Green Kerala: Dangers of hastening slowly

With the two women-related issues -entry of women into the sacred Sabarimala temple and the Women's Wall that sought to recapture the renaissance spirit of yesteryears - and the accompanying politics of optics pursued by parties of all hues having taken the centre stage, the hugely hyped programme of rebuilding the flood-devastated Kerala into Green Kerala has evidently been pushed to the back stage. The last time one heard of it was on November 29 last year when the well-meaning Chief Minister promised to cut red tape, crush bureaucratic hurdles and organise a series of "development seminars to gather ideas and suggestions" that would become part of the long-term visionary development plan." 

There has been a collective silence since then. Even the usually garrulous local media, both print and visual, ever in search of 'breaking news,' seem to have given it a short shrift. The scenario is unlikely to change in the near future what with the all- consuming parliament elections round the corner.

This is sharp contrast to the enormous enthusiasm with which it all began with teams of experts, both national and international, and organisations like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the European Union together under the umbrella of the United Nations chipping in with advice and promises of assistance and guidance. Predictably, everyone went overboard with the euphoria of a new Kerala in the making. 

And in the shortest possible span they put together a workable strategy to help the state not merely to get back to its feet but to position it firmly against future threats of similar or of much bigger dimension. 

The collective exercise resulted in a comprehensive plan of action titled "Kerala :Post Disaster Needs Assessment," (PDNA for short) which was submitted to the Chief Minister on October 26, 2018.

Aside from highlighting Kerala’s special strengths, especially its natural resources, it quite candidly highlighted the hitherto reckless exploitation of these resources, the urgent need to end many policy aberrations, the kind of institutional support that needs to be put in place to realise the objectives, and, no less importantly, the ways and means by which the needed finance could be mobilised.

Most of the findings and solutions suggested may lack the freshness of newfound wisdom. In fact they have been repeatedly mouthed ad nauseam for decades by many but seldom noticed, much less acted upon. 

Tragically, it required a horrendous natural calamity to shake us up to the shocking ground realities. Where the expert study defers is in not being content with merely identifying past failures and policy aberrations but also in providing a workable methodology for assessing damages, drawing up a recovery strategy, mobilising the needed funds and putting in place an accountable implementation agency. All this, of course, is already in public domain and well taken note of and hence needs no further elaboration.

But, clearly, the perceived inaction suggests a certain throw back to the old days when crisis management of the ruling dispensation had been overly strong on words but pathetically soft on action. 

Those who expected a refreshing difference from the present ruling dispensation under a chief minister whose remarkable leadership qualities had been in full display and whose grit and determined interventions saved the day for the people and the state have reasons to feel a wee bit disappointed by the turn of events which, for all that one knows, may have more to do with the unexpected political fallouts than with the fading sense of urgency seen earlier. But, then, dealing with priorities even as dealing with peripherals is what constitutes good leadership. And that was, precisely, what was expected of the chief minister who is certainly not a push-over.

In fact, it is not so much the perceived delay as the virtual proliferation of bodies that seems somewhat intriguing. There is, for example, an advisory council, an empowered committee, and one too many department-level committees and, topping all, the pivotal body, the Rebuild Kerala Initiative, all of which will be under the watchful eyes and close scrutiny of the all-powerful Cabinet.

The labour involved in coordinating the work of so many agencies will be more daunting than the rebuilding process itself. In some ways, this has all the trappings of Parkinson Law in action. With so many experts with their criss-crossing themes and ideas it may prove to be a typical a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

No less intriguing is the proposed decision to organise a series of development seminars across different sectors to gather ideas and suggestions which, besides ensuring people's participation in the rebuilding process, will also ensure that no sector is left out and no need is left unaddressed. Arguably, such an exercise would have well served the intended purpose if it has preceded the finalisation of the PDNA report, which itself is the product of studied deliberation of experts and institutions with abundant expertise and know-how of dealing with similar crisis situations elsewhere. 

It is also not clear whether the proposed seminars would consider the PDNA report or come out with their own fresh bunch of proposals. The nagging danger in such a wide-ranging participatory exercise is that Vision Kerala may have the fate that befell the proverbial cat which was choked to death by an excess of cream.

Crucially, what finally decides the fate of the grandiose plan envisioned for Kerala is how well and timely it is implemented. On this, a clear picture is yet to emerge. As mentioned earlier, there is a maze of committees, some advisory while others empowered, whatever that means, besides, of course, the RKI, which would be guided by an advisory committee headed by the Chief Minister and consisting of the opposition leader, ministers, top officials and representatives of industry and other sectors.

 Yet, it is not clear where exactly the buck starts and where it stops. In this puzzling network will the existing advisory council headed by the Chief Minister and consisting of four cabinet ministers, five department secretaries and experts of proven calibre (K.M. Chandrasekhar, former Central Cabinet Secretary, T.K.A Nair, well known bureaucrat, Dr. K.P. Kannan, eminent development economist, and Dr. Suresh, well known expert in building technology) fit in? (Interestingly, the Council which filters all proposals is supposed to meet once in a fortnight hasn't met in the last two and half months).

Evidently, the PDNA report has strongly favoured an independent agency to manage the recovery and reconstruction process. It has also listed the experience of countries that benefited with such arrangement when faced with crisis of similar nature. None of this seems to have impressed the ruling dispensation. 

In fact, with the Chief Minister as its chairman, the agency would have had the necessary political and official authority enabling it in the process in the timely realisation of Green Kerala. In retrospect, had such a body been in operation, it would have by now set the reconstruction on track. And that, for sure, would have also saved the Chief Minister from fighting on for too many fronts.