Backpage

FOUR and a half decades back, when Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri appealed to the ‘better-off’ in the country to ‘miss one meal a weak’ in symbolic solidarity with the millions in distress, no one tweeted. Nor was there any outcry over restrictions on the number of guests at wedding receptions. If anything, this gesture and the slogan ‘Jai Kisan, Jai Jawan’ continue to occupy space in the national imagination, reflective of the widespread respect enjoyed by the prime minister and his government. Equally that, following Jawaharlal Nehru’s fascination with heavy industry and somewhat grandiose ‘temples of modern India’, Shastri’s policy shift towards agriculture and rural employment came as a welcome reprieve, more in sync with the economic realities of the time.

Cut to present days. The rather public admonition of S.M. Krishna and Shashi Tharoor for residing in five-star hotels while awaiting suitable official accommodation, or the demand that members of the cabinet as also Congress politicians travel by economy class in planes, forego part of their salary and institute other austerity measures has, by contrast, been widely seen as a public relations disaster, reflective of the empty symbolism associated with the present Congress party, if not all politicians. Despite the austere image of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and party President Sonia Gandhi, far from occupying the moral high ground, the move is seen more as a diversionary tactic, an attempt to turn attention away from the wasteful expenditure and corruption marking government programmes and the lifestyles of the politically powerful.

Is this only a reflection of changed times? Can a nation, which for close to two decades has been vigorously promoting a new consumption culture based on middle class aspirations and the need to fulfil their pent-up demand, highlighting how modern India is now in tune with global trends, suddenly shift gear and sermonize about the virtues of Gandhian simplicity? Little surprise that what is in itself a valid call to public representatives to tighten their belts and eschew ostentatious expenditure, particularly in a period of drought and recession, generates cynical disbelief. Few are willing to credit it with any authenticity

This is not to argue that symbolism, particularly in public life, does not matter. One reason that Ratan Tata or Narayan Murthy, to mention just two names, are treated with greater respect than say a Vijay Mallya, is in part because of their reserved and austere lifestyles. It does not seem to matter that Mallya may be an equally ‘performing’ entrepreneur. Similarly, an A.K. Antony usually receives greater public approval over say a Kamal Nath, possibly because he is seen as more austere (and less corrupt). Here too, the relative efficiency in their handling of ministerial duties does not alter public perceptions.

So if the government wants its austerity drive to be seen as credible and salutary, it might be better served if its leaders cut back on their inflated claims on large bungalows or a retinue of security personnel and cars, all incidentally on public funds. Leaders of political parties might equally want to consider a serious reduction in the way they go about elections – chartering planes and helicopters, commandeering trains and buses to ferry supporters to public rallies, printing multi-coloured posters, and so on. Moreover, this should become not merely a temporary measure in emergency conditions but a long-term effort at altering the culture of politics. Equally important is the need to institute a shift in policies, reduce if not eliminate corruption, and give greater importance to improving efficiency in programme implementation rather then focus on deriving partisan political mileage from state schemes.

That the NREG scheme, arguably the UPAs star programme for addressing rural distress, suffers from some serious shortcomings, has been pointed out not just by the CAG review but also by many of the activists and experts responsible for designing and pushing through the scheme. Yet, our minister for rural development and panchayati raj seems more concerned about naming the panchayat bhavans constructed on NREG funds after Rajiv Gandhi. Worse, despite knowing that successful implementation crucially depends on the cooperation of state governments, many of which are not run by the Congress and thus unlikely to view this attempt favourably, he remains undaunted. He has even stacked the NREG council with his party functionaries. So, is he serious that the scheme works well or merely signal loyalty to party bosses?

And we wonder why conspicuous announcements of austerity by the government generate mirth, if not derision. Or why, of the 52 bye-elections in as many as 13 states, the Congress won a mere 10 seats (15 if we include its UPA allies).

Harsh Sethi