What ails India? - "We the people" or faulty structures.
The question that repeatedly haunts us is what is
wrong with India when there is so much right happening around us. Why are path-breaking reforms that were pending for decades, resisted after they are legislated?
The backlash to the most recent much-needed Military reforms, preceded by the farmers' bill, labour reforms, etc. are perhaps symptoms of a disease that is yet
to be fully understood. Its contours are obliquely discussed in debates both in
print and social media.
The first basic question is how many of us
understand the difference between representative democracy and participatory /direct
democracy? For the record, we are a representative democracy where the elected
representatives are expected to debate, provide inputs from their
constituencies and enable the passing of legislation that push India into the next
century. That the parliament does not function and that all political parties
play to the gallery, are there for all to see. But there is no angst, peaceful
marches, or even vandalism to show our rejection of petty politics on display. Ironically,
one hears seasoned journalists, academics, and educated commentators state
that not enough consultations with the people have been done and hence the
backlash. Really? On a variety of complex social, economic, industrial, and military legislations or executive decisions, can we have open consultations
with a billion people-largely uninformed due to literacy/education-related
constraints? No.
Another
politician claimed that no consultations were held with the State Govt on the
subject of Agnipath but went blank when he was confronted with the fact that
Defence is not on the concurrent list. The entire Kargil review committee
recommendations were handled in Delhi and major structural reforms such as the creation of the tri-service command at Port Blair and the Strategic Forces
Command were executed by the PM on the advice of the Group of Ministers. Had
they been open to public scrutiny none of these would have been established.
That is why we have a representative form of
democracy. Here lies the next challenge. Due to the very nature of politics
right from independence, sane, educated, well-meaning and knowledgeable
citizens do not wish to participate in the money-muscle power-driven elections.
Even the most talented, patriotic, and affluent citizen cannot hope to win an
election. Criminals and those who impress the poor with material or political promises of
freebies will ensure that outstanding technocrats never succeed. Hence the
preferred route of Rajya Sabha for the truly deserving.
Now, coming to “we the people.” Those of us who
are educated, comfortable, and well-endowed while participating incessantly on social media and rarely in print, do not bother to vote. The only means to
eliminate criminals and frauds from being elected is to participate with the EC
to stem the tide of self-serving, corrupt, or even dynastic politicians. Holding
the political party accountable for noncompliance with manifestos and rejecting
freebies with severe fiscal and financial liabilities on much-needed public
funds are essential features for reforms at the people’s end. We have a
responsibility that we have willfully shunned, as we the people do not
necessarily wish to participate in the process of finding the right people to
represent us. The media does not believe in exposing our politicians to well-informed debates.
The latest reform concerning the Military is being
debated with elected representatives who neither know the ranks and structure
of the Military nor even the difference between recruiting soldiers and the
selection process of officers. Just recently an educated politician referred to
the former Army Chief Gen JJ Singh as Major. But he waxed eloquent on the
reforms perse.
Veterans who participate in debates are guilty of
indirectly accusing the present military leadership (who are the only accountable
people for operations), of the most elementary consequences of such reforms: as
if the knowledge resides only in them. By so doing in public, they are casting
aspersions on the competence of the serving community. For the record, they all
begin their argument with how timely such a bold reform is. But……and this is
precisely the first red flag for creating confusion that could affect the
morale of the serving community; when the serving Chiefs have repeatedly
assured that they will plug loopholes as they progress.
Perhaps
such senior veterans were too busy in their careers and forgot to mentor and
train their subordinates who now occupy decision-making positions. You reap as
you sow.
The most important lesson is that, when a
decision is taken, after consultations with stakeholders and the details are
not available to the veterans, the best way is to communicate with the
current military leadership directly. That would be of immense value than
debating with an anchor on a TRP hunt and a panel of bumbling politicians.
Mr K Subramanyam, the doyen of the strategic
community till the 1990s and the Chairman of the Kargil Review Committee, once
said, “The politician enjoys power without responsibility. The bureaucrat
wields power without accountability and the Military assumes responsibility
without direction.”
The recommendations of the Arun Singh committee
report were to specifically address this lacuna by integrating the services
with the MOD and creating a single-point adviser to the RM/PM on matters
military through CDS. It took 18 years to begin the process and create
structures. We must learn to be patient with this newborn setup. The new CDS
is likely to assume duty soon. We are moving along the right path.
But India needs significant reforms in administration, police, and judicial sectors along with labour, land, and agriculture to take her to the
next level of eminence in international politics. There are enough lessons
learnt to attempt all of these if there is a will.
