Tags:
Journalism of Courage
On the face of it, the Supreme Court8217;s resolve to hold the state chief secretaries responsible for any future deaths caused by starvation in any state appears unfair. Can one government functionary 8212; albeit one who is the most senior 8212; be held accountable for everything that goes wrong in the field? Well, the apex court was only recognising the power and responsibility of a state chief secretary and wishes to use that power and responsibility to ensure that something as indefensible and, indeed, preventable as starvation deaths do not occur. The order demonstrated an impatience with a system that sometimes appears to have lost its sense of direction and, what is worse, its purpose. This is, in fact, an attempt to squeeze the inertia out of the system.
That inertia has almost completely inundated the system is as clear as daylight. The Express, in a recent investigation into reported starvation deaths in Rajasthan8217;s Baran district, garnered unmistakable evidence of this. In one instance, a state official actually visited one of the drought-hit subdivisions there but, since it happened to rain during that visit, the official seemed to have convinced himself that there was no drought. In another instance, 175 drought-related jobs were awarded to a sub-division with a rural population of a lakh. Sure, there are real problems that administrators face on a daily basis, caused by a combination of a shortfall in funds, lack of information, lack of political will and, of course, lack of administrative will. The apex court has recognised that if the lack of administrative will is tackled, there is some chance that the other deficiencies in the system will be addressed.
