Meet the five CMs of Uttar Pradesh; not even one of them is Akhilesh

Lucknow: Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav has a very simple explanation for rising incidents of crime against women, and crime in general, in Uttar Pradesh: it is a big state and therefore, by proportion, the number of such incidents is the lowest in the country. Does this mean that unless this number touches a frightening level, it is somehow justified? “There is no political will to bring about a change in the basic things. The socio-economic landscape has not changed. A culture of favouritism and misuse of authority prevails across the state,” says Sandeep Kumar, a social activist. Rahess Singh, an economist and columnist, concurs and adds: “All this is happening because the ruling party workers and lower-middle bureaucracy have formed a strong nexus. Only those things will be done that are dictated by SP workers or leaders,” he says. The problem, feel many political observers, former bureaucrats and social scientists, appears to be within the ruling party itself. “Democracy appears to have been converted into a family affair and the chief minister does not seem to be having a free hand in running his own government,” says a former bureaucrat. The state’s economy appears to be in an ad hoc mode, with massive funds remaining unutilized every year despite huge allocations in the budget. [caption id=“attachment_1536305” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Mulayam Singh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav. AFP.[/caption] Akhilesh has often commented jocularly that there is nothing wrong if there are five chief ministers in the state, it only helps in better decision-making. But what he does not mention is that it is like independent verticals, with none bothered about the others. Direct, written orders on citizen’s plaints by even the chief secretary, or chief minister’s personal visit to a site of public complaints, have failed to move the officials concerned to react. It is common knowledge in the state that the “verticals” headed by the party national president, one party general secretary, one bureaucrat and two senior ministers, are known to be quite independent in their functioning and are chary of getting orders or suggestions from the others. Of these five, three are from the ruling family. An earlier article,  Lucknow rape, murder: Why Akhilesh's police force is far too compromised , discusses the collapsing law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh and the state of anarchy that has started setting in. It makes the point that the Akhilesh government has lost control and the rot is not limited to the police force alone. People have lost all respect for the state machinery and the police have started becoming the victims of the mess of their own making what with brazen attacks on policemen in recent times. In case of any confrontation, the easiest way out to assert authority is to transfer officials concerned. “Officers of the police and administration have been transferred even three or four times a month to please the heads of verticals,” says another retired officer. Right from chief secretary, principal secretary to the CM, secretaries to home, information, health and industries departments and the director general of police have been changed in the last two years. District magistrates, department heads and district police chiefs have been changed several times in this period. “Most of us keep ourselves ready to move on in a day’s notice,” says an officer who has recently moved to Lucknow from an outstation posting. That the chief minister may not be enjoying freedom in having officers of his choice is indicated by the fact that immediately after his taking over, an officer was named to be his principal secretary but within a few days he was replaced by another officer – the latter had been in this position during the chief ministership of Mulayam Singh Yadav some years ago. Secretaries of many departments have been changed following the displeasure of the two strong ministers. In contrast, district and police officials of Lucknow have remained in their position since 2012. Even sympathisers of the Samajwadi Party concede that there seems a feeling among party workers that they stand to lose everything in the next assembly election in 2017 or earlier, and therefore this is the time to do what they want without the fear of law or authority. While this may be brushed aside as a generalization, there is no denying the fact there does not appear any urgency within the ruling party to arrest the slide in Akhilesh Yadav’s popularity. Could herein lie a clue to the anarchy that stares UP in its face? While the chief minister faces the flak, all other four power centres seem to be oblivious of the damage caused to their overall credibility. Is Akhilesh a mere pawn in a larger power game? “The size of the state cannot be used as per the government’s convenience – to be quoted as a liability when it comes to crime, and to be flaunted as an achievement when it comes to budget size,” says a professor in Economics at Lucknow University on condition of anonymity. Another argument put forward by some political analysts is that since four power centres are in any case ruling the state, why not consider dividing the state into four smaller units so that each region gets an autonomous ruling establishment? But that is a different story altogether.