Recently, a group of 40 environmentalists and scientists wrote to the prime minister, urging him to drop the Char Dham road project meant to widen 900 km of the hill roads connecting four sacred spots
in the upper reaches of western Himalayas. The natural fate of this letter, like that of several others,
is predictable.
Concerned and informed citizens have been approaching the government on several occasions with words of caution, imploring it to review, reconsider or even drop outlandish proposals, or to act firmly against obnoxious tendencies. During the CAA agitations, several well-meaning citizens repeatedly voiced concerns and anxiety about the consequences of the legislation that goes against the secular credentials and liberal traditions of this nation.
When the journalist Gauri Lankesh was killed in what seemed like an act in a series of ‘silencing assassinations’, intellectuals and journalists had sought firm action. Mob lynching that had elicited widespread criticism saw several groups urging the Centre to act. The questionable project to remodel the Central Vista of the national capital is yet another instance where informed citizens have responded with great concern and pain. The project violates a settled sensitivity. The matter is now before the Supreme Court. If experience is anything to go by, the government will have its way. Reconsideration, responsiveness and accommodation seem to be archaic words in the new lexicon. That indeed signals a major fault line in our polity that does not augur well.
Nobody questions the government’s sovereign decision-making powers and the need to be firm. But firmness of conviction is not synonymous with obstinacy of power. There are established processes to translate public policy into executive action. As a rule, the view from the top is always distorted and tends to gloss over details. And governments get used to the visual distortions when they view the world outside through the tinted glass of power. Indian bureaucracy is adept in suggesting technically correct and convenient solutions to an already colour-blind political executive. Socially beneficial and balanced decisions are always the outcome of the bureaucratic adherence to letter, leavened by the spirit of political realism by leaders with an ear to the ground.
However, no human decision can be faultless. There are always aspects that escape the decision-making process. Other compulsions and considerations might force hasty decisions that overlook crucial and sensitive dimensions. It is to ensure this calibration that all laws are discussed threadbare in Parliament, where diverse views are expressed and duly considered before passing legislation. The tendency to short-circuit Parliamentary scrutiny and take the Ordinance route is fraught with the danger of skewed legislations. Though the Executive can decide on programmes within the approved provisions, such decisions too are well within the scrutiny of Parliament.
However, it has to be admitted that in extraordinary times like this, the government will have to take expedient decisions bypassing normal procedures. It is precisely in such times that letters and petitions from independent intellectuals and concerned citizens have to be valued as a major source of information and insight for corrective action. Unfortunately, the government’s response to such representations has been one of annoyance, if not outright apathy. In extreme cases, such people are even dubbed as the agents of vested interests.
Sometimes they are ridiculed as ‘development blockers’. They are treated as ‘the other voice’. If they are always treated with such preconceived notions and their credentials are doubted, then it is only natural for the government to be always reactive, defensive and self-righteous. Nothing can be more tragic than the reluctance to recognise truth or treating truth as falsehood. Sadly, this preset denial mode blocks valuable inputs for the government. Gradually, when citizens lose faith in the corrective capability and responsiveness of the government, their frustration and helplessness will lead to alienation and cynicism.
There is no accepted institutionalised mechanism in the government to offer these voices a decent reception and provide meaningful and honourable consideration. Routinely, such letters will be marked to the concerned ministry where it will be ‘examined’ and replies framed reiterating the existing decision. The well-meaning cries of concern thus become wasted words in the apathetic wilderness of the government.
All suggestions may not be acceptable. All decisions may not be reversible. But the citizen’s right to share his concerns cannot be denied. It is imperative to create a statutory body that must systematically approach the views of concerned citizens with an open mind and advise the government suitably. Governments should have the wisdom and largeness of heart to act upon such recommendations. The citizen is sharing his/her concerns not with the political party in power but with the Government of India. Stubborn adherence to decisions is not a mark of wisdom, nor is willingness to correct a mark of weakness. A government for the people should not fear to negotiate, though it may not negotiate out of fear.
K Jayakumar
Ex-Kerala Chief Secretary & Ex-VC, Thunchath Ezhuthachan Malayalam Varsity
(k.jayakumar123@gmail.com)