These days, whenever I get into the car and the FM radio comes alive, there is no escaping the definitely unfit-for-broadcast voice of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. In the advertisement Mr Kejriwal gives Delhiites the “good news” that the Odd-Even scheme is coming back for the fortnight beginning next Friday (April 15). Though it would, like in January, usher in a phase of inconvenience too, Mr Kejriwal claims that the news is good because Delhi’s maiden run of the Odd-Even idea was successful.
Mr Kejriwal stresses three factors for terming the “return of the Odd-Even” as news that should cheer people: roads will be vacant and pollution will be less. But, more importantly, the second run of the innovation requires endorsement from Delhiites because the world has seen them as a “disciplined” lot. For a self-declared anarchist, this is quite a transition.
Mr Kejriwal’s claim on reduced pollution levels is not backed by empirical data. Whatever evidence exists, demonstrates little or no impact of the 15-day programme in January. But this fact is sidestepped in the ads and in the build-up to the second phase, Mr Kejriwal’s pitch is more emotional than backed by facts. Another radio advertisement narrates how the scheme enabled people to make new friends by pooling cars. Negative opinion on the Odd-Even regulation is being neutralised by propping other positives and by not mentioning any data on reduced pollution.
Mr Kejriwal’s emotive pep-talk hides the fact that the scheme is among the most disruptive policy interventions in any democratic setup. The world over, whenever leaders have little facts to back their case, they resort to the use of sentiment to make a case. Though pollution remained constant, if not higher than previous years, the scheme was considered successful by people. They cooperated with the plan — evident in few cases of violations. This was contrary to fears that Delhiites would flout norms with impunity.
Mr Kejriwal is on record that he was extremely apprehensive about the scheme’s success and couldn’t grab a wink on the night of December 31. People’s cooperation in making the scheme successful was unexpected and demonstrated that the policy touched a chord. Instead of seeing the initiative as coercive, people adopted the programme as “their own”.
This was due to the way Mr Kejriwal presented his idea and made citizens stakeholders. He convinced people that he had nothing to gain and all benefits would accrue to them. No one sought facts on basic claims because other publicised positives worked as a smokescreen. Mr Kejriwal encashed Delhiites’ discomfort with their lives in the city and its traffic which provides no escape. The situation was also tailor-made for it: winters in Delhi are gloomy and smog is psychologically depressing besides causing breathing disorders.
The Kejriwal government succeeded while the previous government failed to “sell” the bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor aimed at decongesting roads, a problem afflicting every citizen, because it pit bus users against private car users and created a clear class divide. In contrast Odd-Even is bridging the class divied. The Odd-Even scheme would not have had many takers if it was introduced when pollution was not so evident.
This time Mr Kejriwal is not talking about current levels of pollution, but is invoking the memory of the past feat to make Phase II an equal success. If he is able to pull it off again, the scheme will acquire permanence in Delhi and soon spread to other cities. But if the scheme is not as successful as last time, it will end Mr Kejriwal’s brainchild and much more.
Most importantly, Phase II will determine the future of citizens’ participation in government schemes. There is no data yet to assess the number of car conversions to CNG after Phase I. But from whatever one can see on Delhi’s road, the number is fairly high and random conversations suggest that this has been mainly done with an eye to beat the scheme and remain on road and not motivated by the desire to use cleaner fuel. Roads will surely be more crowded this time than in January because rising heat will make public transport less comfortable. The response of people needs close monitoring.
The Odd-Even plan is not the only instance when citizens have responded to a call for voluntary action. For several years the United Progressive Alliance government provided an “opt-out” option on websites of oil marketing companies for people to declare that they did not wish to purchase subsidised LPG cylinders. But till Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s evocative push to the programme in March 2015, there were few takers for the scheme. Since then we have seen dramatic rise in the numbers who heeded to his call to “give it up”.
The few millions who have so far given up subsidy are miniscule when compared to the LPG user base of approximately 155 million. Yet, as a social phenomenon among the middle-class, not known for sensitivity to needs of underprivileged, this trend requires understanding. When he sounded the “give it up” call,
Mr Modi said that he realised that “desh ka har nagrik bhagidaari karne ko tayyar hota hai (every citizen of the country wants to be a stakeholder)”. Mr Modi declared that he was giving people such an opportunity (“main unko avsar dena chahta hun”).
Leaders like Mr Modi and Mr Kejriwal create an illusion among people that they are stakeholders in the system by allocating small, minor tasks to them. Mr Modi’s emotional appeal to “give it up” instils a sense of patriotism among citizens who view the act as their share of national duty. As a child, Mr Modi collected clothes for Indian soldiers going to the front to fight the war with China. He told this writer much later that these clothes would have been of no use to Armymen but everyone who donated these felt that they had done their bit for the country. Giving up subsidy of '200 per cylinder is all that it now takes to be a patriot and a responsible citizen. If you don’t give it up, you will soon be declared anti-national! Paradoxically, neither Mr Modi nor
Mr Kejriwal prefer partnerships when it comes to sharing political power, but use the illusion of partnership to enlist support of people whose votes they require. Both Odd-Even and “give it up” are intensely political calls of two leaders who are aware that governance must also help their chances in the next elections.
