Summary
Writing in The Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues that Indian governance increasingly evades accountability by stripping the grammatical subject out of its own sentences - describing failures as things that "happen" rather than things specific people did.
He connects Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike demanding a minister's resignation over exam leaks to philosopher Raymond Geuss's observation that Hillary Clinton's language on Gaza mysteriously lost its subject at the exact moment responsibility should have appeared.
Mehta extends this to Indian environmental governance, where repeated extensions of pollution-control deadlines happen without any named policymaker ever explaining why.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, demanding Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation over exam leaks, prompted Mehta's reflection on how modern governance uses anonymising language - "The System," "The Bureaucracy," "Norms" - to describe decisions that were, in fact, made by specific people. He draws a parallel to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's repeated relaxation of deadlines for coal power plants to install Flue Gas Desulphurisation units, originally due in 2017 and still not enforced.
Standard News
The Sentence Without a Subject
The Position
Passive constructions in governance - "it happens," "deadlines were extended," "cities flooded"
- are not neutral language. They are a governing technology, deliberately or not, for evading accountability. When a sentence about a policy failure has no named subject, democratic politics loses the one thing it actually needs to function: someone to answer for the decision.
The Reasoning
Consider what actually happens when a coal plant's Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) deadline gets extended. It is never reported as "Minister X decided to extend the deadline because of Y." It is reported as "the deadline has been extended"
- a sentence that describes an outcome while erasing the person who produced it. First set in 2017, these deadlines have now stretched toward 2026-2027, each extension issued through language that names no one. This matters because accountability requires a subject before it can require an answer. You cannot ask "why did you decide this?" of "The System." Pratap Bhanu Mehta's essay draws the sharpest version of this point from philosopher Raymond Geuss: when Hillary Clinton described Gaza's conditions - "reconstruction frozen, investment absent"
- her sentences lost their grammatical subject at precisely the moment a subject was needed. Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike, demanding a specific minister's resignation over exam leaks, is read here not as excessive but as a defence of the basic proposition that institutions can only be repaired once someone is named as having broken them.
The Strongest Counter-Argument
The most serious objection is not that this critique is wrong, but that it underestimates the real cost of naming names. In diplomacy, refusing to assign individual blame - speaking of "developments" rather than "decisions," "conditions" rather than "actions taken"
- can be what keeps a fragile negotiation alive. And a culture of aggressive individual naming and shaming has its own well-documented harms: it can be weaponised, disproportionate and cruel to people who made defensible calls under real constraints. Not every policy failure has a villain; sometimes genuine, good-faith actors made reasonable decisions that turned out badly and demanding a name to blame can punish competence as readily as negligence.
Why the Position Still Holds
This objection is strongest when applied to genuinely ambiguous international diplomacy, where naming can escalate conflict. But it proves far less than it seems to in domestic governance cases like the FGD deadlines. Here, the identity of the decision-maker is not diplomatically sensitive - it is simply not published.
There is no comparable "civility" cost to saying which ministry official signed off on which extension and why; the anonymity serves institutional comfort, not any genuine diplomatic or humanitarian interest. The counter-argument's real force lives in the exceptional case (a live negotiation, a cruelty risk)
- but the FGD deadlines, exam leaks and most everyday governance failures Mehta describes are not that case. The default should be a named subject; the burden should fall on showing why this specific decision genuinely needs anonymity, not the reverse. (This is the free preview. The complete piece - including where naming genuinely does more harm than good and TAN's full institutional position - is in Deep Analysis.)
Quick Facts
Sonam Wangchuk held an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar demanding accountability over exam paper leaks. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change regulates coal-fired power plant emission norms, including Flue Gas Desulphurisation deadlines first set in 2017.
The Supreme Court, in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati (2020), held that post-facto environmental clearances violate the precautionary principle.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The specific test TAN proposes for telling apart legitimate diplomatic discretion from convenient bureaucratic anonymity
Why the FGD deadline extensions are actually a harder case for Mehta's argument than the exam-leak example and how the piece resolves that
TAN's full engagement with the "cult of personality" objection - that blaming Modi or Trump personally is itself a form of accountability evasion
The specific institutional reform TAN's position points toward, beyond just "name more people"
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Log In to Read Full ArticleDon't have an account? Sign up for free