The Delhi High Court’s decision to give the L-G the primary say in the affairs of the Indian capital was portrayed as a blow to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. That says a lot about the state of the nation.
Since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader will not be the Chief Minister of Delhi for ever (in as much as Narendra Modi will not rule India for eternity), how can the court verdict be a setback for Kejriwal?
True, Kejriwal is a passionate advocate of full statehood for Delhi. But he is hardly saying anything new. It is a demand both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress have raised for decades. So the court decision, if anything, was a blow to the people of Delhi and their desire to be governed by a system where elected representatives are the final decision makers and where the multiplicity of authority that bedevils the city ends.
Instead, the Delhi HC, which the AAP government should not have approached in the first place to settle a constitutional row, turned democracy upside down. In its wisdom, not easily understood on the street, a two-judge bench ruled that the L-G – a post now held by Najeeb Jung – will be the final arbiter of mass destiny in Delhi.
It is another matter that the ruling has given Jung the audacity to say what no one in a serious democracy would even contemplate: Since I am the boss, we can do away with the Delhi Assembly!
Delhi’s administrative predicament is well known, but it needs some reiteration.
Taking a Step Back
For long just a Union Territory, Delhi became the National Capital Territory with a state Assembly in 1993. Since then, Delhi has been governed by four institutions: An elected Delhi government, the L-G (a central government appointee), the elected Municipal Corporation (controlled by the Home Ministry and now split into three wings) and the Delhi Development Authority (reporting to the Urban Development Ministry). We also have the New Delhi Municipal Council and the Delhi Cantonment Board.
To worsen the situation, the physical boundary of the Delhi government and the civic bodies are co-terminus. Further, the L-G gets to be in charge of law and order, police as well as land. The HC has now given the entire city on a platter to Jung. Nothing can be more undemocratic, besides being impractical.
Will Jung Address Our Civic Woes?
Where I live, our neighbours and I have at various times sought out our previous MLAs from both the Congress and the BJP over civic issues. I have not met the current MLA from AAP, but the Residents Welfare Association interacts with him routinely.
Are people from all over the city now expected to troop to Jung with our civic woes? And since one man obviously can’t manage it all by himself and, so, if he names his representatives, it is clear the real aim is not to provide good governance but to bring down the present elected government through a constitutional coup.
Delhi Police Must Report to Delhi Govt
Delhi Police must report to the elected Delhi government irrespective of whether it is governed by the Congress, the BJP or the AAP. Some of the silliest arguments against this were given by former Delhi police chief BS Bassi. Those who claim that Delhi Police will be effective only if it is with the central government must answer what happened to Delhi police when killers slaughtered some 3,000 innocent Sikhs in the city in 1984. Did Delhi police then report to Madan Lal Khurana or Sheila Dikshit or Kejriwal?
One can appreciate certain specific security-related issues of Delhi. This can be easily tackled by administratively splitting the heart of Delhi – home to VVIPs, Parliament, Rashtrapati Bhavan – from the rest of the city. But what have security and related issues got to do with the day-to-day hiccups of governance which millions battle with? What, for example, prevents Delhi traffic police from being under the Delhi government? Indeed, this idea was flagged by CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, who then headed the parliamentary committee on transport, after the 2012 rape in Delhi.
Consider Goa Referendum, Not Brexit
Way back in January 1967, Goa held a referendum to decide whether it must merge with Maharashtra or remain an independent Union Territory. The result was binding on the central government. The “Goa opinion poll” as it was officially named voted against a merger. Much later, in May 1987, Goa became a full-fledged state.
Forget Brexit, why not copy our own Goa? Why not go to the people to find out how Delhi should be governed? Isn’t this what democracy is all about? After all, every election is a referendum on those in power. If a single individual — Jung in this case — can thrust his views on a people, surely the people must respond.
If anyone opposes this idea, we need to ask why hold elections at all in the country. If Jung can rule Delhi, why not let President Pranab Mukherjee — a far more experienced, enlightened and erudite personality — rule India? If MLAs are not needed, why elect MPs? Ordinary people across the country interact far more with their MLAs and corporators than MPs.
Or is this all a charade? Is this all a political game to get rid of Kejriwal and his AAP from the corridors of power in Delhi? Sometimes, one wonders...
(MR Narayan Swamy can be reached on narayan.swamy@ians.in. The views expressed are personal. Published in an arrangement with IANS.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)