However this is not first time he has asked his party men to engage in building intensive social contacts with voters to know their difficulties and also bring in awareness relating to social welfare works of the government. In fact his minister elected from Uttar Pradesh had assembled members of parliament from the state over a dinner for communication with the Prime Minister who had then addressed them again to bring awareness of the achievements of his government. However they were never given an opportunity to ask what they were supposed to do with their political assessment of the ground realities after their interaction with masses?

They have no access to the Prime Minister to reach out their reports of ground realities. The party high command is too busy with the election preparations and the Prime Minister has already indicated from the first day that he was averse to use of the party machinery for contact with masses. Instead he would rely on other means of direct communications. He was using radio channels to tell the masses what he had done or intended to do. Thus he has converted the communication channel into a one way traffic. No one can bring to his attention the difficulties that sprout out of some decisions of the government. They can or affected persons can and should reach him through his secretariat but only through social media and not through direct contact. As an astute politician he ought to have known that complainants cannot and would not narrate entire brief in written form.

For example the government was keen on reducing the piled up Non Performing Assets of public sector banks to the tune of over Rs. seven lakh crore. Banks ere authorised to impose punitive interest rates who do not return their borrowings. The impact of such authorization is not known though private banks are imposing punitive interest rates that are three times the normal lending rates without regard to genuine difficulties faced by debtors. More than twenty thousand small units had to pull their shutters down as they were unable to meet excessive demands by private banks after the Reserve Bank told them on their presentation that the RBI had no jurisdiction over the private banks. The finance minister is too busy and the doors of the Prime Minister are closed not only on them but also to members of parliament. Members hesitate to take any issue to him from the fear that they would be asked to explain their personal interest in the complaint.

Most small scale units in construction sectors have closed their operations not only due to punitive interest rates but also due to demands for protection from the politicians in Mumbai. His penchant demand for cancellation of license and permits suspected to be involving corruption has led to a peculiar development. Officials hesitate to issue new licenses on even regularized basis lest they are accused of taking bribes. Any protest against the step is likely to be construed as an attempt to shield and continue corruption in the system. Hence there was no scope even to bring in focus the consequence of branding only one class as corrupt.

There have been 12 session of Parliament since Narendra Modi was sworn in. He addressed party men as many times but without giving an opportunity to party men to give their views. Even in the party conclave that were earlier held as per prescription of the constitution but are now a rarity depending on time available to the Prime Minister. The free and fair debate within the party has thus shunned as had happened in the Congress after the massive victory of Indira Gandhi in the 1971 election to demoralize the entire opposition. She had also shut the free and fair debate in every forum of the party. Participants were carefully chosen to ensure that only her praises were sung. Any potential critic was not allowed to take to mike even in the Working Committee debates.

She could not believe defeat of the Congress party in the 1983 assembly polls in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Voters of both the states had given her overwhelming support even in the 1977 election and stayed with her party in 1980. Yet she had lost power in Andhra Pradesh to a non political individual who had formed his party only six months earlier. She had lost to the Janata Party in Karnataka though she had successfully drubbed the party in the 1980 election. She could not understand the drastic change in voters’ attitude.

Jaideep Sinh Baria elected from Godhara had dared to write to her that she alone was responsible for the Congress defeat in both the states as she had closed free and fair debates in all party forums. She addressed the parliamentary party and then walked away without an opportunity to members to express their woes. You have sealed yourself away from ground realities was the charge. Baria was offered a cabinet post as her response though he did not accept. He told her that his purpose of protest was to ensure two way communications. It cannot be only one way traffic. Your issue directives and the party men were expected to follow them without an opportunity to tell their problems.

The Prime Minister had kept even his cabinet colleagues till hour before his announcement of the demonetisation decision with far reaching political, economic and social consequences. Secrecy was necessary for success of the measure was the argument. True but it also means that the Prime Minister cannot trust even his cabinet colleagues. How can his government be effective without proper place with authority to people who were also elected? Or was it to prove to the investors that even though India has democracy, in effect it is one man rule? Investors feel comfort in dealing with one point so they do not need to spend their time and their resources in meeting demands of several centres. If that is so how MPs can satisfy their electors after arousing their expectations for solutions?