Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Only affirmative collective action can save India - www.lokrajandolan.org.


http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/arvindkejriwal/2473/53398/only-affirmative-collective-action-can-save-india.html


Wednesday, May 06, 2009 at 10 : 36

Only affirmative collective action can save India

32IBNLiveShareGoogle Buzz
Despite aggressive "Go out and vote" campaigns and thousands of Mumbaikars thronging Mumbai roads to express their anger at 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the voter turn-out in Mumbai actually decreased rather than going up. It is easy to blame the middle-class as lazy. But a deeper analysis would show that the people actually do not see a connection between voting and a solution to their problems. In the last sixty years, almost every political party and leader has been tried. But things have gone from bad to worse. People do not see elections bringing any change. They vote and then plead before the same people the next five years.
For example, can you as a citizen do anything if a school teacher does not turn up to teach at your local government school? If a doctor in a government hospital does not attend to patients? If a ration-shopkeeper is siphoning off ration supplies? If a policeman does not respond despite repeated complaints? If the engineer colludes with the contractor and makes a road which wears off within a few days? If a sweeper does not turn up for work and your area remains dirty and unhygienic?
All we can do is complain to higher authorities. In all likelihood, these individuals don't care to act on our complaint. In short, we have no control over the teachers who don't turn up to teach at government schools, or janitors who sweep the road, the ration-shopkeeper, the government-hired contractors, the politician, the policemen or the bureaucrat.
And that's the reason why, 62 years after Independence, there is so much illiteracy, there is so much poverty. So many people die of simple diseases like TB and so many others go hungry while roads are broken and cities are filthy.
This has to change. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to give complete power to the people. He stood for swaraj. He said, "Twenty people sitting at the Centre cannot run true democracy. That should be run from the bottom by the people from each village...The centre of power today is located in Delhi, Calcutta or Bombay i.e. in big cities. I want to distribute it amongst seven lakh villages in India."
But this is not what we got after Independence. Swaraj is about giving direct control over all local affairs to people's assemblies - mohalla sabhas in urban areas and gram sabhas in rural areas. These sabhas would have complete control over funds, functions, functionaries and land in their area.
These assemblies would meet every month and take decisions regarding all issues in their area. Decisions taken by these assemblies would have to be implemented by elected representative and bureaucrats. People's assemblies would have the power to recall elected representatives and penalize bureaucrats if they act against the will of the people.
The people's assemblies would have complete control over all public funds spent in their area. The people would have power to spend public funds in such a manner that no one starves, no one is homeless, no one is illiterate and no one goes without adequate health care in that area. Why should the schemes related to our lives be made in Delhi or state capitals by some politicians and bureaucrats who have no clue about our problems? The people should have the power to plan for their own lives and surroundings.
Therefore, the people, through people's assemblies should directly manage all affairs of their area, which can be managed at their level. Only such issues which cannot be managed at their level will go to higher levels of government.
If a majority of gram sabhas and mohalla sabhas in a state vote for a particular issue, the state government should implement it even if it requires legislative amendments. That would be true democracy -government by the people. This would be swaraj. This is self-rule. This is Lok Raj.
This is how it used to be since the Buddha's times until 1830. The villages were run by the people assemblies. Those who invaded India merely took control of the central government. Villages continued to be governed by village assemblies. But after 1830, the British demolished this system and introduced collectorates taking away all power from the people handing it to the British bureaucrats. Unfortunately, we did not restore the powers back to the people after Independence.
Today, in many countries like the US, Switzerland, Brazil etc, people collectively take decisions on all local issues in people's assemblies.
For urban areas, the Central Government recently sent a draft Nagar Raj Bill to all state governments, which seeks to create mohalla sabhas in urban areas, but does not give any power to them. After extensive consultations with various people and experts on this issue including Anna Hazare, Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy, Prashant Bhushan, S C Behar etc, a redraft of this Bill has been prepared to give complete control over local affairs of an area to mohalla sabhas. For Delhi, this Bill needs to be passed by Parliament. The important points and the complete draft of this Bill are available atwww.lokrajandolan.org.
Swaraj Abhiyan is a campaign by several eminent citizens, NGOs, groups etc who are encouraging people to demandswaraj from the parties in these elections. They are encouraging people to vote for that party, which will bring in necessary laws to give swaraj.

"GovernMint in India." - T.S.R. Subramanian, Former Cabinet secretary

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124279208675238197.html#mod=article-outset-box
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 As of 12:55 PM (GMT +5:30 hours)INDIA

India's Greatest Failure

By PAUL BECKETT

NEW DELHI -- Since he retired as India's most senior civil servant in 1998, T.S.R. Subramanian likes to say that he can be spotted frequently on a golf course. Recently, using a stenographer (four decades climbing the bureaucratic ladder means you don't learn to type) he put his mind to a question that appears to nag him as he marches the fairways: What has gone wrong in official India?


Paul Beckett

It is a timely question, given that we are at the start of a new administration. And it is one Mr. Subramanian is eminently qualified to address, given his rise through the Indian Administrative Service to become Cabinet secretary under three prime ministers. It is also one he is eminently capable of fudging, given that same resume and the many vested interests he might feel obliged to protect.

Fortunately, he takes the attitude that if you're going to go to the trouble of thinking and writing, why coat it in gloss? The result is a pithy tome, almost a Victorian-style treatise, called "GovernMint in India." It assesses whether the Indian government is up to par when measured against the mandate of the Indian constitution. His verdict, if I may paraphrase: If the Indian government were a golfer, it would score quadruple bogeys on every hole, cheat on the score card, then grab the stakes the other players had bet with.

The average Indian, Mr. Subramanian says in a chat over lunch, just wants the basics from his government. "I don't think Indians care about disparity but they want a minimum standard of living, food, a place to stay and clothing," he says. These are all things that the government has singularly failed to provide to the masses in the 62 years since independence.

“Since no part of the Establishment has an interest in punishing corruption, trying for a more sweeping solution quickly leads into the realm of blind hope.”
Why is that so? We start with history. The British may have committed many atrocities here but Mr. Subramanian speaks admiringly about the efficiency with which they ran the civil service and the caliber of those who inhabited it. An important factor in their success, however, was the fact that their political masters were thousands of miles away and unable to interfere.

Then India minted its own constitution. The well-meaning framers, he says, failed to appreciate what would happen when the civil service and politicians operated in close quarters without significant checks -- legal, administrative or otherwise -- on how far the legislative class could influence the executive.

Thus the framework was set for a steady, and alarming, transformation in the balance of power and the purpose of government. Politicians, unleashed by the knowledge that they are very unlikely ever to be called to account for their actions, have come to dominate the civil service and twist it for their own gain.


T.S.R. Subramanian

The executive, staffed by bright men and women schooled in the limits of their authority, have proven no match. As he writes: "Sadly, many of the middle-level officers, with growing children to educate, elderly parents to look after, cannot bear the constant pressure, and buckle; they either switch off and become irrelevant to the system, or they join the politician, and all is well thereafter!"

The judiciary comes in for equally scathing criticism for its failure to bring politicians to heel and to exempt bad behavior that ordinary citizens would be jailed for. I sense no love lost between Mr. Subramanian and his brethren on the bench. At one point, he offers a theory as to the root of these judicial shortcomings. Judges and bureaucrats traditionally stemmed from the same English-educated class of graduates, he says. And "most people who came to the judiciary were people who failed the civil service exams."

Where does all this leave us? "The political class," he writes, "is the only one which is not constrained by any checks or balances, follows no effective code of conduct and considers itself a king or an emperor, while extolling the virtues of democracy." In person, he puts it more starkly: In the last government, there were three Cabinet-level ministers making money. Yes, that kind of money. And nothing was done about it.

GovernMint is a narrow polemic that doesn't go much beyond Mr. Subramanian's purpose of a governance scorecard. He is the first to admit that it doesn't seek to provide big answers partly, I suspect, because that is really where the hard thinking begins.

He does offer a few practical suggestions: Suspend politicians facing criminal charges, as civil servants are suspended pending trial. Establish a fast-track court just for government officials so that cases are resolved expeditiously. Persuade judges to make an example of a few political wrongdoers as a public flogging for the rest.

Since no part of the Establishment has an interest in punishing corruption, trying for a more sweeping solution quickly leads into the realm of blind hope. Mr. Subramanian believes the best way to retake the government and re-bend it to the will of the people is through what he rather surprisingly terms "a messiah."

"Could one hope that there will be a new messiah, who will rise from the political class, to deliver the nation?" he asks in the final paragraph of the book. At a book launch party last week, some members of a panel filled with The Great And The Good (Retd.) of Delhi lambasted that notion, suggesting it was hopelessly naïve.

The criticism seems to have stuck. Over lunch a few days later, Mr. Subramanian suggests that no one else on the panel had any better answers. And he makes a point of explaining that he did not mean "a person falling from the sky" but someone from within the system with the will and the public backing to cleanse it.

Does that person exist today? Maybe, he says, we just don't know yet. Maybe it's Rahul Gandhi, maybe its Nitish Kumar. One thing, he says, the public is starting to send a message with the election's focus on development that if that person emerges, he or she will have mass backing. Of course, the flip side is also true: "This government, if it doesn't look into development, will bite the dust and anger against the political class will come."

—Paul Beckett is the WSJ's bureau chief in New Delhi
MORE IN INDIA SUBSECTION
EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder Reprints