Passive governance is a legacy that’s proving difficult to shed

The IndiGo crisis spotlights our failure to replace reactive regulation with a pre-emptive model enabled by real-time data

- T.C.A. ANANT

Last fortnight, I was in Bengaluru, where, along with hundreds of other passengers, we saw IndiGo shuffle flight schedules like a pack of cards. Travellers across the country faced delays of up to 12 hours.

The airline, controlling above 60% of India’s aviation market, had collapsed. What unfolded was not just an airline management crisis—subsequent developments suggested that the company had strategically deployed industrial action against an air-safety regulation.

The incident points to a deeper malaise of what might be called passive governance: a state that waits for problems to manifest rather than anticipating and preventing them.

What is passive governance? It is not a lack of governance; it is a style of governance marked by delayed reaction and minimal proactive engagement. It often involves governments or regulators stepping in after a crisis unfolds, focusing more on managing the fallout than on detecting early warning signs. This contrasts with active governance, where institutions continuously monitor, anticipate and adjust before a crisis erupts. Active governance relies on foresight systems—data, expertise and institutional coordination—to prevent problems or cushion their impact. Passive governance waits for problems to emerge or become visible enough to force a response.

In India, this style of governance has become an unmistakable pattern across sectors. Responses are robust after the fact, but the governing machinery seldom exhibits anticipatory capacity.

The IndiGo disruption offers a vivid illustration. The aviation sector is one of the most tightly regulated in India, under the watch of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and ministry of civil aviation. Yet, the system appeared blindsided by a staffing crisis.