That was a big poll promise. But the irony is that forget about weeks, the guilty in the Bofors guns deal could not be brought to book during the entire tenure of the National Front government that Singh led for a little more than a year. Indeed, almost 25 years later, the guilty are yet to be punished, although several cases against the suspects have been registered. But nothing concrete has emerged out of those cases and that poll promise remains unfulfilled.
As Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party prepares to take oath as the chief minister of Delhi and form his minority government, it is important for him and his advisors to reflect on the obvious implications of making poll promises and what lessons they could draw from V P Singh's failure to punish the guilty in the Bofors bribery case. Note the similarities between Arvind Kejriwal and V P Singh. Both of them made corruption the central issue of their poll campaign. Both of them could be quite rigid and inflexible when dealing with public policy issues. And both of them saw merit in making specific poll promises while seeking support from the electorate.
Also Read
There is little scope for debate over making corruption the central plank of a campaign. It worked then for V P Singh and has worked now for Arvind Kejriwal. An inflexible approach, too, turned out to be beneficial for both Singh and Mr Kejriwal. The problem, however, was with the nature of the poll promises they made. And it is in this respect that Mr Kejriwal and his advisors may have a thing or two to learn from V P Singh's experience.
The first lesson is that during a campaign one must not make grand poll promises that appear difficult to be fulfilled in a reasonable time frame. Two, even if one may have made a poll promise that in hindsight appears too difficult to be fulfilled, it makes sense to admit that at the earliest available opportunity and modify it suitably. V P Singh did neither. He made the grand promise of bringing to book the guilty in the Bofors case within weeks of his coming to power. And after forming his government, he stuck to that promise even as he realised the unlikelihood of fulfilling it.
Mr Kejriwal has already committed the first mistake of making not just one but quite a few promises to the electorate in the run-up to the recent Delhi Assembly elections. Many of them are not easy promises: reducing power tariff by 50 per cent, providing free water to all with a monthly consumption of less than 700 litres a day, and regularising unauthorised residential colonies.
There are about 900-odd unauthorised residential colonies in Delhi today. Theoretically, it is possible - and easy - for the new chief minister to quickly notify all these dwelling complexes as legitimate. But the question is whether mere regularisation of such colonies would help him fulfil the promise Mr Kejriwal's party made in both letter and spirit. An authorised residential colony should also have certain basic amenities. Regularising an unauthorised colony will make a difference only when such a step comes along with the provision of basic facilities like water, electricity, sewerage and roads. Making these facilities available to more than 900 unauthorised colonies is a matter of not just a few days or weeks but several months.
The promise of providing up to 700 litres of free water to all households in Delhi is likely to give rise to other complications. There are about 2.9 million households in Delhi. Supplying all of them free water up to 700 litres a month would cost the Delhi government about Rs 133 per household at the current tariff level - and thus an additional annual subsidy of around Rs 460 crore. But the real challenge would be to ensure that all those 2.9 million households get the supply of free water.
An even more difficult task would be to reduce power tariffs by half. Quite apart from the fact that a 50 per cent cut in tariffs would be unrealistic, there are other problems with that promise. Power distribution companies in Delhi would have to be subsidised by the government and that itself would be an additional financial burden.
So, what should Mr Kejriwal do? He should be in no hurry to repeat any of these grand promises after taking oath as the chief minister. He should swiftly outline his agenda for action and explain to the electorate that while he remains committed to those promises, he would need a reasonable period of time to fulfil them. Setting up an audit committee to recommend the extent of power tariff reduction would be a good beginning. This would give everybody, including the power distribution companies, an opportunity to explain whether Delhi's power tariffs needed a downward revision and, if so, by how much.
The same logic should apply to the other promises. Free water results in misuse and wastage. There is no harm in subjecting the poll promise to scrutiny by another committee. Similarly, any action on regularising an unauthorised colony should be part of a larger plan to provide other basic amenities to the residents there, even if that means a longer time frame to fulfil the poll promise.
In short, Mr Kejriwal should learn from V P Singh's mistake of not making a distinction between a promise made before an election and after forming the government. A politician seeking votes can be forgiven for making big, even unfeasible promises. But the same electorate can turn against a politician who after being elected to form a government repeats those promises without subjecting them to administrative scrutiny and a reality check. The reaction to Mr Kejriwal will be no different.