By Patricia Mukhim
Prime Minister Narendra Modi skipped Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh during his recent visit to the North East. The Mendipathar railway extension from Dudhnoi was inaugurated from Maligaon in Assam and Modi addressed the people of Mendipathar via video conference. It is true that the PM was on a whirlwind trip as all PMs usually are when they visit the region. Till date we can recall only one prime minister of this country – HD Devagowda who spent five days visiting all the states of the North East and trying to understand their problems amidst intermittent and fitful naps. The energetic Modi on the other hand bypassed three states. Is it because all three are Congress ruled? Is it because the states themselves did not invite him for any significant event? We don’t know but can only surmise that this could have been one of the reasons. The favoured states were Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Tripura. What merits to be noted is that Modi spent quality time with, of all persons, the Tripura Chief Minister, Manik Sarkar, who is credited with putting down insurgency with the pragmatism that few chief ministers have shown. Modi now wants Manik Sarkar to share his (Sarkar’s) recipe for containing “ethnic insurgency,” and to give him a detailed note by December 7. For a prime minister from a party with a Right leaning ideology to pay attention to a chief minister who is a dyed-in-the-wool Communist is a rare thing. Modi has shown that pragmatism trumps politics.
What can be gathered from this short political script therefore is that Modi is also well briefed by a set of advisers he has carefully chosen and vetted, to be his eyes and ears, while visiting the region. The PM knows the credentials of each of the chief ministers and their antecedents; their loyalties and linkages with different insurgent outfits; their performance; their corruption index and a whole host of information that most PM’s would skim over. This is Modi’s strong point. Hence he has perhaps also carefully chosen which states to visit and lend his ears to, and which of the states to keep on hold for now. Nagaland and Manipur are important as far as sorting out the Naga conundrum is concerned. Assam was important for the land swap deal. Tripura has shown it is capable of completing a major power project with possibilities of export to Bangladesh, which is a major achievement. I can’t think of a single project that Meghalaya can show case at this point which is not delayed, and has not run into time and costs overrun. Are we not ashamed of the dishevelled Crowborough Hotel project which is nearly 25 years old? What would Modi say if he was pointed to this mark of corruption and inefficiency?
In Nagaland, Modi never made any financial promises, knowing full well how profligate the state is. Such information has been logged on to Modi’s political DNA. He would have also been cautioned that insurgency and the Naga peace process would be whipped up in good measure for which the government would expect to receive some palliative. Modi promised nothing but spoke of development. In the North East many of us have learnt to act our burlesque of whining about neglect and pointing out that this real and perceived neglect is what pushes young people to take up arms against the state. This stale narrative regurgitates each time a central leader comes visiting. Few people actually point to the vacuum in governance (despite the wherewithal being provided by Delhi) and the trust deficit that the people have vis-a-vis their own elected representatives. Some might question as to why we elect someone we hate; someone with a track record of corruption; someone inefficient; someone without the cerebral quotient to understand real politik. The answer is that under the present system of representative democracy, we the voters have no role in deciding which candidates to set up. Political parties have their choices and inflict the candidates on us. Poverty takes away people’s options. Hence a candidate who pays money gets the votes. Presently since money alone is not enough to win votes we also have candidates using the militia to threaten rivals and coerce people to vote for them; like it or not. How do we the people fight these two powerful demons?
The 2014 Lok Sabha election was in many ways a vote to change the corrupt nature of the political parties and also to demolish the assumption that coalition governments have come to stay. The BJP has proved that it could win a majority on its own and Modi’s government is a good example of seamless government formation process without pandering to the greed of coalition partners. Even the cabinet expansion recently was not about appeasing anyone but about who could deliver better in a particular ministry. That Manohar Parrikkar the Goa chief minister was brought to look after the Raksha Mantra (Defence) is Modi’s way of demonstrating that efficiency and transparency are not mutually exclusive. That he appointed one more Minister of State for Home, Jitendra Singh to assist Rajnath Singh and has left Kiren Rijiju to concentrate on the turbulent North East is also a good move. Rajnath Singh, we are informed, is well-intentioned but lacks the bandwidth to handle controversies with aplomb. It was Jitendra Singh who answered questions in Parliament on the Burdwan blast two days ago. There is an uncanny wisdom in the choice of ministers and the quick change of portfolios also suggests that Modi will not tolerate incompetence.
This government looks serious about sprucing up the delivery system but it has to contend with a moribund bureaucracy that has become the prime reason for this country’s poor development indices. One only has to interface with babus to understand why files travel from desk to desk for no good reason except that each babu wants to cover his backside. Interminable delays in project implementation are not caused by politicians but by babus. You can hardly find a courageous officer who will take the risk to do something he believes is good for the state and stand up to answer for that belief. I met with one such officer (2004 IAS batch) during my recent trip to Chattisgarh. He is the CEO of the New Raipur Township – an ambitious Rs 10,000 crore mega township project over a sprawling 237 sq kms of land. He has been given a free hand to do what is best and has taken a few calculated risks as well. He is an engineer by profession and the villagers with whom he works swear that he is honest and humble and sits with them, drinks their water and eats their food. How I wish we had more such officers especially among our own tribal men and women. Alas! the tribal officers are often the most pompous apart from being highly inefficient. They are also unwilling to walk the extra mile, leave alone to take risks. They lack the spunk to take a project as a challenge to show that they can deliver.
So governance is really more about the bureaucracy than about politicians. The latter can lay down broad policies but the former has to give shape to those policies and test check to see if the schemes are delivering results or if there is need for mid-course correction. Considering that Meghalaya has taken up a plethora of poverty alleviation schemes for several decades should we still have poor Meghalayans? But their numbers are growing and I think the bureaucracy must answer for this. They cannot get away with non-delivery for which politicians are voted out. I have heard many bureaucrats complain about their ‘prone-to-corruption’ ministers. If that is the case should the babus not find a way to expose them? There are ways of doing so provided the bureaucrat is himself above board. But often it is a case of bureaucrats being more venal than their ministers. And Meghalaya has such shining examples!
The point therefore is that politics can no longer be a ‘business as usual’ activity. Modi has changed the rules of the game and demonstrated that people can opt for change. If he can rein in the loud-mouths and the over-zealous pracharaks, he can deliver on his promise. One can only hope that Meghalaya too steps into this trajectory of change. There is much to gain from change and a lot to lose by supporting the status quo!