There are politicians who rise through visibility, and there are those shaped quietly by the systems they later inherit. Sudivya Kumar belongs to the latter category. From pasting posters on street walls as a grassroots worker to handling key portfolios in the Jharkhand government, his journey spans more than three decades within a single political organisation.
Sworn in as a cabinet minister in December 2024, he now oversees Urban Development and Housing, Higher and Technical Education, and Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. It is only after stepping into executive responsibility, he says, that he fully understood the limits of governance. Systems, he suggests, do not collapse overnight.
They weaken gradually, often without drawing attention, until the consequences become visible. In this conversation with Shashi Singh, Kumar reflects on what he sees as Jharkhand’s deeper structural challenges, from the absence of institutional memory to declining confidence in higher education, and explains why reform must move beyond incremental policy changes. Excerpts
Q: You have seen politics from the grassroots to the cabinet. What has this transition taught you about governance?
A: Governance looks very different from the inside. As a citizen, or even as a legislator, you evaluate the system from the outside. You question delays, decisions, and often assume that things can be done faster or more efficiently. But once you move into an executive role, the nature of the system becomes clearer. Files pass through multiple levels, departments intersect in ways that are not always visible, and decisions are rarely linear. What appears simple from the outside often involves layers of procedure and coordination. For me, this transition has been a process of correcting my own understanding. Perception can be sharper, but reality is far more complex. At the same time, being inside the system gives you a clearer view of what is fundamentally wrong. You begin to understand not just outcomes, but the processes and constraints that produce them.
Q: What are those underlying causes? Where does governance break down structurally?
A: One of the most serious gaps is the absence of institutional memory. If I want to understand why a particular decision was taken five or ten years ago, there is no structured system that allows me to retrieve that information easily. I have to go through files manually, page by page, noting by noting. This is not just inefficient, it affects the quality of decision-making. Governance is meant to evolve through continuity, but when memory is not preserved, every decision effectively starts from scratch. Institutional memory is not just about record-keeping. It is about learning from past decisions, understanding their context, and maintaining consistency over time. The second issue is accountability. There is a common assumption that increasing manpower automatically improves governance. That is not necessarily true. What matters more is clearly defined responsibility. Today, responsibility is often diffused, while accountability is not fixed. The growing dependence on contractual staffing has added to this problem. Contractual employees do not carry long-term institutional responsibility. Even when action is taken, it does not have the same impact as it would within a more stable structure. Over time, this weakens the system’s ability to hold itself accountable. If governance has to improve, both memory and accountability need to be addressed together.
Q: You have described higher education as one of Jharkhand’s biggest structural failures. Where does the state stand today?
A: The contrast becomes visible when you compare school education with higher education. At the school level, Jharkhand performs relatively well. But once students move into higher education, the system begins to weaken. The most visible outcome of this is migration. Migration in itself is not a negative phenomenon. But when it becomes a compulsion rather than a choice, it points to a deeper systemic problem. Several factors contribute to this situation. Teacher recruitment has not kept pace with demand, and promotions have been delayed for years. As a result, institutions have increasingly relied on contractual or guest faculty. This has long-term consequences for academic continuity. A teacher appointed for a short duration is unlikely to invest in building an institution. Their immediate concern is job security, not long-term academic development. Over time, this affects both quality and confidence. As academic standards decline, trust also declines, and families begin sending their children outside the state. One clear indicator of this trend is the utilisation of the Guruji Credit Card scheme. Nearly 92 per cent of the funds are being spent outside Jharkhand. This effectively means that the state is financing education systems elsewhere while its own institutions remain underdeveloped. This is not the result of a single decision, but a structural issue that has accumulated over time.
Q: What have you done differently to address this?
A: We realised early that incremental changes would not be sufficient. The problem required structural intervention. The first step was to create a unified legal framework through the State University Act. Earlier, different institutions were governed by separate laws, which led to fragmentation and inconsistency. The new framework brings them under a single structure. The second step focuses on recruitment. We have proposed the creation of a University Service Commission that will handle appointments in a more structured and transparent manner. At present, we have infrastructure and students, but not enough teachers. This imbalance needs to be corrected. The third reform is the introduction of a tribunal system. Earlier, service-related disputes would go directly to courts, which is both time-consuming and expensive. The two-tier tribunal mechanism we have introduced, at the university and state levels, allows for faster resolution and reduces pressure on the judicial system. These reforms are not designed to produce immediate results. Governance is not about quick outcomes. It is about creating systems that can sustain themselves over time.
Q: Urban governance is another area where structural issues are visible. How are you addressing them?
A: Many urban problems are the result of long-term neglect. Take housing as an example. Nearly seven lakh houses in urban Jharkhand are technically unauthorised because their building plans were never formally approved. For residents, this creates a constant sense of uncertainty. The possibility of demolition remains, even if they have lived there for years. This is not only a legal issue, it also has psychological implications. To address this, we have introduced a policy that allows such constructions to be regularised through a nominal fee. This provides residents with legal security and stability. At the same time, we are rethinking the way cities expand. Horizontal expansion cannot continue indefinitely. We have revised Floor Area Ratio norms to encourage vertical development, which allows more efficient use of land and can help manage congestion more effectively. Urban reform needs to focus on structural corrections rather than temporary fixes.
Q: Public transport remains a major concern, especially in Ranchi. What is the way forward?
A: Public transport is one of the key indicators of how functional a city is. At present, there is a growing dependence on private vehicles. People who could travel together in shared transport are increasingly travelling individually. This creates congestion and reduces overall efficiency. However, developing public transport infrastructure requires significant capital investment, which cannot be handled by a state alone. This is where coordination between the Centre and the states becomes essential. Infrastructure development depends on cooperation. Without it, progress will remain uneven across regions.
Q : You have spoken about restructuring urban governance in Jamshedpur. What is the idea?
A: Cities evolve over time, but governance structures do not always keep pace. In the Jamshedpur region, multiple urban local bodies operate independently. As the city expands, this leads to fragmentation in planning and service delivery. The idea is to integrate these bodies into a single metropolitan structure. A unified system can handle issues such as waste management, infrastructure planning, and land use more efficiently. If implemented properly, this model can support the emergence of a stronger urban centre in the region.
Q: Tourism seems to be a key area of focus. What is your strategy?
A: When I took charge, we had destinations but lacked a structured system for managing them. There was limited coordination in terms of maintenance, administration, and accountability. We have created a Tourism Area Authority with executive powers to address this gap. It can manage sites, enforce standards, and ensure better oversight. We are also working on improving digital visibility through partnerships with travel platforms. Another focus is to position Jharkhand as a monsoon destination. Unlike many regions, we do not face frequent floods or landslides, which allows us to extend the tourist season. Tourism is not only about physical locations. It is also about perception, and that perception can be reshaped over time.
Q: You have introduced mining tourism. What is the thinking behind it?
A: Every state has to build its identity around its strengths. Jharkhand is fundamentally a mining and industrial state. That is a reality we can also present as an opportunity. Most people are not familiar with how mining and industrial processes actually function, even though they play a critical role in the economy. We are working with companies such as Tata Steel to create curated experiences that make these processes accessible. This approach is different from conventional tourism models, but it allows us to create something distinctive. The response is still developing, but it has long-term potential.
Q: After such a long political journey, you are often described as the ‘Chanakya’ of Jharkhand politics. How do you view yourself today?
A: I do not look at myself through labels. For me, the journey has been about consistency rather than positioning. I began as a grassroots worker, doing the most basic organisational work. Over the years, I have remained within the same political organisation, growing through different roles as responsibilities came my way. Many of those responsibilities were not planned or pursued. They emerged out of circumstances, and I tried to fulfil them to the best of my ability. I have never approached public life with the idea of acquiring positions. Roles come and go, but what remains is your conduct within the system. If there is one thing that matters to me, it is trust. The trust of the organisation and the leadership is not built overnight. It is earned over time through consistency and integrity. After spending more than three decades in the same space, your credibility becomes your identity. Everything else is secondary and follows from that.