The deaths caused by contaminated drinking water in Indore should not surprise us, even as they horrify us. They fit too neatly into a familiar pattern in our midst, where preventable failures routinely claim or hurt lives and are then absorbed into public consciousness as misfortune rather than misconduct. Unsafe water, polluted air, collapsing bridges, overcrowded hospitals and faulty infrastructure — these are no longer treated as governance breakdowns but as hazards of living in India, to be endured with resignation. That resignation, more than corruption or incompetence alone, has become the most reliable ally of administrative failure.
Outrage without accountability
Yet, the more disturbing question is why such events still fail to provoke sustained public demand for accountability. Tragedy briefly shocks us, but it rarely mobilises us. Outrage flickers, social media fills with indignation, television studios erupt in noise, and then attention moves on. Transfers are ordered, enquiries announced and procedural closure declared. The deeper conditions that allowed the failure remain untouched.
Lowered expectations from public services
India’s relationship with public services is defined by lowered expectations. We complain constantly, yet we demand little. We curse the system, yet we rarely confront it in ways that impose cost. Unreliable infrastructure and public services are treated as inevitable features of national life, not as violations of basic rights.
The exit of those who could demand change
It is worth asking why this tolerance persists. Part of the answer lies in history. Decades of scarcity taught citizens to be grateful for access rather than insistent on quality. Over time, gratitude hardened into compliance. Another part lies in fragmentation. This learned helplessness is reinforced by a quiet but consequential shift in civic behaviour. Large sections of the middle class and the rich have exited public systems rather than reforming them. Bottled water replaces safe taps; air purifiers replace clean air; private hospitals replace public healthcare; and gated communities replace functioning municipalities. The exit offers immediate relief, but it carries a democratic cost. It removes precisely the voices that could have forced institutional improvement, leaving failure concentrated among those with the least capacity to demand redress.
When demand weakens, accountability shrinks
This dynamic creates a simple but corrosive equation of demand and supply. When demand for accountability is weak, the supply of accountability shrinks. When citizens do not insist on standards, institutions optimise for survival rather than performance. Governance then becomes transactional, managing optics and outrage rather than outcomes.
Fate as an excuse
We speak of fate, destiny and bad luck — language that absolves both the state and ourselves. Victimhood soothes grief but dulls responsibility. It allows us to mourn without organising, to sympathise without insisting, and to move on without changing behaviour. Over time, this posture becomes cultural. We learn to live with loss rather than confront its causes.
State responsibility remains primary
This is not to deny the state’s primary responsibility. Governments exist to provide safe water, clean air and basic infrastructure. Their failure to do so is inexcusable.
Rational inaction by power
The uncomfortable truth is that politicians and bureaucracies respond rationally to this environment. If outrage dissipates in days, reform can be postponed indefinitely. If public anger is loud but brief, symbolic gestures suffice. If citizens channel their frustration into gossip, memes and performative outrage rather than sustained civic action, the cost of failure remains low.
Urban decay normalised
Urban decay across India illustrates this dynamic with uncomfortable clarity. Noise pollution, cratered roads, failing drainage, unsafe footpaths, chaotic traffic and crumbling public infrastructure have become ambient irritations rather than civic emergencies. Citizens complain, adapt and move on. Meanwhile, political discourse remains saturated with claims of future-ready cities and global ambition. The contradiction persists because the demand for functional basics remains weak. In practice, this leaves citizens little better than subjects under colonial rule, waiting for the powers that be to bestow even basic civic services as favours rather than recognising them as rights.
Distance from local power
It is also worth asking how many of us even know which municipal ward office is responsible for the locality we live in, or the name of our corporator beyond election season. Power is sustained not only through neglect but also through deliberate friction. Citizens are made to wait, shuffled between counters and exhausted by procedure, fully aware that most do not have the luxury of taking time off from their livelihoods merely to register a complaint. For all the rhetoric around digital and e-governance, grievance redressal remains fragmented, opaque and often performative — more myth than mechanism.
The theatre of accountability
The state, for its part, has perfected the theatre of accountability. Transfers, suspensions, committees and enquiries provide the appearance of action while preserving institutional continuity. These rituals are not failures of governance; they are instruments of it, designed to absorb anger without altering incentives.
Selective assertiveness
There is also a revealing asymmetry that deserves attention. Indian citizens demand high standards abroad and from private providers. Airlines, hotels, foreign governments and global institutions are scrutinised relentlessly. The capacity to demand exists. What is missing is the expectation that the Indian state must meet comparable standards. This selective assertiveness exposes the problem not as cultural passivity, but as contextual resignation.
Why disengagement feels rational
It would, however, be dishonest to place the entire burden on citizens without acknowledging the asymmetry they confront. The state is not an easy system to challenge. It is layered with rent-seeking intermediaries, informal gatekeepers and procedural obstacles that turn even basic entitlements into negotiations. Complaints invite delay, harassment or quiet retaliation, while resolution often requires time, connections or money that most citizens cannot spare. This breeds a raja–praja culture where authority expects deference and citizens learn compliance as self-preservation. In such an ecosystem, disengagement is often the rational response of those navigating a system designed to exhaust rather than empower them.
Democracy beyond the ballot
It is a convenient fiction to argue that democracy empowers citizens simply because elections are held. When the menu of quality choices is almost barren and everyday governance remains immune to consequence, voting offers consent without citizen control, and participation becomes symbolism rather than people power.
About the author
Dr Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate adviser. X: @ssmumbai
