When the State Ceases to Act

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, at a rally in Nadia District in January 2019, declared the intention of her government to withdraw from the Ayushman Bharat scheme – a centrally sponsored medical insurance program meant to cover hospital expenses of poor families to the extent of Rs 5 lakhs a year. 

Earlier her government entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Union government to implement the scheme on a cost sharing basis where 40% of the expenses was to be borne by the state. The Union Government started sending the documents to the beneficiaries by Speed Post towards implementation of the scheme in different States. 

Banerjee’s declaration on withdrawing from the programme came in the midst of that process. As soon as she announced the state’s stand, miscreants in different districts started intimidating postal employees and physically resisted delivery of Ayushman letters already in transit. Media reports at the time revealed that when the issues were taken up by the post offices with local administration, no effective support was extended to the government body in carrying out its legal mandate – delivery of letters.  

Also read: Treatment for the Dead, Discharge Before Surgery and the Many Problems of Ayushman Bharat

Bengal withdrew from the Ayushman Bharat scheme in a dispute over branding. Why did the letters sent to the beneficiaries by the Union government have photos of the prime minister on it when the state was to bear 40% of the overall expenses? 

There were also differences of opinion with the Union government on naming of the scheme. The issue here is not to judge the probity of the state’s decision to withdraw from the scheme but to ask whether the state can remain a mute spectator when local miscreants physically resist the post office, a government department, in discharging its mandated role of delivering letters.

The same lack of integrity was seen on the part of the state administration in the recently held three-tier Panchayat elections. About 55 lives, according to media reports, were lost in violent political clashes after the schedules were declared by the State Election Commission (SEC). This disgrace cannot be set off by the argument that in the past the state had witnessed a greater number of deaths in local body elections. 

The logic that more of the ruling party’s sympathisers died and hence opposition political parties were primarily responsible for violent clashes does not lead us anywhere. The administration responsible for conducting the election under the direction and supervision of the SEC, could not establish their intention to conduct a fair and fearless election.

The Panchayat election of this year, particularly the way the ballots were counted, reminded us of the type of polls that we witnessed in some States of India in late-eighties and early-nineties in the pre-Seshan days. T. N. Seshan was a former chief election commissioner who strictly enforced the model code of conduct and led the critical electoral reforms in the 1990s.

Also read: T. N. Seshan, the Unyielding Force That Cleansed India's Elections

SEC’s silence made individual officers accountable for supervision of the counting process, solely responsible for any aberration. The way the commission communicated with the public through the press, their body language, their reluctance to engage central forces, their hurry to complete the election process by any means, never gave an impression that they were serious in conducting the election in a fair and fearless manner. In the absence of any support from anywhere up in the hierarchy, if the Block level officers surrender to local pressure and counter-pressure, can we make them wholly responsible for their act?

Whether the absence of large-scale aberrations could alter substantially the election results is not an important issue here. What is a new low is the way the election was held. After the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government came to power in 2011, the first Panchayat election was held in 2013 in the midst of the Saradha chit-fund controversy, under the stewardship of then state EC, Mira Pandey. 

That was the only time when local body elections were held in Bengal in five phases with the assistance of 825 companies of the Central Police Force. The commission had moved to the apex court on its own to ensure that the Union government, led by the UPA, would arrange the requisite number of forces. The EC at the time was criticised for unusual activism. Though not to the same extent, many died in political clashes even in 2013. But nobody could allege that the EC was not serious in its intention to conduct a fair and fearless election. 

The EC's effort gave credibility to TMC’s unprecedented victory in the 2013 election. Unfortunately, in spite of the handsome victory of the ruling party this time, they will be denied that credibility. Those responsible for conducting the election must not forget the age-old proverb that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”.

Gautam Bhattacharya is a former civil servant and an independent commentator on socio-economic issues and public policies. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.