The AAP quickly fulfilled its key election promise regarding lowering the price of electricity. But the attention-grabbing declarations have left unaddressed a number of issues. It is not clear how the AAP will take its policies off the subsidy ventilator, how will it improve the targeting of subsidies, and if it intends to implement similar policies in states with much weaker financial condition than Delhi. The party also needs to say something about the supply side of the problem particularly because it seems to be justifiably opposed to nuclear energy. To be precise, it needs to spell out its plan to finance the modernization of electricity generation facilities in an age of increasing scarcity of energy resources and growing concerns about climate change.
Reservation is another issue on which the AAP’s position is not clear. Its education minister, who seems to presume that the Delhi University (DU) can be treated as a state university, wants to introduce a 90 per cent quota for the sons-of-the-soil in the University. The proposed policy will penalize students from economically backward states that do not have good universities as well as affect the quality of students joining DU. If the party takes this policy to its logical conclusion, then it will have to impose such quotas in each state where it comes to power. But quotas are not the solution to the problem of supply side bottlenecks in the higher education system. Another AAP leader promised to work for more reservations for lower castes and women without specifying how the Supreme Court mandated cap can be breached. We certainly need better affirmative action policies. But mechanically increasing the quotas might not be a good solution to the problem of unequal access to public resources.
Yet another example of the Delhi government’s ad hoc approach to policy-making is its communication to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion seeking to withdraw permission for FDI in the multi-brand retail sector. While there surely are good reasons to oppose FDI in this sector, the manner in which permission is being withdrawn in Delhi is arbitrary. It is the responsibility of the government to engage all stakeholders before revising any policy. It needs to be emphasized that an anti-capitalist economic orientation need not be antithetical to a reasonably stable policy environment and also that public spectacles of simplicity cannot substitute sound economic policies.
The confusion over policies is matched only by the party’s ambivalence toward institutions. A bureaucrat, who questioned the desirability of disturbing the existing distribution of responsibilities between the transport and traffic police departments, and another bureaucrat, who questioned the propriety of encroaching upon the domain of the judiciary, seem to have fallen out of favour. The police are under fire for not taking orders from ministers to whom they are not answerable. These cases must have sent a clear signal to government servants that it pays to quietly follow the “new” ruling party. One is reminded of bureaucrats in states ruled by “corrupt” parties, who are penalized if they fail to defer to the ruling party.
This Orwellian turn of events was not entirely unexpected, though. Since the days of the Jan Lokpal movement, the AAP leaders have adopted " my way or the highway" approach to complex problems and have readily branded anyone who draws attention to procedural formalities as an enemy of the Aam Aadmi. A priori we cannot deny the possibility that the party is finding the existing system difficult to work with. But volunteers and vigilantes cannot substitute the bureaucracy and the police. Unfortunately, instead of undertaking the arduous task of understanding and reforming the system, the party is reducing governance to jammed helplines, arbitrary referenda, open courts, and dharnas. These examples highlight a very disturbing pattern. In its rush to Parliament, the AAP is showing lack of patience for careful policy deliberations and institutional niceties. Until the next elections the AAP government is likely to continue to prioritise headline worthy declarations over serious policy deliberations and operate in protest mode instead of focusing on creatively using the historic opportunity offered to it by the people of Delhi. But this short term electoral compulsion coupled with fragile inner party democracy poses a serious long term problem for the party. If the anti-institutional quick fix approach to governance delivers results in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, there is a real danger that it will permanently eclipse serious policy deliberation within the AAP. The party might find itself trapped in a vicious cycle as every year elections are due in some part of the country.
Vikas Kumar is Assistant Professor at Azim Premji University, Bangalore.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
While AAPs 'quota' for locals is condemnable, so are quotas in the form of caste and gender, which other parties ( and the author too ), demand. Quotas for women are as bad as quotas for 'daughters of the soil'.
The real solution will of course, only come from increasing seats in educational institutions - something that the other parties have refused / failed to do, for DECADES.
No doubt that clarity is needed on various policy issues raised by Vikas Kumar and others also from Aam Admi Party.But statements(sometime distorted) from minister/member/well wisher can not be considered as policy.At various platforms Yogendra Yadav,official spokes person of AAP made it clear that party will come out with vision document and manifesto shortly.Moreover,you can hardly judge the political parties on the basis of manifesto and policy statements,BJP and Congress position on FDI in retail is an excellent example of U-turn.Even the staunch supporter of AAP can not deny that this party is in transition stage from a social movement to a political party and bound to face many challenges to accomodate dissenting voices.Even Congress and BJP faced these challenges because of their origin from social/religious movements and still bound to make adjustment on dissenting views.
The people at large need reforms in politics and governance through transperancy and accountability,but it is not tagged with AAP electoral failure or success.
Why expect AAP to have a policy when neither the Congress nor the BJP have one - except for plugging Rahul Gandhi or Modi? Yet, the AAP must specify its policy to the last detail. What kind of logic is that?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT