Seeking independence from politics of divisiveness

Similarly, the President said that he would be suggesting to the Government and both Houses of Parliament ‘‘to formulate a Citizen Security Bill (National Campaign for Eradication of Terrorism), formulate an Energy Independence Bill and adopt a resolution that India will be transformed into an economically developed nation before 2020’’.

Both the PM and President clearly believe the need for sustained bipartisan support to address our major developmental challenges. Coalition politics often results in even small allies holding governments to ransom. Regional and fringe parties drive the national agenda. The lack of trust between mainstream parties gives regional parties a disproportionate say in national decision-making. This is neither reflective of a national consensus nor does it augur well for continuity of policies. Governments in office invariably hold the principal opposition party to be non-cooperative. At the same time they are embarrassed to seek its support lest their moves are misunderstood by their partners. This makes the emergence of consensus even more difficult. Nonetheless, there is no alternative.

So what should be the key ingredients of a national concordance? First and foremost, foreign policy and defence. For long, non-alignment was the bedrock of our foreign policy. In a vastly different world, strategic partnership with other major developed countries, particularly the United States, is an inescapable reality. The nuclear deal should have been a unifying ingredient considering its multiple advantages, and the approval process in the US government is clearly not to be blamed for the divisiveness introduced in what was hitherto an area of continuity.

Second, depoliticising public delivery systems. No monitoring of outcomes or increased public investment, particularly in rural areas through the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme or Bharat Nirman, can be meaningful if the delivery system remains clogged with incessant political interference. Can there be consensus among parties on some accepted ‘rules of the game’, which would partially free public-delivery systems from discretionary political decision-making?

Third, public expenditure. Some consensus on areas where public expenditure would be justified. Evaluation of expenditure outcomes, more importantly the efficacy of subsidies, and the impact on intended beneficiaries is inescapable.

Fourth, the balance between development initiatives and their consequences for resettlement and rehabilitation. While some displacement and transitional difficulties may be inevitable, what would be the appropriate benchmarks for assessing the adequacy of compensation and apportioning of benefits?

Fifth, energy security not only in exploring alternative energy forms, economising its usage, concerted action on both demand and supply but pricing of energy among different users and the reasonableness of subsidised energy activity need rational review.

Sixth, Human Resource Development. In making educational systems inclusive yet not losing sight of merit and enhancing capacities to leverage the advantages of a young demographic profile need coherent and actionable milestones.

Finally, key legislations. Legislations in general will always be political, involving negotiations between different actors, but there are some which are so compelling in our broader economic interest that tardy action is clearly unreasonable.