karbi Anglong still limping. In the absence of district level plans emanating from people’s own participation and after setting their own priorities, development cannot but be asymmetrical. Hence democracy is sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic indolence. Injustice gets embedded in our system. This is what has given rise to militancy in many parts of the region. Ironically, it is only when the agitating groups that have been pursuing the goals of democracy abandon this seemingly unrewarding practice and take to arms that the state responds and agrees to talk. By then things have gone woefully wrong; several lives are lost and many assets destroyed. But more than that, development is short-circuited because violence does not allow space for other discourses. Progress becomes the casualty.
One wonders if governments realise that they have themselves created these rapacious Frankensteins (militant groups) that ultimately devour the economy and turn states into sickly, emaciated entities incapable of carrying out their basic duty of governance. Today, if half of India is gripped by Maoist violence, the bureaucracy must take a big share of the blame because they never responded until people decided to take the law into their hands. The problems in the North-east are of similar origin. One has to study the bureaucracy at length to understand that they are the biggest stumbling blocks to achieving our democratic goals. From the asymmetrical models of development have arisen the many rebellions in this region and the country.
The writer is editor, The Shillong Times, and can be contacted at patricia17@rediffmail.com