THE HINDU UPHILL RESCUE EDITORIAL

THE TOP CHANGE IN UTTARAKHAND IS INDICATIVE OF THE LIMITS OF RUNNING A STATE FROM NEW DELHI

Four days short of four years after he was sworn in, Trivendra Singh Rawat was asked by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) central leadership to make way for Tirath Singh Rawat as Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. The new CM was sworn in on Wednesday. The outgoing Mr. Rawat failed to keep the house in order; party workers and MLAs had distanced themselves from him. In fact, his very selection as CM in 2017 had less to do with his popularity or leadership skills than the central leadership’s liking for him. He was seen as an imposition from above. Far from building bridges with the BJP workers and MLAs, his style of functioning further alienated him from the party ecosystem. Party leaders felt ignored in decision making, and power was increasingly concentrated. While party functionaries were sidelined, governance fell more into the hands of bureaucrats. The BJP has 57 MLAs in the 70 -member Assembly and at least half of them had turned against the outgoing CM. Allegations of corruption hastened his downfall, but the determining factor was his singular failure to hold the party flock together. The State goes to elections next year and the BJP could not have afforded to let him lead it. Successor failure will now be in the kitty of the incoming Mr. Rawat. The change of guard in a State, giving up on its handpicked person, is uncharacteristic of the BJP leadership, and hence marks discontinuity. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity continues to be the key driver of BJP politics, and he has held tight control over the party, including on State units and Chief Ministers. Leaders with an autonomous political base have been seen as rivals, at best tolerated and rarely encouraged or promoted. But this model has proven costly in Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand, where the party’s setbacks were attributed to the style of functioning of former CMs. Therein lies the paradox and dilemma of the BJP’s approach to leadership. The party’s rise as a behemoth has been advanced in significant measure by regional satraps and Mr. Modi himself was one. Since 2014, the BJP and Mr. Modi became synonymous, and the party’s national profile is now built on the notion of a strong leader. In States where leaders project strength without corresponding skills and popularity, the disenchantment brews in the ranks. On the other hand, leaders with limited mass appeal have helped the party maintain balance among rival social groups within its camp. Uttar Pradesh, where CM Yogi Adityanath is building his own style of strong leadership, is a notable exception. The change in leadership in Uttarakhand is indicative of the limits of running a State from Delhi. THE HINDU EDITORIAL REGULATION REDUX

AN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATOR CAN WORK ONLY IF GOVERNMENTS SEE THE VALUE OF NATURE

The Supreme Court’s notice to the Centre on a public interest plea to set up a national environmental regulator under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 revives an issue that successive governments have preferred to ignore, in spite of specific orders passed by the same court more than nine years ago. There is no consensus on what a new regulator can achieve, since official policy privileges ease of doing business. The draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020, which seeks to advance that goal, makes no effort to disguise the desire to virtually eliminate civil society’s role. It does not encourage the public to voice its views and report violations, while independent scrutiny of proposals is weakened. In fact, the EIA process, especially after the notification in 2006, has been heavily critiqued for conflicts of interest the proponent of a project is responsible for producing the EIA report — while clearances under forest, wildlife, air and water quality laws are heavily weighted in favour of promoters. Rather than reform the system, in 2011 and 2014, the Centre rebuffed the apex court on the question of forming an independent regulator, contending that its orders in the Lafarge mining case were only in the nature of a suggestion, and later sought time but decided not to act. The current PIL is forcing the government to come up with a fresh explanation on why it has been sitting on its hands all along. Yet, for a national regulator to work, the government must recognise the limits to extractive growth, respect a neutral body and preserve the integrity of the environment. A key issue raised by the PIL is the lack of credibility of the EIA process, leading to reports that are often produced with the help of dubious expertise and manipulated data. In most cases, the proponents also ignore the views of communities that would be displaced and are ill - equipped to assess the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services such as clean air, water and farm productivity. The Centre and States must acknowledge the conflict arising from pressure on scarce land and ecosystems from polluting projects, which has already created clusters of industrial locations that are doing badly on the CPCB’s Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index. It is striking that this did not stop approvals for further polluting activity in some of these places, such as large coal based power plants cleared in recent years in Kanpur, Cuddalore, and Angul in Odisha. What should concern the Centre is the laggardly pace at which multiple departments process project proposals, raising transaction costs and resulting in the clamour to dispense with regulation. The remedies lie in administrative reform. It is eminently feasible, for instance, to produce a whitelist of lands for industry, reclaiming polluted areas. What India cannot afford to do is further degrade its forests, rivers, wetlands and air, whose health is vital for its large population.