There is no dearth of reports, articles and analysis on India’s preparation or the lack of it for the Commonwealth Games (CWG) 2010. Apart from the Indian news channels inviting ‘experts’ of all hues to comment on what went wrong and the national mission to discover where the ‘buck stops’, criticism in the international media has been equally acute. The level of corruption and delayed preparations are a cause of concern and hopefully the CWG experience will allow the Indian state to get its act together. However the sweeping criticisms have two dimensions which need to be disentangled: what the Indian state is capable of achieving in the context of the country’s social milieu and what the international community expects of India.
The international media and Indian critics of the CWG have been quick to declare that India’s failure to ‘successfully organize’ the Games (which is still a prognosis rather than a definitive conclusion) squashes India’s claim to be a developed world power. NYT refers to it as a “major embarrassment for the country instead of a showcase for its rising economic might.” India, in part, can be held responsible for this narrative. Delhi’s Chief Minister Sheila Dixit and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have on countless occasions made statements equating the success of the CWG with demonstration of India’s growing economic and technological prowess.
Undoubtedly, the Government of India should have been more vigilant in organizing the Games; but does this failure on part of an Indian state agency spell doom for India? The Guardian selectively puts together reports and über leftist opinions to show that many Indians see the CWG crisis as a “symptom of a failed state.” I agree that the Indian state should have done better and its under-performance is inexcusable. The handling of the CWG by UPA-II is particularly disappointing. This was an excellent public diplomacy exercise for the Indian government which has now gone wasted. Thus in meeting the expectations of the international community the Indian state has fared poorly. But what does this tell us about the capabilities of the Indian state?
The Indian state can aspire for high goals, make policies in the respective ministries for realizing these goals, allocate responsibility for implementing the policies and take punitive action if policies are not implemented or goals missed. These theoretical capabilities are limited by social and cultural factors and since India is a democracy the state is not capable of homogenizing the socio-cultural trends. Socio-cultural transformations should come from the within the society rather than directed by the state.
Let’s take an example. Most Indians who have had encounters with construction workers, sanitation personnel, household helps, and property dealers will be able to tell how nightmarish can the experience be. In most of these encounters the state does not feature explicitly and the dealings are private. Yet the level of corruption, lack of commitment, customer service and mutual respect may surprise Western observers. Most of the service providers under-deliver yet expect to be over paid. The trend may be changing but still widespread. Everyone tries to make a buck at the expense of the other and evade responsibility for any mismanagement. These traits are not shunned in instances when the state gets involved; it only gets magnified and the blame gets pinned on the state. Thus the ability of the state to achieve particular goals is limited by the existing forms of social interactions.
Does this imply that Indian society needs to alter its social habits for enabling the Indian state to achieve positive results? Only partially; though duplication of the western style is unnecessary and unworkable. Despite the harrowing experiences with construction workers, sanitation personnel, household helps and property dealers most Indians are able to get the job done. The process may not be as smooth or fast as in most Western countries but things ultimately fall into place. The task requires some ingenuity which most Indians have acquired and the state needs to learn. Hopefully the CWG experience has provided an opportunity for the Indian state to imbibe this ingenuity.
Before closing, a few comments on the issue of measuring up to international expectations.
Let us assume for a moment that India’s preparation for the CWG was perfect. Would India receive international allocates for doing a great job? I doubt. The attention would then have turned to how India ignored demands of rural development, displaced millions in the process of showcasing a polished image, employed child labor at construction sites and under-paid the sanitation workers. Newspapers would have been flushed with photos of lavish Khel Gaon with state of art facilities in comparison with filthy squatters in the city of Delhi.
For countries like India and China the challenge is not only to develop but develop ‘responsibly’. If these countries fail to measure up to the Western defined standards of ‘development’ or ‘responsibility’, intense criticism follows. Events like the Beijing Olympics and New Delhi CWG are occasions to put these standards of ‘development’ and ‘responsibility’ to test. Though the verdict on India’s poor performance on the CWG is already out there little rationale for referring to an administrative failure as a verdict on national incompetence.
