The problem

NEWLY elected regimes routinely promise new beginnings, outline new priorities, announce time-lines for assessing performance, and demand patience and trust – in short, insist that they are seen and treated differently. Simultaneously, they are savvy enough to remind citizens of accumulated problems, how the previous regime (particularly if it comprised of antagonistic political parties) made ‘unwise’ commitments that need to be honoured and thus foregound the need for sacrifice.

At the dawn of independence, Jawaharlal Nehru promised a ‘tryst with destiny’. Years later, his daughter talked of ‘garibi hatao’. Yet, even in those supposedly simpler times marked by a greater consensus on goals and values and lower cynicism about the chosen instrumentalities (parties/bureaucracy) of transformation, societal needs and expectations far outstripped performance. Nevertheless, despite continuing poverty and widespread social conflict, even the imposition of a national emergency (1975-77), public discourse remained imbued with a degree of optimism. Revisiting ‘An Agenda for India’ (Seminar, July 1980) makes for instructive reading.

The mood in 2004 is different. With the recent Parliamentary elections turning in yet another mixed mandate and no single party or pre-poll alliance succeeding in securing a majority, there is some apprehension about the direction of public policy. But even as doubts persist about the stability/longevity of the current arrangement, a few elements seem clear – the need to firmly move away from policies and programmes which endanger social cohesion and peace and rethink the details of the reform process to make the economy more inclusive and caring even while striving for more rapid growth.

Capturing the new raj dharma is the Common Minimum Programme. It not only promises greater social inclusion and equity (inter-personal, inter-regional) but higher growth through reworking priorities and involving more actors, particularly from civil society. As a wish list, it is unexceptionable. What is missing are details of the how, the pathway to desired change.

It is somewhat intriguing how routinely debates on change concentrate on the big picture, restate foundational principles as if this by itself would prove sufficient to ensure an otherwise evasive ‘political will’. Few analysts examine the details – both financial and organizational – of programmes designed to meet desired social objectives. Ever since India introduced economic reforms in the early nineties, partially removing the strangulating regime of controls and restrictions, increasing operating space for private capital and exploring external markets as a stimulus for growth – what schematically has been described as the liberalization, privatization and globalization model – there has been more heated debate on the merits or otherwise of the ideological shift than on procedures and instrumentalities.

Even though the earlier understanding about planning and state directed/controlled development has lost much of its sheen and private entrepreneurs are no longer regarded with suspicion, bureaucratic stranglehold remains secure. Proposals to reduce or alter the role of the state – in fields ranging from the economic sectors to health and education – get trapped in the old state versus market discourse, more so when foreign capital or players are involved. It is disconcerting to see elements of both the Right and the Left raising the bogey of elitism and imperialism with such alarming frequency. Given the reliance of the UPA regime on the Left Front, such obduracy cannot be explained away as mere posturing.

It is crucial to not forget that the UPA constituents and the Left Front received differential support from the poor and the marginalised. Consequently, the Left’s insistence on redirecting public investment towards meeting the needs of the poor is well taken. What remains unexplained is the dissonance between Left policies in states that it controls and what its advocates present as desirable nationally.

The paradox is that even as all proposals to free the market, deepen reforms and involve private players are resisted, demands to dramatically increase funding to neglected sectors – economic and social – continue to escalate. Worse, the tendency of evading discussion on resource constraints and fiscal deficit, dismissing it as illusionary, is further buttressed by a refusal to advance concrete proposals to increase efficiency of resource use. It is questionable whether a proliferation of coordination committees can create the needed political consensus to move forward.

A similar captivity to earlier modes of thinking and action seems prevalent in the spheres of education and culture. Without minimising the need to move away from the BJP-NDA politics of social divisiveness, creating fresh and deeper categories of inclusion and exclusion around ethnicity, caste and gender, is focusing primarily on ‘desaffronisation’ and ‘detoxification’ an adequate answer? The recently concluded Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) meeting in mid-August remained mired in discussing the merits or otherwise of history textbooks and the need to weed out RSS sympathisers, spending far less energy on the need to revise guidelines for educational programmes currently too rigid in their formats to permit context specific modulation and address problems of quality.

Equally, take the heated but infructuous debate on reservations – whether quotas should be extended to the Muslim minority, caste-based reservations in the private sector, or women’s reservation in Parliament and legislatures. Despite numerous studies on the efficacy or otherwise of our affirmative action programmes, attention remains firmly focused on a quota based solution and less on improving our training programmes to enhance the competitiveness of the hitherto excluded.

Even as the first two estates of Indian democracy – the legislature and the executive – stand challenged, enjoying diminishing public support and legitimacy, the growing reliance on the other two pillars – judiciary and media – to ensure performance is equally worrying. Are constitutional authorities, with significant assistance from the media, now usurping the legitimate space of the legislature? Are we not pushing essentially political problems into the domain of the judiciary and is this healthy for democratic functioning? It is difficult given the laws on contempt to closely scrutinise the working of the judiciary, but to not discern the growing influence of the corporate world on the media, the ‘studied’ upfronting of certain kinds of news and views, and thus treat the media at face value as a purveyor of truth, is naive.

The recent trend of involving civil society actors – NGOs and stakeholder groups – both due to a distrust of political parties and bureaucracy and partly because such is current global fashion in the planning and delivery of social sector programmes, also remains disappointing. Is this because while we pay obeisance to form, setting up numerous advisory committees drawing in individuals from NGOs and social movements, on the ground there is little autonomy of action and voluntary groups continue to be treated as service delivery agencies rather than partners? It equally needs to be admitted that civil society proposals on how to meet social objectives often remain limited to underlying the need for greater participation and transparency – setting up new committees and expert groups, only adding layers to an already bloated implementation chain.

Finally, the continued stonewalling of demands for transparency and accountability. Relevant data and information either remains classified or much too difficult to obtain, despite the passage of freedom of information bills in many states (not the Centre). The recent conflict over the sharing of river waters between Punjab and Haryana becomes difficult to comprehend, in part because data on the availability of waters remains classified.

Establishing new priorities and modes of delivery and intervention thus constitutes a formidable challenge. If creating consensus around the CMP represents one end of the spectrum, imagining and putting into operation structures of delivery and performance is another. It is clear that we need to shed old shibboleths as also shift discussion on public choices away from the obsession with abstract, foundational principles. Far too often a search for the best becomes an enemy of the good. It is important at this stage to evolve workable and pragmatic solutions to some of our most pressing problems. This issue of Seminar is a small step in that direction.