Response to Appu Soman

Appu Soman is a perceptive writer but his article lacks substance, is short on logic and relies for the most part on unsubstantiated sweeping statements. The American habit of simplifying everything through coinage of new terms such as describing India as a ‘flailing state’ is certainly eye catching but hardly relevant in the context of India’s development paradigm. Whether the presidential or parliamentary form of government is better suited for a country as large and diverse as India is a matter of debate, but to attribute all our ills to the parliamentary system is stretching credulity to its limit.
It is fashionable to blame politicians for all our ills but at least they are accountable and can be removed from power with every election should they fail to perform. It is this element of accountability which must be put into the public domain if we are to address the various malaises which Soman talks off. We remonstrate when the manifestations of poor governance are apparent, but when it comes to substantive structural issues, there is somehow limited proactive engagement to shape governance norms.
Poor governance, mismanagement, inefficiencies and malpractices have eaten into our system like an all pervasive cancer due to lack of accountability. Our administrative echelons however are loathe to strengthen mechanisms which would compel accountability. If we continue to regard responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other attributes of account-giving, the low level of importance they have been receiving, governance will further weaken and we will continue to face challenges, as we do presently.
Accountability is the unifying thread in governance. Enacting legislation and restructuring an institution should not be about change of name and an opportunity to structure space for maneuverability; instead it should be about substantively mainstreaming change that can strengthen governance. We need to exploit the potential of implicit transparency-building arrangements such as electronic procurement, electronic tracking of supply chains and the use of technology in public finance management - budgeting, accounting and auditing systems, and put all of this in the public domain.
Soman talks of corrupt governments but his remarks would have been better directed at corrupt government officials. If some of our Babus lack integrity and are willing to do the bidding of their political masters for personal gain, then no system of governance will ever work. How to promote integrity within the civil services is the challenge which we face and will continue to face unless both responsibility and accountability are fixed. As of now, too many people in the higher hierarchy of governance are not accountable for their actions. This suits the vested interest of both the bureaucracy and the political class. To blame the latter and leave out the former is merely an attempt to whitewash the malaise of corruption and non-performance in which we are steeped. If the heads of all our intelligence agencies were made to roll post Kargil, the likelihood of a 26/11 occurring would have been bleak. And if, along with the home minister of India and the chief minister of Maharashtra, a few bureaucratic heads had rolled too post 26/11, then the likelihood of another 26/11 occurring would be rare. In the event, I think it would be wise to assume that we have not seen the last of outrageous acts of terror in India and should be prepared accordingly. While the debate over the form of government best suited to India’s needs will continue, a broad-based agenda for systemic reform of governance, which can institutionalise accountability, must be accorded the highest priority if we wish to be taken seriously in the comity of nations as an emerging world power.
This appeared in The Straits Times, May 22, 2009
India: A 'flailing state' By Appu Soman.
The largest election in history involving more than 700 million voters has resulted in the victory of India's ruling alliance, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party. The verdict disproved gloomy predictions of a hung Parliament and the further strengthening of regional parties. The new government will be far more stable than many of its predecessors.
But the fact remains that, like previous governments, the new administration will consist mostly of politicians unfit to hold ministerial office. While several provincial satraps have been cut down to size, new, aspiring ones have garnered significant support. Despite the manifest success of Indian democracy, its parliamentary system is not succeeding in providing good governance. Obviously, India is not a failed state. Professor Lant Pritchett of Harvard's Kennedy School has coined a new name for India: a 'flailing state' - a state where the government's extremely competent upper echelons are unable to control its inefficient lower levels, resulting in poor performance. But this analysis gives credit where none is due: India's problem is its top political leadership's lack of competence. The inability of its current political system to provide effective government places the country in a different category: a non-performing state. The idealism of India's freedom movement quickly evaporated after independence in the face of the opportunities for patronage that came with power. The way its political system evolved has made politics the surest path to wealth. The money spent to win elections - often including the purchase of a party's nomination - is recouped many times over once the winner is in office. Half of India's legislators who stood for re-election this time had tripled their assets in the past five years.
Given the country's religious, caste and linguistic divides, politicians saw how easily they could leverage even a small following into votes. Soon, political parties began to break up, giving rise to a large number of regional and caste-based parties. Most of these parties are led by political dynasties that prize loyalty over merit. Because of the splintering of political parties, India has had only one single-party government and eight coalition governments in the past two decades. Members of coalition governments have treated the ministries allocated to them as fiefdoms, to be milked for their benefit. Over time, India's government has become primarily a tool for advancing the personal interests of politicians rather than the entity responsible for running the country. The opportunity for personal gains through public office has made electoral politics an automatic career choice for politicians' progeny. Record numbers of sons and daughters of political leaders and millionaires - and people with criminal backgrounds - contested this election. We are seeing the formation of a new Indian caste - a caste of rulers different from the traditional Kshatriya caste - before our very eyes. Like existing castes, the new caste specialises in one occupation: political office. Just as someone became a carpenter or a trader in an earlier era merely through birth, members of India's ruling caste now become leaders of parties, members of legislatures and Cabinet ministers solely because of their parentage. And as with the older castes, there is no need for any qualification for the vocation. Lack of vocational competence never barred Indians from remaining in their caste; likewise, how well one performs in political office is not a criterion for politicians to continue in positions of power. India's parliamentary system requires ministers to be members of the legislature. Party leaders select family members and other loyal followers as candidates for elections, with absolutely no consideration of their abilities to fulfill ministerial responsibilities. The result is Cabinets that are simply not capable of managing the problems confronting the country's national and state governments. Even with the best political leadership, governing India is no easy task. Successive governments staffed with unqualified politicians have failed dismally to carry out the core governmental functions of maintaining law and order, providing the basic services expected of modern societies and promoting economic growth. The country's high-performing private sector has so far masked the failure of the Indian state. In its current form, India's parliamentary system can produce only non-performing, corrupt governments. It rewards ambition, promotes office-at-any-cost politics as well as devalues merit.
Taking away the prize of ministerial office from elected representatives might discourage wealth-maximising politicians from entering politics. It is time, therefore, for India to consider introducing a presidential system of government, which would reduce the scope for 'horse trading' and allow the country's leader to select competent people for Cabinet positions.
The writer is a fellow of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Response to Jug Suraiya’s Article: Behenji and Bane-ji

Response to Jug Suraiya’s Article: Behenji and Bane-ji
Jug Suraiya is way off the mark. He perhaps aims to be the new poster boy of the downtrodden, underprivileged classes a la VP Singh by writing such drivel which not only does an injustice to Ms Mayawati and the Indian electorate but is especially offensive to the Indian middle class.
The thought of Mayawati as prime minister is not repugnant because she is a Dalit. Nor has it anything to do with her being a woman, classy or otherwise. I think the Indian voter finds the thought of any of the pretenders in the numerous regional parties we have equally repugnant as prime ministerial material. That goes for the likes of Sharad Pawar, Sharad Yadav, Paswan, Lalu Prasad, Jayalalita, Deve Gowda, Karat and wife Brinda, Naidu and a whole lot of other pretenders and wannabes.
The reason has nothing to do with caste, class, race, colour, creed or any personal animosity with the above persons. It is simply that these leaders have no base outside their own state. A Dalit from Andhra or Assam or Gujarat may not have even heard of Mayawati. Outside of UP, her party has restricted appeal and that is what irks the thinking voter. That we may actually get a Prime Minister from a hotchpotch conglomeration of small parties, each having differing and in many cases opposing ideologies, each aiming to make good while the going lasts is not a pleasant thought. And the Prime Minister's party may have no more than forty to fifty seats in Parliament. Imagine the compromises, the deals and the pounds of flesh each constituent will extract. That is what we find repugnant Mr. Suraiya. India wants and needs a stable polity.
Let Mayawati’s BSP win at least 150 seats. I don’t think anyone will have a problem of accepting the lady as PM. And that goes for the others too.
Let us also stop this comparison with Obama. It is odious. The American President asked for votes on the basis of performance and not on the colour of his skin. We need to replicate that model and cease asking for votes based on our religious and caste affiliations. That day is still unfortunately a long way off.
As an aside, a scribe with literary pretensions once asked George Bernard Shaw for advice. Shaw’s response was classic. "Your story is a trifle that may have been written by any amateur. Don't make a confounded nuisance of yourself ... don't bother me with this rubbish." Unfortunately, we don’t have a GBS to advise the likes of JS. And the gentleman won’t certainly read my column.

Behenji and Bane-ji
1 Apr 2009, 0010 hrs IST, Jug Suraiya
Why does urban middle-class India hate Mayawati so much? In a recent poll, over 70 per cent of the respondents said that they would be horrified if she were to become India's next prime minister, which not a few political observers feel could be a distinct possibility in the post-poll scenario of forming what almost certainly will have to be another coalition government
. Why does the urban elite find the thought of Prime Minister Mayawati so repugnant? The fact that she is a Dalit should, if anything, be in her favour instead of against her. Post-Obama, among those who like to consider themselves to be India's liberalgentsia casteism is as out of fashion as racism is in the US: it's not just politically incorrect but also socially uncool openly to discriminate against an individual because of her caste, particularly if the caste in question is that of a Dalit. In any case, many years ago didn't we have a respected Dalit defence minister (who almost became prime minister) in Jagjivan Ram?
No, it's not caste that accounts for the urban liberal's aversion to Mayawati. So if it's not caste, is it class? As her nickname suggests, is Mayawati the archetypal 'Behenji', crass and vulgar in her manner of dress and general social deportment? With her 350-kg birthday cakes and diamond jewellery, Mayawati is obviously not a believer in the efficacy of social and sartorial understatement. But then neither is Jayalalithaa, another would-be PM, who is renowned for her larger-than-life cut-outs and a fanatical following which includes supporters who have had her image tattooed on the insides of their eyelids so that they may be able to gaze upon their revered Puratchi Thalaivi even when their eyes are shut. Yet Amma does not invite the same scorn and loathing that Behenji does.
The most common accusation made against Mayawati is that she is corrupt, the so-called 'Taj corridor' case being cited as the most visible example of her venality. But to say that an Indian politician particularly a politician such as Mayawati who has to sustain a large support base is corrupt is to state the obvious. It is like saying that an egg has shell, or a banana a peel. Like the shell of an egg, or the skin of a banana, for an Indian politician with a mass base which has to be sustained through patronage, corruption is a necessary condition for existence. Barring a few exceptions such as Manmohan Singh who has no grassroots base which supports him and which he in turn is obliged to look after corruption seems to be an occupational moral hazard for Indian politicians. What with the Nagarwal case in Indira Gandhi's time, and Bofors during Rajiv's regime, even what is often called the first political family of the land has not escaped the taint of corruption.
So why single out Mayawati for being corrupt? Why such singular animosity towards her? Perhaps the reason is that, more than any other politician today, she represents a full frontal assault on our ingrained social and political hypocrisy, the odour of sanctity with which we seek to surround ourselves. We like to showcase in our public figures the virtues of conspicuous austerity (see how Gandhiji travelled third-class on trains) and holier-than-thou renunciation (see how Soniaji renounced prime ministership).
With her over-the-top style and her unabashed ambition to become prime minister indeed, her party manifesto has that as its single-point agenda Mayawati offends our sense of sanctimoniousness. Instead of mouthing platitudes about aam aadmi and the downtrodden, she has the honesty to be upfront about what she is: a Dalit, and a doubly disadvantaged woman at that, who is hungry for power to reverse the tide of thousands of years of oppression. Mayawati represents a revenge against our righteousness, our hypocritical belief in our moral superiority. Maybe that's why Behenji is our real Bane-ji.