If the fumbles leading up to the Commonwealth Games showed the inability of India’s administrative and political leadership to stage a major international sporting event without heartburn and tears, New Delhi’s extraordinary reaction to a New Zealand television anchor making fun of Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit is the icing on the cake.
The television anchor in question, Paul Henry of the state-owned TVNZ, was racist and vulgar in referring to Ms Dikshit, but for India’s external affairs ministry to come out with a statement saying the comments were unacceptable and calling the New Zealand envoy to make a formal protest were uncalled for. Although both the New Zealand high commissioner and his foreign minister, Murray McCully, condemned the remarks, the latter calling them “gratuitous and insulting”, his ans­w­er was that it was up to the company or the Broadcasting Standards Authority to discipline him.
In fact, Henry was suspended by the television station last Tuesday for questioning whether the country’s Indo-Fijian Governor-General, Anand Satyanand, was a proper New Zealander. How often has India dealt with complaints from fellow developing countries for what has appeared in the Indian media and replied with the standard answer that the country enjoyed a free media.
Perhaps India has acquired a new sensitivity to criticism against the backdrop of the avalanche of criticism around the world on sliding deadlines for preparedness, inadequate and dirty accommodation and a senior official of the Indian managing committee suggesting that there were different standards of hygiene for Indians and the outside world.
India redeemed some of its self-respect by st­aging a successful opening, but glitches continued to plague the events such as erring scales for weighing bo­x­ers, doubts over the quality of water in the main swimming pool and a mixup of transport arrangements for event judges.
Indeed, India needs to introspect over its failings, which are indications of two fault lines that have developed in the system, the administration and the political leadership. Ever since the days of Indira Gandhi promoting a politically committed bureaucracy for her own partisan ends, the once famed civil service has been unable to maintain its standard. After all, if the then Prime Minister could push civil servants around for political motives, so can a string of chief ministers for whom civil servants have become mere toys to be moved on a chessboard. Only recently, a member of the Indian Administrative Service in Uttar Pradesh has sought premature retirement after being bounced from one post to another.
The second, more important, deficiency lies with the political system as it has evolved. India is not unique in having to live with coalition governments. But the coalition culture has yet to evolve. As it happened, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Mark I was in a somewhat happier position because there were clear red lines on what the Left parties extending support were not willing to accept. The Left was not part of the government.
UPA Mark II has proved to be a messier proposition because two of its main supporting parties, the DMK in the South and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, are seeking to extract all they can from their support. The DMK takes its price of support upfront while Ms Banerjee of the Trinamul Congress has a one-point agenda — of supplanting the Marxists in West Bengal in next year’s elections — and tailors her role as a Union minister accordingly, irrespective of the wishes of the Congress Party.
But the central political problem facing the government at the Centre is that the two-headed power structure, with Manmohan Singh manning the government and Sonia Gandhi the Congress Party, is simply not working as it should, with the result that the smack of firm government is missing when it is needed most. For one thing, it is no secret that Mrs Gandhi exercises the ultimate authority over the party and government policies. This inevitably weakens the Prime Minister’s authority in running the country.
For instance, what excuse can there be for the political leadership failing to act well in time within the seven-year window it had to prepare for the Commonwealth Games when it was clear years ago that key preparations were falling hopelessly behind schedule? Besides, it is a sign of a weak Prime Minister when every major issue requires the formation of a Group of Ministers (GoM), which reports to the Cabinet before it can take a decision. Indeed, this new institution is subverting the manner in which the Cabinet functions in a system of parliamentary government.
True, India is facing more than its share of problems — from Kashmir to Ayodhya to the belligerence and new assertiveness of neighbours. But political lea­dership is tested in tim­es of crisis and the ruling party of the day mu­st prove equal to the occasion if it is to cont­i­n­ue to retain the peop­le’s respect and support. Preparations for the Co­m­­monwealth Ga­mes ha­ve proved that it is not performing as it should.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has himself lamented that the administrative machinery has atrophied. To which the obvious question is: what is the government doing to set things right?
Taking offence at a foreign television presenter making fun of the Delhi chief minister by creating a diplomatic incident is no way to create an aura of nationalist rhetoric. Wisely, Ms Dikshit herself has refrained from reacting, but such action can only lead to raised eyebrows around the world. Many of us, as well as much of the world, had assumed that India was grown up and, unlike too many countries, did not take offence at the mere suggestion of disrespect of the country or its leaders. It is time for the government to get its perspective right.