Notions of success and glory in politics are built around perceptions and persuasive communication. On Thursday, the Modi Sarkar completed 731 days in office. Assessments of regimes necessarily dwell between the comparative and the relative—between memories and promises. So how is the Modi Sarkar doing? Depending on who you ask, the answer ranges from the devoted superlative to the agnostic ambivalence to atheistic rejection.
Objectively, the Modi Sarkar is more organised than the UPA—the defining character is the sense of centralised order sustained by 24x7 management of the narrative. The agenda of Prime Minister Narendra Modi determines the party’s politics and the government’s policies. There is little doubt as to who calls the shots—whether it is the alliance with Shiv Sena or the extension for Raghuram Rajan. The overwhelming domination of the Modi factor is unchallenged by the Opposition—most issues raised by the Congress have suffered from “call drop”.
Unlike during the UPA raj—where retail and wholesale corruption often propelled the supply chain of decisions—the Modi Sarkar has been untouched by big-ticket corruption. Surveys by pollsters suggest that the Modi Sarkar is seen as a more efficient regime. The high visibility of the visibly busy schedule of the PM and delivery of more road kilometres per day, more villages being electrified, targeted welfare under the umbrella of Jan Dhan have crafted this perception.
Data suggests the economy is doing better. GDP growth is 7.5 per cent plus. Consumer price inflation is down around 5 per cent. There is talk about green shoots of recovery and of a consumption boom post monsoon and pay commission payoff. Again, data also indicates a flip side story. It could be argued stock indices are yet at 2014 levels, the US dollar is costlier, and that food inflation is hurting the middle class and poor. Most critically, exports are down for 17 months, agrarian distress has worsened, bad loans haunt banks, and job creation is poor.
The intriguing facet of the two-year story is that there is hope, but there is also scepticism about the process, design and the promise of success of the initiatives—among atheists, agnostics and even some devotees. Rarely, if ever, has a regime come to power triggering staggering expectations. Rarer is for a government to unleash a plethora of slogans, ideas and programmes. Make in India, Smart Cities, Skill India, Start Up India, Swachh Bharat, Mudra, Ujwala, Uday etc. are among the many initiatives evangelised by Modi star on the ad blitzkrieg and dot party banners. It is as if the Modi Sarkar has unleashed a parade of start-ups.
To be sure the ideas have been propagated, the intent has been executed, but the big ideas seem to be caught in the roundabouts of government—those familiar with Delhi’s roundabouts would know about that sense of motion and the absence of movement. Aggressive go-getters like Nitin Gadkari and
Piyush Goyal have managed to nudge ahead, but many of the Modi Sarkar ministers find themselves stranded between files.
It was perhaps Foucault who said that power doesn’t necessarily flow vertically. It could also be hijacked by individuals and the system. You could argue that the BJP underestimated the complexity and magnitude of structural dysfunction when it came to power. The faith on babudom was misplaced—there is the risk of taking decisions and then there is the perverse incentive for doing nothing. Further aggravation was wrought by lack of administrative capacity within the party and ministerial team—the inability of many ministers is a constant gripe in party-government discussions. The forthcoming reshuffle offers an opportunity to induct talent—from the states and from outside the political domain.
More than the individual though, the crux of the issue is institutional—that is, the approach to issues of governance. Last week, Gadkari revealed that every cheque issued by the government to a road contractor used to travel across a dozen tables. Typical of Gadkari, he bluntly asked why everyone was interested in “Lakshmi Darshan”. This is just one instance of red-tape within a ministry. Make in India is an eloquent articulation of national ambition. The idea is, however, derailed by permission raj—P V Narasimha Rao dismantled licence raj in 1991, but his successors and babudom kept permission raj alive. How many clearances will Foxconn require to set shop in India? Why must hotels need 120-plus clearances?
The government has often argued that it will speed up clearances. Prakash Javadekar has cleared 2,000 projects in two years—roughly three every day. The question the government must ask is not about speed of clearances but about the need for many clearances. As a test case, Niti Aayog may want to look at one sector—or one project—and do a flow chart on how many tables, ministries, cities does a project travel.
Consider the stance on PSUs. The Modi Sarkar does not subscribe to the idea of privatisation. Fair enough, and there is much literature about the entrepreneurial state and instances of success. But why confuse ownership and management—why not disinvest from the idea of political management of the enterprises?
The Prime Minister has often invoked the theme of Team India. This demands decentralising—dismantling the many ministries that occupy subjects in the domain of states and reverting power back to the states. Sure, there is higher devolution of money to states, but there has also been relocation of expenditure on states. Ideas like Smart Cities and Skill India demand bottom-up empowerment for success.
The historic mandate of 2014 —driven by expectations of quantum change—afforded an opportunity to invest political capital in restructuring the system. Last year, on the first anniversary of the Modi Sarkar, this column argued that the Modi Model requires remodelling of the inefficient and Ambassador Sarkar. The first step must be to rid the roundabouts in the Sarkar. The moot question that needs to be asked is: Should the government be doing all that it is doing? That will be the stepping stone for delivering on the promise of minimum government, maximum governance.
shankkar.aiyar@gmail.com
Shankkar Aiyar Author of Accidental India: A History of the Nation’s Passage through Crisis and Change
To deliver on the promise of minimum government, maximum governance, the Modi Sarkar must ask the moot question: “Should the government be doing all that it is doing?”