By Pradeep S Mehta
Guj babus are more open to
sharing info; in MP it is just the opposite
While the officials in
Gujarat readily shared information with us and also pointed
out ways to deepen our research, officials in Bhopal with
much ‘enthusiasm’ violated principles of logic and work
ethics
Tomorrow: A reality check on
governance in Rajasthan
As an election campaign issue,
the Gujarat model of governance and development is being
challenged that it is smoke and mirrors. One of the
indicators of good governance is how bureaucrats interact
with people when asked for information. Our own field
experience on different dates and with different agencies
suggests that unlike other states, Gujarat babus are more
open and forthcoming.
Under an international project
we are assessing the impact of competition reforms in two
sectors—staple food (wheat, rice and maize) and bus
transport—as both impact the poor directly. The project is
being carried out in Ghana, Zambia, Philippines and India.
India, being such a huge country, the study focuses on
Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat for the bus transport sector,
while it looks at the wheat sector in Bihar and Rajasthan.
Let me share some details about
how our field researchers were received in various
government offices in Gujarat and MP. In Gujarat they
assisted actively and data furnished—across the table and
through emails after their visit—without any questions. In
MP their experience was sad.
The first meeting of our
research staff, Neha Tomar and Shreya Kaushik, was with a
research officer in the transport commissionerate in
Ahmedabad recently. He escorted them to the joint director
who was forthcoming with the data and went ahead to suggest
names for them to meet. “The employees were bright, nimble
and helpful,” said Neha and Shreya in their back-to-office
report. “Our experience at the Commissionerate was a stark
contrast to the stereotype anecdotes of government offices.”
Government officer fished out all data and gave them the
copies.
The Transport Commissionerate
was not an exception as my colleagues found when visiting
the offices of the Bus Rapid Transport Services and
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services (AMTS). AMTS supplied
the data on the spot, while BRTS agreed to forward it by
email, which they did after a reminder. “Ahmedabad BRTS is a
hugely successful PPP initiative. The bus corridors are
spotless and garnished with greenery, and it has been backed
by sound logistics to ensure smooth functioning,” say Neha
and Shreya.
The next day, they visited the
Gujarat State Transport Corporation, which runs the
inter-city bus services. They could meet the managing
director, who summoned some of his staff and the data flow
was very smooth.
Another set of colleagues
working on clean energy awareness issues went to Gujarat to
collect data. They went to meet Gujarat Electricity
Regulatory Commission, Gujarat Renewable Energy Development
Agency and other government departments. At GERC, the
chairman met them with all his members and their visit to
other offices too was smooth. Let us contrast this with my
colleagues’ experience in Madhya Pradesh, also a BJP ruled
state with another hat-trick CM, Shivraj Singh Chauhan. This
state was chosen for the study on bus transport because it
is the only state, which has scrapped the state road
transport corporation, a brave act. They had secured
appointments at Bhopal, but were not told that Transport
Director sits in Gwalior. So they went to meet the RTO in
Bhopal. The Bhopal RTO who had agreed to meet them had
retired, but he had not whispered this to my colleagues when
they had sought an appointment. One new gentleman had taken
his place. Anyway, they waited for him who came in late and
called them in. Balancing himself while speaking with some
visitor, attending to the telephone calls and office chores,
he asked my colleagues to come the next day for some papers.
Next day he did hand over some papers, but it was useless.
They then went to visit
municipal commissioner (MC). He questioned their credentials
first before offering any information. He was told that the
project is being supported by DFID, UK. Then he called up a
local DFID consultant because DFID India is engaged in MP on
a massive poverty eradication project. The DFID consultant
denied any knowledge about the project.
In any event, how and why would
he have known? He asked my colleagues to get some
verification done by DFID, UK and that an email would
suffice, but it must come from the DFID email domain, than
from some web mail account. That was sent to him by the UK
DFID project manager. He called up the MC and set things
right. So my colleagues went back to the MC, but did not see
an encore of what they had experienced in Ahmedabad. The
Commissioner asked for a list of the required data and said
he would have it mailed. Months have passed and there is no
response from him.
It would not be fair to qualify
the insouciance of officials in MP on basis of one anecdote.
But there are other experiences of my colleagues in MP which
only confirm that it is not as open as Gujarat is.
My young colleagues write with
anger: While the officials in Gujarat readily shared
information with us and also pointed out ways to deepen our
research, officials in Bhopal with much ‘enthusiasm’
violated principles of logic and work ethics. Why was it so
difficult to share information, which is anyway supposed to
be made available to public? Even their websites are
outdated and no one bothers to update them.
What was interesting about
Ahmedabad and Bhopal visits was sharp difference in the ways
of functioning. No wonder Gujarat is a model state in India
for good governance. Our politicians need to do a reality
check before making hollow noises.
The writer is Secretary General,
CUTS International (views expressed are his own)
This news can
also be viewed at: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/
|