Coping with our millions

Coping with our millions

The Economist thinks India could do with 20 or 30 more states to take administrative care of a projected population of 1.6 billion by 2050. The theory being that smaller states will be better administered and run for the benefit of its people.

 The last round of new states were all created during BJP- led NDA rule, over nine years ago, the last time bold decisions were taken in  Government, inclusive of India going overtly nuclear. There were many other visionary moves made then, amongst them the hugely beneficial Golden Quadrilateral roads project .

The UPA, by way of contrast, in its two consecutive terms in power has effectively ruined the economy. On the plus side, it has managed to sign the Civil Nuclear Deal, and has passed FDI in single and multi-brand retail. And these too are being implemented at a snail’s pace.

Meanwhile,  Uttarakhand has  prospered, relatively speaking, since being hived off Uttar Pradesh. Chattisgarh too has done much better since being carved out of Madhya Pradesh. In a rarity since Independence, Chattisgarh, which suffers from a virulent Maoist menace in some of its districts, has nevertheless created a brand new capital at New or Naya Raipur.

Jharkhand, in terminal political flux since birth, has not fared that well, despite being very rich in natural resources. But the “rump” Bihar, is starting to revive, even though it is seeking “special” status from the Centre. The Economist was essentially writing in the context of the persistent agitation for a separate Telengana, the demand for which tends to hot up around election time.

Earlier, then Chief Minister Mayawati of Uttar Pradesh had suggested the quartering of the state for better governance, but the notion has since faded from public notice. And a long time ago, grass roots empowerment at the Panchayat level was mooted by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. That too has not made much progress over the years. The only fitful votary of Panchayati Raj these days is maverick Congressman Mr. Mani Shankar Iyer.

And Mr. Rahul Gandhi did mention the need to bring in the Pradhans into the political system because 4000 elected MLAs and 700 MPs were disconnected from the people. He did this in his maiden address to the CII on April 4^th, 2013.

He spoke admiringly of the voting in the primary system in the US election process as well. And yes, if this can be implemented before this country sinks further into the mire, it might indeed prove beneficial. However, Rahul Gandhi is not very good at implementing his vision, and he is ignoring the nuts and bolts role played by various caucuses and interest groups even in the US.

But will smaller sizing of everything not put up costs? Ditto including the third and fourth tier and who knows whom else into the politico/governance machinery?

Will it not replicate hundreds of  administrative units all busy living off the sarkari gravy train?

Looking at the gargantuan and prohibitively expensive size of state and central Governments with its ancillaries and adjuncts, the answer does not seem encouraging. But some things could indeed get better.

At the city and municipal level, it is now revealed, Delhi is collecting more property taxes since the trifurcation of the MCD. And the number of property tax payers has also risen. The NDMC too has reached an all-time high in tax collection in 2012-13, up some 33%.

Hopefully, all this benefit to the municipal coffers will translate into better civic facilities, particularly greater cleanliness, efficient garbage collection, recycling, and/or its safe disposal, more parking lots including the modern multi-storied kind, rather than rough and ready fields commandeered to the purpose.  

In the case of Delhi there are of course, overlaps between the state, the municipalities and the centre, and so it is difficult to know and appreciate just what comes under which authority.

But building more municipal organisations should not result in just a larger number of municipal employees doing as little as possible for their monthly salaries.

While the efficacy of smaller administrative units both at state and municipal level, localised, and manned by people who live in them, should, in theory, provide better results, we have to wait and see what happens, particularly after the first flush.

The key seems to be in the ability to raise and deploy resources on its own instead of waiting on a central or superior authority elsewhere to allocate them. Plus, of course, a natural focus on the needs of the state now rendered more homogenous because of its regional identity. And the untangling of the multiple layers of decision- making, from the districts and blocks all the way up to the state level and on to the centre.

The  proof of the pudding  will have to be when the devolution and smaller unit structures actually spend most of the money they generate on the state, city, municipality, districts, blocks and panchayats. And not on themselves.

But government anywhere is not very good at being lean or productive. So smaller states , municipalities etc. or not, the key to long term benefit is in  having a bias towards shrinking government size to its essentials, and handing over all peripheral functions to the private sector.

This is precisely the Narendra Modi style of governance and it has worked well so far only in Gujarat.

The private sector works to market principles, and this, of course, may not suit people used to  doles, hand-outs and subsidies. It also means the downsizing of the gravy train mentality, both in government and amongst the people. 

Otherwise smaller units could mean an opportunity to secure a position because there are more of them made available.

And the same old corruption brought closer to home.

(958 words)

April 4^th, 2013

Gautam Mukherjee