Monalisa Changkija
Very interesting issues are emerging from the opinion poll the Morung Express conducted some time ago wherein the majority of the respondents felt that the bureaucracy is stalling development in Nagaland. Perhaps the most interesting one is our perception, our idea and our vision of what is development and what are the characters, contents, contours and colours of development.
Since post-World War II, there have been numerous theories of development as also attempts to define and describe ‘development’, especially by western social scientists. So then we had Max Weber, Lucian Pye, etc., but we also had Marxist/Leftist social scientists not quite agreeing with what is called the ‘Liberal’ theories. Then don’t forget the ‘non-aligned’ theories.
In between the debate on theories of development, former colonial masters of the newly independent countries post-World War II, who were mostly from the western hemisphere, managed to convince and persuade their former colonies that the western ‘model’ of development was the most ideal cleverly packaging it with the irresistible lures of democratic principles. It wasn’t a tough job for former colonial masters because having hijacked the history, cultures, traditions, religion, economic, social and political systems of ancient peoples, and replacing it with parts and bits of their own systems, their former colonial subjects had no other models to replicate in their newly-independent countries. So we still have the colonial system of governance intact in India and in this system development is not really a priority.
But change is constant and with the passage of time neo-colonialism gave way to the present globalization and liberalization processes and ‘development’ has become crucial for the success of the current economic system into which we have no choice but to integrate, if not to ‘develop’ but at least to survive.
The point here is that world and his wife are yet to decide and agree on what is development, not surprisingly because one man’s development is another’s deterioration.
And we in Nagaland too are equally undecided about what development means to us. Somehow there is this impression that for us development is basically infrastructural, in the shape of good roads and other communication systems, power and water supply, education, healthcare, etc., etc., and the empowerment to possess the purchasing power and have the access to material wealth (socio-economic development). But what is infrastructure if it does not result in a desired superstructure? In other words, why are we building the infrastructure and the answer would be: “For development, Stupid”. Simple as that isn’t it? Well actually it isn’t that simple because infrastructure is built with the superstructure in mind and without having a very clear idea of the desired superstructure our infrastructure development would remain a very hazy kind of activity. Moreover, the ultimate goal of development, the superstructure, so to speak, is to build human capabilities and enlarge human choices; to create a safe and secure environment where citizens can live with dignity and equality.
No, infrastructure development, purchasing power and the access to material items is not the be-all and end-all of development. Neither are Government policies, plans, projects and programmes, and worst of all political manifestoes. They are merely infrastructure development to support the superstructure of enabling and empowering human being to fully realize their potentials. In any case, infrastructure development is the moral obligation of any self-respecting democratic government, clearly enshrined in written or unwritten constitutions of any self-respecting democratic country, as also the spirit behind the whole concept of the United Nations.
We all agree that Dimapur is the most developed town in the state of Nagaland --- it is the industrial and commercial centre of Nagaland, and has the state’s only rail and air heads, etc., etc. But Dimapur is also a hotbed of criminal activities, not only of Nagaland but also of the entire Northeast. And people here live pretty much lonely, alienated, marginalized and insecure lives despite being cocooned in material wealth. There are no parks and libraries here although there is no dearth of consumer items and great eating joints are mushrooming but then so also the rise in drug trade, flesh trade, domestic violence, child labour and child abuse. Dimapur is so developed that when it rains here, there is no sewer system for the rain water to drain down causing water logging, leading to epidemics, which regularly claim lives every summer. There is no proper garbage disposal system but we are so enamoured with the clothes and shoes we wear, the food we eat and the cars we drive, we don’t even realize the dirt and the filth around us. This is development?
Secondly, development is not the sole responsibility of only the bureaucracy or for that matter of only one or all estates of democracy --- the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the Fourth Estate. After a society and state comes to an understanding of its desired contents, character, contours and colours, as also its goals of development, it is the complementary responsibility of both the individual and the collective to usher in that development.
In his book, The Central Liberal Truth, Lawrence E Harrison quotes Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation: The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. He also quotes Walter Lippman who said about 65 years ago: People don’t become happy by satisfying their desires. They become happy by living within a belief system that restrains and gives coherence to their desires. So clearly culture and a value/belief system are seen as crucial to development but where do they fit in, in our concept of development?
Harrison opines, “All cultures have value because they provide coherence, but some foster development while others retard it. Some cultures check corruption wile others permit it. Some cultures focus on the future while others focus on the past. The question that is at the centre of politics today: can we self-consciously change cultures so they encourage development and modernization?”
Harrison’s other contention is that cultural change can’t be imposed from the outside except in rare circumstances but change has to be led by people who recognize and accept responsibility for their own cultural problems and selectively reinterpret their own traditions to encourage modernization.
Reportedly, Diplomats in New York rack up a lot of unpaid parking tickets but not all rack them up at the same rates. According to economists Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel, Diplomats from countries that rank high on the Transparency International corruption index pile up huge numbers of unpaid tickets, whereas Diplomats from countries that rank low on the index get barely any at all.
Between 1997 and 2002, the UN Mission of Kuwait picked up 246 parking violations per Diplomat. Diplomats from Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Mozambique, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Syria also committed huge number of violations. Meanwhile, not a single parking violation by a Swedish Diplomat was recorded. Nor were there any by Diplomats from Denmark, Japan, Israel, Norway and Canada. There reason there are such wide variations in ticket rates is that human beings are not merely products of economics. The Diplomats paid no cost for parking illegally, thanks to diplomatic immunity.
But human beings are also shaped by cultural and moral norms. If you’re Swedish and you have a chance to pull up in front of a fire hydrant, you still don’t do it. You’re Swedish. That’s who you are.
I bring this up to underscore that our bureaucrats are products of our society and our cultural and moral norms. No, I am not supporting or making justifications for our bureaucracy. I also underscore that respondents of Morung Express’ opinion polls overwhelmingly perceive that our bureaucracy is stalling development in the state because they too are products of our society and our cultural and moral norms and are well aware of how our society and state operates. No, I don’t believe that the blame for the stalling of development in our state should be laid at the doorstep of our bureaucracy alone. I believe that as disagreements have arisen on the issue, this is a good opportunity to collectively dialogue on the factors leading to a very unsatisfactory pace and quality of development in our state, whatever the concepts, contents, characters and colours may mean to us.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, perceived and described the bureaucracy as “a catalyst of change”. Now is a good time to dialogue whether our bureaucracy has lived up to this perception, description and expectation. May I suggest that the Administrative Training Institute, Kohima, seriously considers conducting a dialogue on this issue? The need is felt more because the perception of the public, as reflected in the said newspaper’s opinion poll, is not complimentary to the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy must know why to be more effective. This is crucial for development that sustains.
The opinion poll is indeed not merely a reflection of the public’s perception of the bureaucracy here but also a criticism and its fine to issue counter-criticism but problem are not resolved by wars of words. Remember Shakespeare’s Macbeth? “Methinks, the lady protest too much? Don’t protest, dialogue. Reading Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian could help you understand my message.
Development means different things to different people and when the Morung Express asked in its opinion poll whether bureaucracy is stalling development, we don’t know the newspaper’s perception of development. But I believe that it is a good chance to engage our society and state in dialogue on what is our collective perception of development and who we feel should shoulder the responsibility to usher in this development. I can understand why this opinion poll has ruffled some feathers. What was published was done in a manner wherein no words were minced. The problem is that our people do not seem to have the gall to take it like it is. We like to be told things in a nice and ambiguous way simply because we cannot bear straight talking.
This by no means is an exhaustive opinion of the opinion poll and matters thereof but have you considered for a moment that among the respondents of that opinion poll, there is a good possibility that quite a few of them could be from the bureaucracy itself or from Government Service? Certainly something to ponder about, no?
Something positive may yet emerge from Morung Express’ opinion poll, which seems to take controversial proportions now. Something positive would definitely emerge if instead of being defensive and protesting, we create the scope and the space to dialogue on a matter that has indubitably ruffled feathers and pushed otherwise very busy people to sit down and write to small time and small town newspapers such as ours in Nagaland.
Indubitably, we must dialogue to learn why there are opinions that assert that the bureaucracy is stalling development. We must dialogue, not in defense, but in sincerity to portray the real picture. We must dialogue to know why and how our development is being stalled and who is actually responsible for that.
