BY: Hem Kumar
𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣
What is unfolding is no longer a matter of isolated incompetence or the occasional administrative lapse. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a systemwide symptom — a deeper failure of governance, discipline, accountability, and institutional honesty. When a government repeatedly stumbles in the same areas, over the same issues, with the same excuses, the problem is no longer the rain, the flood, the blocked drain, or the delayed response. The problem is the system itself.
And at the center of that system is a political culture that has too often insulated itself from scrutiny. Over time, this administration has constructed a carefully curated shield against accountability. Parliament has been abandoned as a meaningful arena of interrogation. Inquisitive opposition voices have been excluded, minimized, or treated as inconveniences rather than necessary democratic checks. The result is an executive that increasingly appears enamored against scrutiny, answering to no one with any real seriousness. That is how a government begins to mistake silence for competence.
This is where the “𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲” becomes not merely a phrase of frustration, but a diagnosis. It reflects a governing posture that seems detached from urgency, allergic to responsibility, and unwilling to confront its own failings with honesty. When institutions are weakened and dissent is brushed aside, poor performance does not stand exposed for correction. It hardens into habit. It becomes normalized. Then the public is left to absorb the consequences while those in authority continue to act as though appearance is a substitute for delivery.
The deeper tragedy is that none of this should be necessary. A president should not have to be dragged into the weeds of day-to-day micromanagement simply to discover whether pumps are working, sluices are opened, or a construction site has blocked a critical drain. That is not the function of the presidency. The role of a head of state is to ensure that systems are built, delegated properly, monitored effectively, and enforced without fear or favor. If those systems fail, then accountability should travel downward to the administrators responsible, not upward to the office already burdened with national leadership.
𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘺.
𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨, 𝙖 𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩.
That is the uncomfortable truth now confronting the country. If the head is failing to insist on standards, if the system is built to protect mediocrity, and if scrutiny is deliberately weakened, then the collapse cannot be blamed on those below alone. The harvest is coming from seeds already planted. The administration may now be reaping what it has sown: a governance model built on managed appearances, weak accountability, and an alarming comfort with failure.
This is why the issue cannot be reduced to floods alone, or to one environmental mishap after another.
Those are only the visible symptoms. The real illness is institutional. It is the absence of decisive delegation, the refusal to demand performance, the erosion of oversight, and the deliberate narrowing of democratic pressure. A government that surrounds itself with obedient silence will eventually find that silence is not stability. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙮.
The public understands this far more clearly than the political class often admits. People know the difference between leadership and performance, between accountability and theater, between administration and improvisation. They know when a government is solving problems and when it is simply surviving them. And increasingly, they see a state that is reacting to failure rather than preventing it.
That is the danger of governing behind a shield. Once scrutiny is shut out, the same mistakes return uncorrected. Once opposition is excluded, the warning signals disappear. Once ministers and administrators are protected from consequence, the rot spreads upward until the highest office is forced to intervene where a competent system should already have done the work.
And so the central question remains: how long can a country sustain a system that mistakes insulation for strength? The answer, as events keep showing, is not very long at all.
𝙋𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚? 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚.
This government loves to talk the language of merit, results, and 𝒑𝒂𝒚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚.when it suits them. Fine. But then the same people who benefit from that slogan must be judged by it too. You cannot claim the mantle of efficiency while protecting shirkers, excusing incompetence, and rewarding failure with comfort, access, and continued relevance.
That is where the public’s patience runs thin. Too many of these beneficiaries are quick with the speeches and slow with the delivery.
𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩’𝙨 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙬, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚.
𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙛.
But performance is not a slogan; it is a standard. If drains are blocked, if sluices are neglected, if response systems are weak, if institutions are asleep, then somebody has to answer for it. Not tomorrow. Not at the next photo op. Now.
And this is why the whole “pay with performance” line sounds hollow when the administration keeps carrying dead weight. You cannot build a culture of excellence with a culture of excuses. You cannot demand results while shielding the very people who keep missing the mark. At some point, the shirkers have to be named for what they are: beneficiaries of a system that demands less than it pretends to expect.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙜.
𝙄𝙛 “𝙥𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚” 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨: 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢, 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—