Failures of policy design and Manipur's tragedy

Amar Yumnam *

Manipur is now in a precarious situation is something we all have been noticing and experiencing for quite a few years on now. We have been emphasising that the major fault of this predicament caused to the society and polity of Manipur should be laid at the doors of the government. As time passes, our conviction on this score rises.

Robust Institution and Good Leadership: Whereas we have been commenting on the significance of proper institutions and the lack of good leadership in Manipur in the context of Manipur's systemic socio-political regression, the continuance of these weaknesses calls for a new scrutiny. This fresh scrutiny should look into why these weaknesses appeared in the first place in Manipur and what factors might be accounting for their sustenance despite the socio-political discovery of them.

Here in passing it may be of relevance to recall how economists have now been emphasising particularly since the 1990s the importance of robust institutions and good leadership in the development process of an economy. While there are many ways we can see an institution, one particular perspective of relevance in our present context will be effective administration and civil service possessing an innate commitment to good governance. The other significant determining factor for development for the world has been the presence of committed and imaginative leadership.

That the global experience in development has been the endogenous evolution and transformation of political institutions is known to all the development analysts. It is also equally known in the context of Manipur that the political and administrative institution here has not somehow fulfilled this condition. Well this is history, and what matters most is the ability of the adopted institution to adjust to the existing circumstances without compromising on governance quality and the capacity to respond to social calls from time to time.

The institution of administration and civil service ultimately boils down to the bureaucracy manning the governmental functions. The public has been noting for ages that the bureaucracy of the land leaves much to be desired. What surprises us is the continuance of the slide in the quality of bureaucracy rather than showing signs of improvement over the years. This is exactly what we need to ponder upon.

It could be that the political system might not be endogenous in a particular region. But this drawback can be addressed over the years if the orientation and the quality of the bureaucracy are so moulded as to respond contextually to the prevailing circumstances. But this class has utterly failed to respond to the needs of Manipur and rise to the occasion.

This makes us think if there are some fundamental flaws in the very process of selection and training of these bureaucrats. This question particularly arises because, despite the widespread criticism, the general competence of the Indian bureaucracy is now globally appreciated. But why is it that they fail so utterly in the case of Manipur?

We can now conjecture a few answers to this question. First, in addition to the usual weaknesses, the very training of the civil servants might not be including any orientation on how to make themselves relevant in a society largely different from the one they grew up in and having trans-boundary cultural moorings.

Secondly, the very training they undergo might not be including any preparation on how to respond to crises arising in an area where there arises a strong insurgency.

Thirdly, they might not be getting any orientation on how to tackle and respond to the uncertainties involved in developmental administration in areas like Manipur.

Fourthly, they might not be getting the needed preparation for facing the kind of challenges likely to arise in a social context where the political class is not an endogenous production of the contextual social system. Still further, they might not be undergoing any training on demographic aspects of administration.

These much are for the bureaucracy, but what about the political leadership? The bureaucracy can be as bad as they are, but their weaknesses and orientations can be altered for the better if the political leadership displays vision and commitment.

In a democracy the bureaucrats can be made to improve and behave to a large extent if the political class shows strength and commitment; this is so despite the well known inertia of the bureaucrats. But very unfortunately for us, all the fears we expect in a situation where the political system is not endogenously evolved are getting manifested.

The political leadership is not endogenously rooted in the society of the land in as much as the political system is not. This class knows rather well the exogeneity of the system and the scope for collusion with the bureaucracy. This being so they try to thrive in not endeavouring to do anything substantial for societal progress while at the same time seeing to it that the bureaucracy too are kept pleased.

In other words, what prevails in Manipur today is a mutually benefitting society of bureaucrats and political leadership. This has served their mutual purposes so well over the years. But the society is increasingly sinking into murkier situations.

In these milieus, unless something extraordinary happens we are going to suffer the weaknesses of the bureaucracy and political leadership. The public as a whole and the less well to do among them would be paying a heavy price in terms of social chaos for no fault of theirs.

The need of the hour is for a civil society to emerge which can really educate the masses on endogenising the exogenous political system. Only then can we expect the emergence of an administration and governance alive to the issues of the people and challenges of development charactering the land.