Bibek Debroy Bibek Debroy

Taken in context, Gotterdammerung may not be an inappropriate expression. Here is a government that came in with a lot of hope, riding a tide of high expectations, promising change. Ennui has already set in. This isn't about an infant trying to find its feet and learning to walk. Missing energy, the Government increasingly looks aged and jaded and is riding one of the steepest anti-incumbency curves witnessed in recent times. This isn't about the Budget, or any one specific policy. The broad-brush umbrage is more insidious.

First, the Government increasingly seems cut-off from people, notwithstanding new interactive portals. The campaign leading up to the elections was interactive and BJP's success was in no small measure due to this support base, including social media. If social media is an indication, there is a palpable sense of alienation and on specific issues, reactions are nothing short of vituperative.

Mainstream media has still been relatively kinder and knives have not yet been unsheathed. Admittedly, media reactions shouldn't be blown out of proportion. But it is some kind of bellwether. Why has the Government and the PM stopped talking? Is it arrogance, complacency, or abode in an alternate reality? Honeymoons don't last indefinitely.

Illustration by Saurabh Singh Illustration by Saurabh Singh

Second, promised redesign of governance was about revamping systems and institutions, not repopulating them with those who are now the favoured few. This requires shock therapy, not halting and incremental steps. This isn't big bang in the sense of FDI in pensions or insurance, or reforms requiring legislative changes that wind their way through Parliament. Much is executive and had these been implemented, Union-state relations and the country's governance structures would have been completely transformed. Nothing of the sort seems to be contemplated any more.

Instead, a phrase increasingly common among Delhi's chatterati is that of "bureaucratic capture". That's the way bureaucracy reacts to invasion by any hostile organism-encircle it, digest it and spit it out in unrecognisable form.

It's stuff that Humphrey Appleby would have been proud of. Bureaucracy's reaction is understandable. What's inexplicable is phenomenon of new ministers succumbing to this Stockholm syndrome. In item after item, there has thus been an emphasis on continuity and avoidance of disruption. Risk-aversion doesn't mesh well with redesign of governance.

There can be a case for implementing existing systems of governance better. In other words, NDA is nothing but UPA with better implementation. But the campaign message didn't quite ring that way.



Third, an unconvincing hypothesis is about the lack of time, and commentators have pointed out the fallacy by drawing parallels with 1991.

Since 1991 was primarily about balance of payments, that crisis was more tangible. Since the present crisis is about expectations, it is less tangible. But there's another, more significant, difference.

There is a side-story about how King Bhoja discovered King Vikramaditya's famous throne buried under a mound. Anyone who climbed that mound seemed to become inordinately sage and wise. That's just a story-climbing a mound or a throne doesn't make anyone wise. Nor does becoming part of a government make anyone an expert on everything under the sun. Therefore, one seeks professional advice.

The year 1991 wasn't only about lateral entry of high-visibility professional expertise through Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Across ministries and departments in New Delhi, there was less-visible professional expertise, less written about. One sought advice from outside narrow confines of Cabinet and bureaucracy. Why has this Government stayed away from exercising that option? Like King Bhoja, does it believe itself to be omniscient? Or has it been outsmarted by the steel frame?

Fourth, arguably, this election was largely fought on economic issues and governance-growth, employment, jobs, inflation, corruption. Ipso facto, to the extent there is a trade-off, the domestic is more important than the external. If the domestic is licked into shape, the external will follow. There is no trade-off for government, but there is one for PM's time. Mr Narendra Modi's case was of replicating the Gujarat template of growth, development and governance for the entire country.

At the risk of some generalisation, he seems to have been drawn into the quagmire of foreign policy. While comparisons are odious, that was a perilous route that Manmohan also walked. It is unfair to judge a government on the basis of two months. However, there is a popular saying, to judge if a pot of rice has been cooked, testing one grain is enough. One shouldn't read too much into Uttarakhand results.

With opposition in a state of disarray, there is no immediate extrapolation. But all is not well in the state of the country. Unfortunately, it isn't enough for Marcellus to say this. Hamlet has to recognise it, say it and take remedial action.

Bibek Debroy is professor at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi

