If political parties are allowed to remain wedded to their own formula for winning elections, governance might remain a poor pillion without a helmet and administration can manage without a conscience.-Techi’s death in Noida

Gustakhi Maaf Haryana – Pawan Kumar Bansal

Our enlightened reader Ashok Lavasa, Former Election Commissioner, on an article published in today’s The Indian Express

Grief, Rage and Despair: The Cyclical Failure of Governance

Grief, rage and despair — this is the typical cycle of popular emotions when tragedy strikes. Personal loss makes way for collective outrage against systemic lapses, which gradually fades into despair and cynicism. The establishment too follows a staid formula to manage this transient surge of familiar public sentiment.

Do we remember the bizarre deaths of civil services aspirants in the basement of a coaching centre, when floodwaters from Pusa Road gushed in — where aspiring bureaucrats were immersed in preparing to be part of a system that seems increasingly unresponsive?

Haven’t we almost forgotten the unfortunate deaths in Indore of ordinary citizens who complained of foul water infiltrating their drinking supply, trusting the system to take remedial steps, until many of them died consuming the contaminated water that came through pipes meant to carry fresh drinking water?

We now have a young man drowning in an unauthorised pool of water in a city touted as a modern urban settlement. There was no reason for the water to have accumulated there. There was no reason for his car to fall into the waterbody, except for a broken railing. There was no reason for him to drown, except for a crude and ill-prepared system that stood still in the chill, not knowing how to save a life crying for help.

The brave man gave the system a chance to acquit itself. But all those meant to respond in such emergencies watched helplessly, letting him be consumed by the swamp. Here was a victim of blatant civic neglect, showing the courage to climb out of a car marooned in a cesspool, reaching out to his father, sharing his location. His father summoned help that apparently reached the spot only to watch helplessly as the screams drowned and disappeared.

The surrounding fog seemed symbolic of a system that refuses to see the desperation people are being driven to. That a delivery boy mustered the courage to jump into the water in the dead of night and make an effort places the pathetic incapacity of the system in rude contrast. That, according to him, he had similarly helped a truck driver who had met with a mishap at the same spot a few days earlier, is testimony to the criminal negligence of the authorities.

All these incidents hide a story of a fundamental ailment that plagues governance — lack of responsiveness and accountability. The system remains a mute witness to its own culpability. When it says it will “fix” responsibility, it often only means it will ‘shift’ it, as it did in the Pusa Road case, where an SUV driver was arrested for allegedly causing waves that entered the basement.

Unresponsiveness and lack of accountability may not be the only problems; there are genetic and environmental shortcomings as well.

The genetic problem lies in the scant regard for routine administration as a core part of governance. The focus on development and ‘concrete’ achievements has become so dominant in assessing performance that administrators tend to neglect routine work. Proper maintenance of records, time-bound disposal of files, and periodic inspection of subordinate offices by supervisory officers receive low priority in an administration obsessed with ‘showcasing’ achievements. One can get away with neglecting regular work if one can dazzle by displaying a few spectacular deeds.

This equally applies to engineers, who are happier constructing more buildings and roads even if those already built remain ill-maintained. Higher capital expenditure is fascinating as it allows governments to make taller claims of infrastructure creation. The inherent flaw in our approach to development is the mismatch between the quantum of infrastructure built and its poor utilisation and serviceability. Focusing on maintenance, service delivery and functional efficiency of what has already been built is not considered proof of administrative ‘dynamism’.

Hunting for headlines is understandable for the political executive. Anonymity, once the hallmark of the civil services, is being forsaken. The commitment to serve the people appears overtaken by the urge for recognition. Perhaps being accountable to bosses rather than to citizens brings greater rewards.

Unfortunately, this culture may continue if people remain overawed by the glitz and ‘modernity’ of new structures and are not sufficiently concerned about the quality of service these are meant to deliver. If political parties remain wedded to their own formulas for winning elections, governance may continue to ride pillion without a helmet — and administration may go on managing without a conscience.

khabre junction