Modi’s one-man rule

Under Modi in Gujarat consultation has ended. Modi decides something and instructs the bureaucracy to implement it.


Aakar Patel July 13, 2013
The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar [email protected]

Just as there is no Modi model of economics, there is no Modi model of governance, if by model we mean something original that can be replicated.

Some years ago, in late 2002, a few months after the riots and a year after he had become chief minister, I visited Narendra Modi in Gandhinagar. On my flight returning to Mumbai, I was next to a middle-aged man who was interested in the device I was fiddling with, an iPod, which was almost unknown then. We got talking and it turned out he was an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, one of the secretaries in the Gujarat government. He asked what had brought me to Gandhinagar. When I told him it was to meet the chief minister, he laughed: “My boss (the minister) hasn’t had a meeting with Modi in six months,” he said. That was the first time it struck me that Modi was running a fairly autocratic administration.

The strongly individualistic style of Modi’s performance, in which he is uninterested and disregarding of the views of others, is thought to be his key asset in governance. The belief is that he brings something entirely new to government and that explains his success. I have been speaking to a few officers who are serving or have served at the highest levels in Gujarat’s bureaucracy recently. I wanted to learn from them what was unique about Modi’s government.

To know this, we must look first at how the old system works, in Gujarat and elsewhere.

The British system of administration has given India a powerful, non-elected bureaucracy. In it, the political system makes decisions, in which it is assisted by the higher bureaucracy, meaning IAS officers. Implementation is done entirely by the bureaucracy and this has led to the problem we refer to as red tape.

In taking decisions, officers in Gujarat told me, there was usually a free exchange of ideas in the time before Modi. Some named Chimanbhai Patel as the chief minister who had run the best and most effective administration. The cabinet met and agendas were fully discussed. Once the decision was taken (for instance, to privatise the construction of some state highways), the bureaucrats prepared a note on the issues relating to execution. From the lowest rungs of those working on the field, the note progressed up, till it was cleared, after being analysed at each level.

What is happening under Modi in Gujarat is that this consultation has ended. Modi decides something and instructs the bureaucracy to implement it. I asked the officers if this was unique to Gujarat. In reply, they said that such things happened in many states. However, in no state was the higher bureaucracy as totally disregarded as in Gujarat, they said. What had made this possible, I asked. It was easy for any chief minister to be autocratic, they said, because decision-making and implementation were segregated so clearly. But only Modi has chosen to do this to the full extent.

So, what did the bureaucrats think of this? Some of them thought that this disregard for their view was something they had to live with. They were not happy at their view being dismissed but they would carry on. Some of them had sided with Modi and profited in the way that IAS officers close to the elected officials do.

This seemed to me to be just a minor change in the functioning of the government. Were there any new systems that Modi had brought in? No, there were no new systems that had been put in place, I was told.

What had been the result of this? The officers were unanimous in saying that it had resulted in one-man rule. It is true that the files move faster in Gujarat than they do elsewhere because of the lack of consultation. But the dangers associated with dismissing opposing views remain.

What about the idea that there is something called a Modi model of managing the economy? Has he produced something that is radically different from before 2001? Of course not, and those who call his manner of functioning in this matter an economic model are basing this on insufficient understanding of Gujarat’s economic history.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (85)

Octavio Kerbel | 8 years ago | Reply I imagined this was a actually good blog submit. I constantly like reading content like this one particular. I should go through more of one's posts.
Lala Gee | 8 years ago | Reply

@1984:

"Besides,the link u provided was an Q&A with someone who is a talk show host"

Like Najam Sethi and Hasan Nisar of Pakistan. How come then you adore these personalities for their honesty, intelligence, and integrity while look down upon an Indian journalist (Editorial Director, Hindustan Times), columnist, and media personality of similar profile. Or, when you praise Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, Kamran Shafi, and many others of the ilk, you never question about their background. I guess, for you the only credible are those people whose point of view matches with your (Hindus) narrative.

"He’s sceptical about a fact which was proved by Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 who proved that there was a temple in that place"

What the presence or absence of a Hindu Temple has to do with Buddhists and Jains plight in the hands of Hindus. Anyway, this is what ASI report says in the conclusion.

“So, the present excavation of Ayodhya confirms at least three different temple structures present underneath the disputed structure. The structure of temple 1 belongs to the cultural sequence of period VIII of the excavation of 8th century AD to the early medieval period; structure of temple 2 was of period XI of the 9th century AD, while the structure of temple 3 is of the 12th century AD in which foundation of the walls of the disputed structure were laid after cutting its floor and pillar bases,” said Prof Mishra."

1- Three different temples? So where is the Ram Mandir. 2- Even the oldest structure was constructed some 6,000 years later after the birth of Ram. 3- There is no possibility of correctly identifying the exact location of his birth place after passing of 6,000 years.

This was exactly what the Vir Sanghvi was pointing out.

"and the excavators included many muslims who made sure there werent any wrongdoing"

"three archaeologists — Prof RC Thakaran of Delhi University, Dr Jaya Menon of MS University (Baroda) and Prof AK Mishra of Dr RML Avadh University (Faizabad) — to have a close vigil on the excavation work which was carried out with the help of about 130 labourers, having an equal ratio of Muslims and Hindus."

No comment.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read