🚜 An Administration That Persuades Wrongdoers Instead of Enforcing the Law: Passive or Powerless?

For the past six years, a dispute over a traditional access road has evolved into something much larger than a simple land issue. It has become a test of administrative accountability, legal enforcement, and the willingness of public authorities to protect the rights of ordinary citizens.

The most troubling aspect of this case is that the authorities appear fully aware of who is creating obstacles, who is obstructing the implementation of lawful orders, and who is preventing affected farmers from exercising their legitimate rights. Yet meaningful legal action remains absent.

Persuasion Instead of Enforcement

In any democratic system governed by the rule of law, individuals who obstruct official proceedings are expected to face legal consequences. However, what is witnessed in this case appears quite different.

Rather than enforcing the law, officials repeatedly attempt to persuade, request, and counsel the alleged wrongdoer. The authority of law seems to have been replaced by appeals for cooperation.

Responsibility Shifted to the Victims

Instead of ensuring that the access road is fully cleared and made usable, the burden is often shifted onto the affected farmers themselves. They are expected to remove thorny bushes, clear obstructions, and make the pathway functional through their own efforts.

Recommendations are made to remove a few branches while larger obstacles remain untouched. Such half-measures fail to address the core issue.

Ignoring the Real Problem

When farmers point to specific obstructions blocking the access road, they are sometimes asked why they focus only on those particular trees and not others nearby.

The answer is obvious. The concern is not every tree in the area. The concern is the vegetation and structures obstructing a legally recognized right of way. Yet this distinction often appears overlooked.

A Road Open in Theory, Not in Practice

The road is declared open, but its boundaries remain unclear.

The road is declared open, but major obstructions remain.

The road is recognized, yet efforts to make it practically usable encounter resistance.

Affected farmers have requested that gravel and stones be laid in low-lying sections where water accumulates during the monsoon. Without such improvements, the road becomes difficult and potentially unsafe to use. Nevertheless, these requests have reportedly been rejected.

Ironically, earlier administrative decisions cited waterlogging and safety concerns as reasons for denying the road. Now that the road has been recognized, practical measures to ensure its usability are being resisted.

Different Standards for Different People?

Observers cannot help but notice a contrast in treatment. Those accused of creating obstacles are approached with patience and understanding. Meanwhile, those seeking implementation of lawful orders are often met with warnings, dismissive attitudes, or attempts to silence their concerns.

Such contrasting approaches naturally raise questions about fairness and impartiality.

Why Does Action Follow Agitation?

The history of this dispute reveals a recurring pattern. Applications, representations, and requests often produce little response. Yet when hunger strikes, protests, or public demonstrations occur, administrative activity suddenly accelerates.

Even then, actions frequently remain incomplete, leaving the underlying problem unresolved and forcing citizens to continue their struggle.

These are questions that deserve answers from the administration.

When citizens seeking justice are forced into endless struggle while those creating obstacles are repeatedly accommodated, one unavoidable question remains:

Is this merely administrative passivity, or a system that has become powerless to enforce the law?