#dnaEdit: The client state

Emboldened by an overwhelming mandate, Delhi’s Chief Minister-designate Arvind Kejriwal has wasted no time in demanding complete statehood for the “national capital territory”. The series of meetings Kejriwal had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Rajnath Singh and urban development minister Venkaiah Naidu were not mere courtesy calls or an attempt to build bridges after a bruising election campaign. Behind the veneer of smiles and promises of cooperation, both sides must be feeling a creeping sense of unease. The Delhi government has often been derided as a quasi state, without control over police and land, and having to contend with six civic bodies — the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), three municipal corporations (North, East, South), the Delhi Cantonment Board, and the New Delhi Municipal Council — holding sway over vast swathes of land. Even the legislative assembly’s limitations came to the fore last year, when confusion persisted over whether the AAP government could introduce the Janlokpal Bill without the Lieutenant-Governor’s nod as it involved expenditure incurred on the Consolidated Fund. Considering all this, the Centre should know that the AAP’s mandate is an implicit endorsement for Delhi’s complete statehood from the electorate.

This puts the Centre in a delicate situation if it were to appear as a stumbling block to popular aspirations, especially, when its seat of power in Lutyens Delhi overlaps with the electorate, unlike say in distant Jammu and Kashmir or Andhra Pradesh, where the Centre effected a highly contested bifurcation amid violent protests last year. But the AAP, possibly wary of the anarchist tag earned during the eventful 49-day government, is unlikely to raise the stakes too soon. A protracted round of meetings will play out before the civility ends and the hard bargaining begins. By then, all will boil down to the political capital enjoyed by the Delhi and central governments. If the AAP can prove itself on the governance front, the Centre will find itself hard-pressed to explain why this is a  decision not to be easily taken. The central government has to take responsibility for the security of diplomatic enclaves and embassies, besides the central government offices and official residences. With the Intelligence Bureau not having the powers to effect arrests, it is often the Delhi Police, both under the Union home ministry, that the agency works closely with, on its anti-terror operations. However, none of this prevents the Centre from giving the Delhi government a greater say in transfers and postings of police officers and in demanding accountability from the police. 

The December 16 gang-rape protests and the Kejriwal dharna during his 49-day government, had at their root, the Delhi police’s failure to ensure security to women, their aversion to register FIRs on receipt of complaints, and the powerlessness of the Delhi government in fixing accountability on erring police personnel. The Centre should remember that all it could take is one more gruesome incident to trigger public anger. Taking proactive measures to make the Delhi government an equal stakeholder in policing would be the ideal course for the Centre. Popular protests in Delhi will hurt the Centre’s prestige, nationally and globally. The DDA’s track record is far worse. It is a bureaucracy that has failed miserably at its planning, housing and land development objectives. Retaining it with the Centre hardly makes sense. Before more of its land banks are encroached by land sharks, the Centre should turn over this lethargic agency to the incoming government, that has envisioned ambitious plans to construct new schools, colleges, and parking lots besides embarking on slum redevelopment. Kejriwal has done well to put his statehood demand on record at the outset; the onus is now on the Centre to respond.