In the wake of the Bulandshahar violence, dissatisfied with the government’s response, 83 retired civil servants demanded Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s resignation. Just some time earlier, Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister publicly despaired of his State’s civil servants. He protested that they did not have their hearts and minds in their job. As a consequence, work was getting stalled and government programmes lay half implemented without commitment and speed. This was despite the earlier expectation shared by a very large group of observers who watch Uttar Pradesh that a no-nonsense Chief Minister will be able to ‘break the bureaucratic horse.’

Unlike his civil servants, the UP CM’s commitment and vitality have not been in question despite some misgivings about his priorities. There is common agreement that in the past year, since Yogi Adityanath became Chief Minister, he has poured all energy into public affairs. He has moved around the State, met officers, held meetings, given directions and has given his best to the State. Hence his disappointment at finding his energy and resolve unreciprocated by his officers cannot be faulted.

---

Bureaucrats, who receded into retirement several years ago and resurfaced to take part in the discussions, lamented that the standard of administration had plummeted since their own days in office. This is not unexpected since this is the common refrain of most past bureaucrats who invariably lament the good old days.

---

Media discussions on the subject threw up the usual analysis. Bureaucrats, who receded into retirement several years ago and resurfaced to take part in the discussions, lamented that the standard of administration had plummeted since their own days in office. This is not unexpected since this is the common refrain of most past bureaucrats who invariably lament the good old days. Others discovered that civil servants had developed itching palms and malfeasance had made deep inroads among bureaucratic ranks. Still others found a very cosy political-civil service nexus gaining ground, setting aside administrative neutrality, fairness and equity. Journalists, who claim to know the State inside out, pointed to instances of frequent transfers, political patronage to the corrupt civil servants, punishment to the honest ones and postings on the basis of political connections rather than on merit. Put together, these unsavoury developments had run down the State’s governance and further prolonged its ‘BIMARU’ status. ‘BIMARU’ is an acronym formed from the first letters of the names of States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, coined by Ashish Bose in the mid-1980s. With this aronym having a resemblance to Hindi word Bimar, meaning sick, ‘BIMARU’ States are considered to be economically sick.

It would be futile to either support such arguments or martial evidence or disprove any of the claims paraded above, as indeed, any or all of the above assertions would find grains of truth in the soil of the State. Hence, wherever they are found to prevail, these unwelcome practices certainly deserve to be eliminated. However, while their prevalence in Uttar Pradesh may vary in degree in comparison to some other States, there cannot be much dispute that governance in the country has broadly moved in the direction of internalising these toxic features across almost all States. It, therefore, cannot be claimed that Uttar Pradesh is unique in such respects. Over several decades, dozens of reports analysing the weaknesses of national governance have documented these facts and suggested solutions. Alas, their recommendations have not been backed by any perceivable political will to implement them.

---

While antidotes to other weaknesses may provide a modicum of improvement in State governance, no quantum change will happen unless the fundamentals are addressed.

---

There are, however, some unique and broader facts about Uttar Pradesh that are fundamental to its governance malaise. Others pale into significance in their presence. While antidotes to other weaknesses may provide a modicum of improvement in State governance, no quantum change will happen unless these fundamentals are addressed.

The fundamentals are that the state is too massive for success, too centralised for speed and too non-transparent for accountability.

The first of these is decidedly the State’s bulging demographic size. Uttar Pradesh’s huge population is estimated to have crossed 200 million and it continues to grow at a fair clip, higher than the national average. The State comprises more than six dozen districts, one and a half dozen divisions, above 800 blocks and more than 15 percent of India’s gram panchayats. Additionally, it has in excess of a dozen large cities, many of these million plus and more than 600 other towns. It needs no great administrative acumen to conclude that these are colossal numbers that will not be amenable to be serviced from one secretariat. State governments have a large implementational and monitoring role and need to be in close communication with districts, police and the cities. In a situation where a very large number of developmental efforts are being essayed, frequent operational issues arise that need to be sorted out by state functionaries so that smooth delivery could happen. Improvements in technology and better communication have helped, but they have largely been offset by higher people densities, the multiplicity of governmental activities and the fractious nature of State polity. The consequences are for all to see. Huge regional disparities, low agricultural and industrial growth, very high maternal and infant mortality, an underperforming education system, high unemployment and considerable out-migration for jobs — all of these are features of the State. Sadly, these developmental indicators mirror those of sub-saharan Africa, despite the fact that the State has enormous growth potential.

---

Improvements in technology and better communication have helped, but they have largely been offset by higher people densities, the multiplicity of governmental activities and the fractious nature of State polity.

---

It is also significant to consider that the states that were formed out of larger states have outperformed their original homelands. Uttarakhand, carved out of UP, now has a per capita income three times higher than its erstwhile parent state. Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh seem to have fared better than Bihar and Madhya Pradesh in terms of development since they separated. There is, therefore, good reason to seriously consider the division of the state. This is more so, since such a large state that lags behind is bound to pull the whole nation backwards. Decidedly, the size of UP is humongous and it is absolutely essential that if the state has to perform better, it must be divided into several more states of manageable size. It is somewhat perplexing that despite general political agreement across political parties about the efficacy of smaller states, courage to apply the scalpel on UP is singularly absent.

Centralisation is the other bane of the state. It is universally acknowledged that decentralisation is about the most significant element of good governance. This comprises the transfer of political, fiscal and administrative responsibilities and powers from the state government to districts and local governments. While the Indian Parliament pushed through the 73^rd and 74^th Constitutional Amendments, states have dragged their feet and failed to bring about true decentralisation. They stopped at political decentralisation without delivering on functional, fiscal and administrative transfers to the local echelons. As a consequence, a huge number of local decisions are taken at levels much higher than where they logically need to be taken. This impacts both speed of delivery as well as accountability. Centralisation in any organisation breeds inefficiencies; but in a massive state of the size of Uttar Pradesh, centralisation is a recipe for administrative paralysis.

Maximising transparency is the third important element of good governance. It is a vital tool that brings about openness and renders wrong-doing difficult. From all accounts, no great effort is being made to achieve real transparency in the functioning of public organisations — in the implementation of developmental schemes, in the delivery of regulatory services or in public procurement. It is true that the Right to Information Act has been of some help and the growth of new technologies has made transparency easily achievable. The invasive presence of electronic media as well as the rapidly growing use of social media have enforced a degree of openness that otherwise may not have been forthcoming. But the number of public decisions are so many that, till such time public organisations proactively, and of their own volition adopt transparency tools, seeking information through the Right to Information Act will be a very limited process. The less transparent an organisation is, the less accountable it is. It is evident that public organisations wield great power. If this is not counterbalanced by accountability and its affairs and actions get shrouded in secrecy, it is a sure invitation to high levels of malfeasance.

• Domestic Politics and Governance
• India
• Bureaucracy
• Centralisation
• governance
• Public Procurement
• Uttar Pradesh

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.