Too Much

editorial:

Everyone knows of that maxim about the advisable course of action when helping out a hungry person – whether to give him fish or teaching him how to fish. The State has been serving out fish for so long in Sikkim that spoon-feeding is seen as a matter of right, and any effort to set the equation right is greeted with protest. Admittedly, the scenario is slightly more complicated than this, but this is more or less the situation in Sikkim.
Slightly more than a decade back, when the Government announced plans to introduce a city bus service for Gangtok, the taxi drivers went on strike in protest. The government buckled over under pressure and the city-runner service is still a token service in a capital crying out for a proper public transport system. At present, traders are crying foul over the hike in trade licence fee, something which is being proposed after 10 years, and taxi driver associations working the system to derail the Gangtok-Darshan bus service announced by the SNT. While both sections are at freedom to appeal for a rethink, none should, however, proceed in the belief that protectionism comes to them by way of right. One has heard the frequent invitations to the people to deliver on their responsibilities even as they enjoy their rights, and the latest development is a pointer to where things are going wrong in Sikkim. No association of traders has done anything substantial to question, explain or correct the usurious billing that shopping in Sikkim attracts, and yet, is quick to protest when trade license fee is hiked. Ditto for taxi driver associations which ignore the fleecing of tourists during peak season, the over-charging of locals during highway bandhs and the scarcity of share-cab services for daily commuters when tourist season picks up. They are, however, quick to protest a bus service for tourists.
It is improbably rare for any sector to formulate effective self-monitoring systems, and one may even argue that it is natural for such organisations to look after their own affairs, but they miss the point that by speaking exclusively only about their own affairs, they run the risk of alienating the lay people. This isolates their stands and demands and corners them in a position where the government could, if it so desired, ignore them because the demands do not have public endorsement or even sympathy. The government here has however rarely done so, and in all likelihood, will capitulate yet again. This is not only unhealthy, but also projects a conception that only demands which are laced with threats and backed with table-banging abilities are taken seriously. What also emboldens such limited-intent demands is the irritating tendency which runs all through the hierarchy from the bureaucracy to the legislative, in which individual officers and representatives, instead of explaining the decisions, pass on the ‘blame’ to someone or some agency higher up.
Now, there is also the argument that no one wants to be measured for civic responsibility and professional accountability because they see too many instances all around them and in the government of no such demands being made of the people and officials enforcing the new rules and regulations. While this is true, it is no excuse. What would help though is that the justifications being offered to withdraw State sponsorship and protectionism from sectors enjoying it undeservedly, should also be extended to the various arms of governance by way of fixing accountability earnestly.