VIEW POINT

Change for Better

We have to begin the debate from the basic premise that India is a democracy. Delegation of power to the grassroots is enshrined in the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution. Sadly, Delhi presents a case where this directive of the Constitution has been violated since the inception of the Republic.

Growth of democratic institution should have been first in the city and moved from here to the other parts of the country. But that has not happened. Delhi had to wait till 1993 to get the legislative assembly. The Capital is still waiting for statehood.

Voices are being raised against the grant of statehood to the city. Those raising the issue are basing their debate on the premise that the quality of living in the city has gone down ever since an elected government came at the helm. I propose to oppose this motion.

We have to first define the quality or standard of living. Does standard of living mean uninterrupted power and water supply in a few posh colonies? It is much beyond that.

For me there is improvement in standard of living, if a place provides livelihood to masses, gives them a shelter with disease free environment to live and two square meals with some money still left for luxury of a fashionable set of dress for himself/herself and the family. Delhi in the 1990s has made steady progress in that direction.

This has been largely possible due to the existence of democratically elected governments at the helm, more so the Congress government which is wedded to the ideology of Rajiv Gandhi—Power to people at the grassroots. I may be charged of bias since I am part of the system and belong to the Congress party. But I am part of the system and member of the Congress party because I believe in the system and the ideology of the Congress party.

I could have enjoyed a flourishing medical practice without the risk of getting jobless every five years. It is this fear of getting jobless which best describes the principle of accountability to people. Going back to people for their support requires one to present a report of the work done in the past five years. If your book were blank, so would be your ballot papers.

This accountability does not exist with the government, which is run by bureaucrats, the one that the Lieutenant Governor ran in the Capital in pre-1993 days. The permanent executive has no fear of people and operates from the protective cover of administrative laws. It is very difficult to get action taken against a bureaucrat for government plans of public service gone awry. The people would punish the political executive for the non-implementation of the plan but they do not have the means to make the permanent executive accountable to them.

Making the bureaucrats accountable is also very difficult for the political executive. The problem is more acute in a city like Delhi, which has multiplicity of authority. An official can always come back and tell the Minister that you are not authorised to take decisions on such and such matter. The pace of development in Capital has been somewhat slowed due to the existence of multiplicity of authority and it was time to give full powers of governance to the city government, including those of revenue and law & order. This, however, does not mean that Delhi has not witnessed development under the elected government. In fact, development started only after the elected government took seat. Before that was status quoism. Delhi has had a phenomenal growth in the past decade. Delhi has managed to cope with this growth because they had elected government. Development in last 10 years has not been just repair and re-repair of posh colony roads but building new ones in the upcoming colonies. New network of sewerlines has been laid and the latest has been the setting-up of the housing corporation for the economically weak. This corporation proposes work where the DDA failed all these years.

And mind you, the bureaucrats, hardly accountable to the elected representatives, control the DDA. If there has been mushrooming of unauthorised colonies, the larger share of the blame has to be shared by the DDA. It failed to keep pace with development and demands of housing. This led to a situation where people were left to buy shelter from unscrupulous elements. And this sale and purchase of government land was done with aid and abatement of the DDA officials. The local politician involved was forced to account for his act by the people to arrange amenities for them. But no action, whatsoever, has been taken to make the DDA and the other government official accountable for this act, which was totally bad in law.

The quality of living has not gone down in the past eight years. The spadework is still on and it would be some more time and grant for some more power, which would see fruition of the efforts.

- Dr. S.C. Vats
(Courtesy : The Pioneer)