The new Prime Minister has the benefit of the outsider's gaze. He must use it to reshape Delhi — at least the operative part of Government in Delhi — in his image and in line with his priorities
Through his election campaign Prime Narendra Modi made much of his ‘outsider’ status and the fact that he was a stranger to the seductive, siren-like power centres of New Delhi. He was not from the capital, not part of its charmed circle, of its half-broken, two-thirds crony and entirely incestuous politics. It was a line he used to devastating effect and it struck a chord with common citizens, especially those far removed from New Delhi and wondering if this city even understood them, let alone represented them.
Mr Modi went back to this theme at his first Independence day address as Prime Minister. He spoke of being an ‘outsider’, of watching the intrigues and the gaming of Delhi by its ‘elite’, an elite he had nothing to do with and which had carved up the Government into ‘jagirs’ — factions and fiefdoms — and ceased to let it operate ‘organically’.
There were multiple messages Mr Modi was sending with that reference. First, he was speaking of different lobbies and cartels of hangers — on that capture sectors of the economy, departments of government and, inevitably, individual politicians. The surest sign of trouble is when a Minister wants to appoint an adviser for “a token salary of one rupee”. One has seen this so often in New Delhi; it leads to the politician and the so-called adviser milking the ministry dry and turning it into a personal empire.
Second, Mr Modi was referring to inter-departmental rivalries — these can be institutional or individual, with bureaucratic or political quarrels and egos playing their part. These have led to situations where good measures and advances in policy are interrupted because two people or two offices or two ministries refuse to agree, compromise or surrender space.
It happened in the UPA Government with the slew of free trade agreements that India signed. Depending on the individual bureaucrat who was negotiating a particular FTA, India gave up some rights or insisted on some rights. The next bureaucrat took a different position — on those same rights and clauses — while negotiating the next FTA with the next country. In one case, a bureaucrat who negotiated and signed an important FTA ended up getting himself a post-retirement job. The FTA avalanche is now being re-looked at, since it doesn’t seem to have served India’s purpose.
The Ministry of Commerce and Industries that negotiated the flurry of FTAs in the UPA era was a law unto itself. It did not consult other ministries in the manner it should have. The Ministry of External Affairs was not always in the loop. The story of India’s FTA mess will come out in the months that follow. It speaks for a stand-out example of governance that thinks in silos and not, to borrow Mr Modi’s words, organically.
Third, as Mr Modi made explicit, the Government’s inherent sense of disunity has contributed to India’s litigation burden: “One department is taking on the other department, and taking it on to the extent that two departments of the same Government are fighting against each other by approaching the Supreme Court” (from the English translation of Mr Modi’s speech released by the Press Information Bureau).
This is an important point. Half of all court cases in India are filed by or involve the Government. Many of them see one department of the Government battle another. Mechanisms such as arbitration and inter-departmental negotiations have not been optimised because of an atmosphere of suspicion. The rulebook is so worded that a civil servant who does not immediately and instantly appeal against a negative court verdict — even if the verdict is fair and transparent — is liable to be charged with corruption and wrongdoing.
In his speech, Mr Modi emphasised all this could be fixed and he would fix it. He sounded certain and confident, and more power to him. The fact that his party has a majority in the lok Sabha — the first in 30 years — will be of immense help. It will allow him to impose his prime ministerial authority on warring factions and to neutralise vested interests and the proverbial ‘one rupee advisers’.
Yet, it is not just the BJP’s legislative strength that will help; it is also his outsider status and the fact that, as someone from another political culture and political geography, he brings to New Delhi fresh eyes. This explains why Rajiv Gandhi, with an even bigger majority and with as much hope riding on him in 1984, was in the final run a disappointment. In more senses than one, he came to symbolise the old order. His advisers and colleagues and the edifice of power he inherited no doubt had some talented and honest people, but it did not allow them — or Rajiv Gandhi himself — the benefit of the outsider’s gaze. Very soon cynicism and jadedness set in.
In a year from now, Mr Modi will find it less easy to describe himself as an ‘outsider’. Even if he continues to perceive himself as someone who is apart from the upper echelons of Delhi, the fact is after 12-18 months in the city, as Prime Minister, the rest of the country will see him as very much a Delhi person. The problem, really, is not about whether he will or won’t remain an outsider. It is if he can reshape Delhi — at least the operative part of Government in Delhi — in his image and in line with his priorities.
Mr Modi shows urgency and newness today. If he is around for 15 years, he may not; that is the nature of politics and of life. Yet, the fact that this ‘outsider’ has so energised New Delhi tells us something about the potentialities of a more federal polity.
In the US, every four (or eight) years, a new President comes in. Many American Presidents have been strangers to Washington, DC, being nurtured and schooled in experiences in a far-off town, which could be located in regions as different as the American South or the Midwest or California. They attempt to re-configure Washington and the administration, and sometimes foreign policy, in accordance with their world view and their belief systems.
This makes for a process of renewal and invigoration. It ensures a degree of change. True, sometimes the change works for the better and sometimes it doesn’t; that again is the nature politics and of life. The biggest success of the Modi phenomenon then would not just be for Mr Modi to deliver on his mandate and do well enough to win another term. It would be for other Chief Ministers, other political currents and energies from other parts of India, to be convinced they can emulate him; and long after he has retired from politics, attempt to take office in New Delhi and give it the outsider perspective that they can. That is the door of possibility Mr Modi has opened; that is the hope of 2014.
malikashok@gmail.com