Governance in Uttar Pradesh has been marked by political instability and an even deeper bureaucratic instability. Since Independence, UP has had 42 Chief Secretaries out of which only three stayed on for more than three years and just five stayed on for more than two years. The state has had 38 Chief Ministers in addition to three spells of President’s Rule. With growing political instability leading to coalition governments, the Chief Minister has to make compromises on both policy and administrative issues. This has led to a tendency to maximize short-term gains rather than addressing longer-term issues concerning economic development. It has led to short tenures of District Officers and Secretaries and has also encouraged a tendency among officers to be close to the powers that be rather than being independent in taking decisions. This has played havoc with all public organizations in the state.
With every change of Chief Minister a massive shift in officers takes place. Although the data is incomplete, from 1992 to 1998 each Chief Minister has transferred an average of 420 officers per year, out of a total cadre of nearly 500 officers. A recent World Bank study points out that the average tenure is now less than a year.
The feeling has been growing among the political masters that, under the Constitution, it is they who head the administration and have absolute power and control over the administrative set-up. The administrative ethos of the political administration has therefore changed. Further, ministers are now not necessarily appointed because of their abilities but because of the political fractions they control. Transfers are thus one of the tools that politicians use to make the officers and staff “responsive” to them.
The governance of any state can be judged by:
- The actual output in terms of economic and social parameters. (See Outputs box.)
- The public perception of governance which includes the ease with which the ordinary citizen can sort out his problems with the government.
Decentralization
Decentralization in planning and programmes is necessary to ensure planned regional development, and participation and empowerment of the poor. However, despite clear Constitutional directions through the 73rd and 74th Amendments, effective decentralization has not been pursued in UP. No effective transfer of functions, functionaries and finances to local self-government and no capacity building in institutions like gram sabhas has taken place.
UP has only transferred 12 subjects to local government as against 29 in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Haryana. UP has not even constituted District Planning Committees while 20 states have done so.
It is jokingly called
Ulta Pradesh while
the information
department of the
government would
like it to be called
Uttam Pradesh
Open Government
Open government is a key element in judging performance. With the enforcement of the Right to Information Act, all government files and decisions have come under public scrutiny. UP has also set up its Information Commission and has also appointed a number of Information Commissioners. However, the Chief Information Commissioner of UP has been openly complaining about the apathy of the government in providing it the required infrastructure. The number of appeals filed against government decisions has also risen tremendously.
Coming to the second factor, i.e. public perception, without doubt there is a negative public perception about governance in UP. It is jokingly called Ulta Pradesh while the information department of the government would like it to be called Uttam Pradesh. The media highlights the ministers’ follies and reports on worsening law and order.
Financial
The Twelfth Finance Commission accepted that, while UP will have its own revenue receipts of Rs 1,29,099 crore, expenditure would be Rs 2,31,596 crore. UP’s debt as of March 31, 2004 was the highest in the country – Rs 99,416 crore. This went up at the end of 2005 to Rs 1,07,922 crore.
In the Budget for 2008-2009, a revenue surplus of Rs10977.68 crore has been shown which is higher than the actuals of 2007-2008 by almost Rs 4831.66 crore. However, the gross fiscal deficit is Rs 11,698.91 crore. This is 2.98 per cent of the GDP of the state.
Fiscal Issues
In addition to acute poverty, UP’s fiscal problems are also acute, resulting in unsustainable borrowing and cutting of necessary development expenditure. The state is caught in a vicious circle of low investment-low growth-low revenues leading to further de-acceleration of development.
Although there has been some improvement in the past few years due to better tax recovery and freezing of new staff recruitment, the trend of recovery can be sustained only through further stringent measures.
Some implications of the huge fiscal and revenue deficit are discussed below:
Falling Plan Expenditure
Plan expenditure has been falling rapidly since the V Plan (1974-79) as compared to similar expenditure in other states. This is despite the fact that devolution from the Government of India both via the Finance Commission and the Planning Commission favours the poorer states.
A wide gap between planned amount and what is actually made available leads to uncertainty in budget releases and corruption.
The state has a very low share of Plan expenditure in total expenditure. This is only 18 per cent (the all-state share is 25 per cent). Debt servicing (including interest and principal payment) accounts for 31 per cent (the all-state figure is 25 per cent of total expenditure). Debt servicing is crowding out Plan expenditure.
Falling Social Sector Expenditure
Changes in expenditure on education and health as a proportion of total expenditure in the state can be seen from the accompanying table. It shows that the expenditure on social sectors as a proportion of total expenditure has been falling, and is much less than the all-India average. Despite improvement in 2004-05 and 2005-06, long-term trends will be known only when such an increase is sustained in the coming years too.
Corruption
There is no official data on the degree of corruption in the state. However, a survey was conducted in 2000 at the instance of the World Bank which highlighted the intense corruption in the lower judiciary, the revenue department, sales tax department and local bodies. Demand for speed money is common. In successive surveys of the business community by Business Today, the perception of administrative corruption and malfeasance was cited as a major deterrent against investment in the state.
In 1999, Business Today ranked UP the second-worst state to invest in due to political stability and poor governance. A survey of the public revealed that nearly 57 per cent of the population had to pay bribes to receive public services.
A private survey was carried out in 2005 by the Centre for Media Studies. In the composite ranging of states on petty corruption involving the common citizen and in the context of 11 public services, the composite index of UP was 491 and it ranked 10th in the country. Electricity, schools and income tax figures high in the corruption ranging in UP.
The UP government took immediate note of this and put together a strategy aimed at restoring the efficiency and integrity of the civil services. It developed a viable anti-corruption strategy and strengthened accountability institutions like the Lok Ayukt and the vigilance establishment. It developed citizen’s charters to improve service delivery. However, the results were again mixed. The backlog of vigilance and Lok Ayukt reports was cleared and the number of investigations increased. But, after the political transition a few months later, the emphasis was reduced.
Law and Order
The National Crime Records Bureau shows the incidence of Total Cognizable crimes under the IPC in UP came down from 1,73,643 cases in 1999 to 95,073 in 2003 and then went up to 1,30,181 in 2004. However, the rate of crime per lakh population was 73.2 which was lowest, next only to Nagaland and Meghalaya. In 2006 the corresponding figures were 1,27,000 IPC cases and the rate of crime per lakh population was 68.6.
Against a population of 166 million, UP has a police force of 1,26,249 which is almost one-eighth of the country’s police force. But the budget for the force is very low. When people go to the thanas for registration and investigation, they often have to pay for petrol and stationery, which is always in short supply and is usually made up from local shops and businessmen. UP spends around Rs 2,500 crore on its police force but only 33 per cent of the officers and others are provided housing.
Large-scale burgling and corruption has been reported from time to time in the recruitment of police personnel. Even DIGs have been suspended for such actions.
A positive point has been the lowering of communal incidents. The conviction rate of IPC cases is almost 56.8 per cent, which is higher than the national average. Strong action has also been taken against dacoits.
Challenges to Governance
The UP government faces the challenges of maintaining quality of governance, increasing accountability and reducing instances of administrative misconduct leading to corruption. However, any strategy to improve the quality of governance will need to have three components. First, a re-definition of the role of government, specifically a reduction of its role in the economy through deregulation and disinvestment so that it is able to focus its limited capacity in those areas in which it has comparative advantages. Second, a programme of civil service renewal is required so that the government can better perform its core functions. Third, service quality and accountability can be improved by well-planned devaluation of spending responsibilities and revenue raising powers to elected local bodies.
In civil service reform, the government faces three critical challenges. It must enhance productivity of the civil services and ensure that every employee is performing socially relevant tasks. Second, it must create procedures for awarding merit and for punishing malfeasance and misconduct. Third, the cutting-edge level should be adequately trained and professionalized.
Information technology should be used as a major tool to make government totally accessible to the citizen. All documents and forms should be available online. All government departments should be accessible through a government portal and a grievances button should be displayed prominently.
The Way Ahead
UP’s governance has been affected by caste-based politics which has now entered the administrative sphere. In postings, this factor plays a major role. However, it exists in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh also. In the initial post-Independence era, it used to be a tussle between Brahmins and Vaishyas or the Kayasthas and Thakurs. Now, it is between Scheduled Castes and their political grouping at one end and the OBCs and their political groupings at the other.
We also see a unique political phenomenon these days. If a particular scheme is sanctioned by one political party in power, it is completely nullified and demolished by the next political party in power.
However, it must be said to the credit of all governments that have come to power in UP that, in development work, all political parties and all governments have contributed. In fact, in the Twenty Point Programme, one Chief Minister wanted to know which of his predecessors had done the best. Central statistics say UP stood first in 13-16 programmes in the country during the terms of three Chief Ministers but different programmes were emphasized in each tenure. Narain Dutt Tiwari’s emphasis was on development, Kalyan Singh’s was on IT, law and order, and “value for money”, and Mulayam Singh Yadav’s was on industrialization and power.
Mayawati’s emphasis is on infrastructure, highways connecting undeveloped east UP with Delhi, and sound financial policies like enforcing VAT. What has weakened the Chief Ministers often is the activities of those with whom they are closely associated.
The present government has come in with a strong majority and if UP develops now the credit will go solely to the present political party in power. However, if it fails in improving law and order, or in development it will have to take the full responsibility of maladministration. This opportunity has come after a long time. The civil services will also have to play their role. With the Right to Information Act and a proactive judiciary, officers must resist taking wrong decisions at the behest of local partymen who assume they are the representatives of the powers that be. Whistle-blowing must be encouraged and citizens and NGOs should be motivated to file PILs in those cases where administration is being pressured to indulge in unlawful acts. And civil servants must themselves take the initiative not to do wrong under peer pressure. The IAS association should continue voting on the most corrupt officers and put suspect officers on a watch list.
