The feudal symbolism of Janata Durbars

Janata  Durbar traces its history to Dewan-e-aam held during Mughal times and its name to the Dilli Durbar of 1903.  Dewan-e-aam  was Emperor’s court, the place & occasion where the emperor would come, dressed in all their finery & jewellery, with durbaris , fiefs, vassal & bhands in attendance, to give a public a view of royal spectacle, to listen to the problems of common citizen and give instant justice.

Janata, in that context were the poor, suppressed, emasculated citizenry coming to Durbar hoping that the benevolent emperor would listen to their problems, be just to them and also of getting a good look at the royal grandeur.  Some would come with requests for waiver of taxes, some complaining against some minor revenue official and some for settling petty disputes.

A scene from Janata Durbar

The emperor would listen to the appeals of common citizens and was expected to mete out instant justice, punishment or reward.  In most of the cases, merit of an appeal was not the only aspect which influenced how the he would view it. What a petitioner would get in lieu of his appeal for waiver / justice / arbitration would depend upon how emotional his appeal was, emperor’s preconceived notions on the issue at hand, his current mood, his view of the respondent but mostly, nothing to do with logic, justice, rules of administration or stated policy. Many a times, how the empress had treated the King last night or the succulence of the lamb in the Korma served at breakfast or the color of turban of the accused could decide whether one got away with slap on the wrist or a noose around the neck.

At the end of it, the emperor would go back to palace gloating over his benevolence &  sense of justice, having done his rajdharma.  Common citizen would walk back home content at having been heard, instant justice given, unhappy if his request was not met but nevertheless, swelling with pride at having rubbed shoulders with powers that be.

Janata Durbar, the two words themselves symbolize an interaction between two mandatory classes, a ruler which wants to grant to itself, the role of bestower and an emasculated & deprived Janata content with pleading, begging and getting alms.

Essentially, Durbar was the place & occasion where two classes, ruler and the ruled, the king and the pauper, the rich and the impoverished would uncomfortably interact with each other and go back to their respective universes.

Taking a leap to the modern version, let’s look at the optics of Janata Durbar held by many elected representatives.

In an orderly held durbar, one would typically see an elected representative sitting on a desk on a stage with a couple of assistants. If it is a CM, there might be some cabinet ministers, some officials & some party volunteers too. The petitioners would queue in front, submitting their requests and pleading their cases. The bestower would receive the requests, give it to one of his deputies, issue instructions on whom to forward with an advice to follow it up at specific frequency. In some cases, he may also ask the officials about the specific case, who, due to lack of information at that moment, would promise that they would look it up.

In a poorly organized durbar, the petitioner has to jostle through the crowd, fight his way to the desk, get the attention of the bestower, submit his written appeal and be content with it joining the big pile collected there.

In most of cases, the decision can’t be taken on the spot, justice can’t be done, nor seen to be done as the self proclaimed bestower unlike the kings of erstwhile era, does not have the authority to do so.  Since we have a modern, layered system of government where decisions are required to be taken as per laid down procedures & policies, all the bestower can do is to collect all the applications / requests with a promise to look into and get back to the pleader.

Importantly if the durbar is held with the sole objective of creating a spectacle, most applications received can be found in the dustbin after durbar has ended.

But at the end of it, the bestower walks away with a swagger, full with satisfaction of having heard the public problems, happy that some more votes would have got added, creating an aam aadmi image for self, content that he can’t be accused of being insulated from his constituency. The common citizen having participated in the jamboree, walks back uncertain whether his request would be dealt with properly & his problem would be solved.

The two classes, bestower & pleader still remain, isolated from each other, unable to bridge the gap.

The sum & essence is that Durbars are acceptance of complete failure of normal administrative channels but are not antidote to it. The Durbars, whether held by emperors in 16^th century or by neo kings of 21^st century democracy, are feudal in nature, emphasize class distinctions and serve no purpose other than creating a false spectacle. Durbars are not and would never be a means to solving citizen problems.

On the other hand, a grievance redressal system is a different kettle of fish. In a functioning system, it is the mountain which has to go to Mohammad, not the other way round. Such a system needs to be layered to resolve mundane at lower level, important at higher level and only those requiring executive attention need to go to the highest level. The grievances have to be addressed within the laid down rules of business and only cases which need deviations / approvals / special waivers are flagged upwards.

A grievance redressal system has basically four components.

a)     Citizen Interaction : This is the only visible part of the grievance redressal system. This is the place or universe where interaction with public takes place. From the perception of public, this replaces the Janata Durbar. There can be a separate & specifically created grievance redressal centres, grievance cells within different departments,  helplines, websites etc.  The interaction has to be pleasant, warm, welcoming & one that is able to instil a sense of assurance in the mind of the visitor / caller. The procedures have to be simple enough to be understood by all & free of the convoluted forms the bureaucracy seems to come up with often.

b)     Resolution & Escalation Process: Though not visible to public, strength of this component reflects the will of the government to resolve the public grievances. The grievances have to be recorded, sent to respective departments for resolution / response, followed up, escalated to higher levels if not resolved & closed if resolved. This requires laying down new processes or modifying existing ones, reorienting the departments towards outcomes and making the machinery responsive to public. Unfortunately, this is the aspect which gets little attention as it requires hard work & persistence but being the back end, without commensurate short term benefits.

Defined escalation processes help smoothen the process of resolution while filtering the grievance in their journey upwards so that the executive receives only those which require policy decisions or discretionary allocations.

c)   Performance Monitoring & Feedback: In effect the sustenance of the redressal system. The Key Performance Indicators for each function or department are fixed and monitored both on grievances reported & resolved, response times, first time resolution percentages etc. These help in assessing the performance of different centres, levels & departments and create a credible & substantial volume of information which can be used for continuous improvement.

d)    Technology: A grievance redressal system cannot be run with antiquated & archaic technology governments normally use. Using networked computers & modern communication tools like video conferencing, leveraging the high mobile density for the feedback system are few examples of use of technology.

Resolving citizen grievances is possible but can be done only by a strong will, well defined processes, measurable performance metrics & use of technology. It cannot be done by a declaration in TV studio and organizing a spectacle.