舉重館的天花板有一條裂縫，選手村裡沒有廚房。帶著登革熱病菌的蚊子在印度洋季風所帶來汙濁的水邊嗡嗡作響，這些是為了10月3日即將在德里舉行的德里全民運動會而倉促興建的場館。在恐怖主義侵襲下的印度，維安的佈署因為大量的工人24小時內不停的聚集施工而被瓦解成碎片。首相曼末漢辛格(Manmohan Singh)，重申官方的聲明:這將會是有史以來最好的運動會。不過這應該要取決於你如何定義「好」的意義。

這個混亂和大多數的印度人民無關，所有的指責應該歸咎於爭議不斷得腐敗內閣，形同虛設的政府單位和劣質的建築技術。運動會不是貴族的板球運動，只有少數人知道世界對他們國家的印象。這並不單單只是這件事本身的問題，反而尤其反映了多數印度地區的實際狀況。

辛格(Singh)政府，一個由政黨所支配的聯盟自去年5月掌握權力後，曾經被認為會對印度的改革有重大的貢獻。同時在國會普選中獲得了壓倒性的勝利，也使他擺脫了一些棘手的成員，這其中包括了跟蹤即將卸任的官員的社會主義黨在內。其主要的對手，印度人民黨在選舉中因失利而退敗。國會的領導者，辛格(Singh)和索尼亞 甘地(Sonia Gandhi)，同時身兼政黨主席受到相當的敬重。

這個政府至少穩定的經濟。在8月31日政府宣稱第二季產出和去年同時期相比已經增加了8.8%。相較於年初相對悲觀的看法，這個數據顯得格外的樂觀。更使得印度回到全國9%成長的期望裡，主要來自於製造業提升工作機會達12.4%。

但除此之外，其他方面的結果都是令人失望的。政府幾乎沒有施行任何符合印度需求的經濟改革。其他迫切的領域例如公共建設和健康照顧方面的成效也不如先前的成果。政府的最大成就也幾乎受到波及—一項和美國在民生的核子發展的合作案，美方預計在計畫中引進巨額投資。印度上議院在8月30日 通過了核能義務法將規範核子燃料的供應對於任何項目上的故障和異常需要承擔80年的相關責任。這足以遏殺這項投資。

更糟的是，政府在幾次危機中拙劣的處理能力使他們顯得不適任。這其中包含了在喀什米爾的暴力分裂示威，一位11歲的男孩在8月30日的報動中被警察殺死，成為今年第65個受害者；今年印度東部的毛派叛軍事件也犧牲了900條生命。

對於這個令人失望的事實只是以不實際的期望做了簡單的回應。僅管這些期望只是在商場上互相傳遞，但對印度全國的壟斷的財政部門從來沒有如左派政府的期望帶來經濟改革的前景和對零售業的保護。

但甚至當政府嘗試著進行一小部分的改革時也常常會因為某些原因而停滯。最大的貢獻是將國內雜亂無章的間接稅收整理成有條理的印度貨物和服務稅被推遲一年到2012年的4月。另一方面，在6月宣布廢除汽油補助因而招致社會大眾更大的抗議，目前唯一繼續施行的只有燃油價格的上升，也意味著燃油價格還不是免費的。

政府沒有讓本身向上提升的能力更是根本性的挫敗-是這場運動會亂像更充足的證據，主導德里州政府的國會更有嚴重的過失。為了彌補前任政府在道路建設上的重大缺失，卡邁樂納斯(Kamal Nath)被看中並任命為總哩，並於當時承諾以平均一天20公里的速度施工，但是現在看起來似乎不太可能。

在另一個重點方向-教育方面，之前的進度已經落後了。教育部長凱皮爾斯伯(Kapil Sibal)也承諾一連串包含了普及高等教育，私立學校的部分補助的提升方案。這也已經被立法，但卻停滯沒有任何進展。州政府否決任何無法取得中央補助款的改革，而同時政府的談判技巧也很拙劣。

缺乏強而有力的領導力凸顯了辛格(Singh)的權力受到限制。甘地(Gandhi)夫人在詹巴特街10號，他位於德里的居所裡掌握著政府。官員首長們也對她40歲的兒子拉胡爾(Rahul)，下屆總理的人選，花比在現任首相身上更多的精力和關注。儘管如此，辛格下定決心的時候，仍然能有些斬獲。這有就是為什麼在美國與印度的核子協議中，儘管有很多的雜音，但仍獲得前政府的通過。

辛格先生(Mr Singh)，一位受人敬畏的經濟學家和改革派份子，令人難以理解的是並沒有做更多方的嘗試，特別是對平息東部叛軍和喀什米爾危機。但在他如此散慢的應變正也解釋了為什麼他在印度國內的評價會遠低於海外對他的看法。根據新聞周刊(Newsweek)調查，他是世界上其他領導人喜愛的領導。然而相反的，在印度今日報(India Today)的調查，只有1%的印度民眾人認為他是首相的第一人選。

隨後崛起的胡拉爾 甘地，則對於強勢的商業政策顯得興趣缺缺。他專心致力於國會的重建，特別是對於人口眾多的印度北部；接下來10月在比哈省(Bihar)、明年在孟加拉(Bengal)西部的州議會選舉將會是對他的成果最重要的驗收。這樣的企圖心也解釋了他的獨立政策聲明。政府禁止了一家大型礦業公司，Vedanta，在位於奧利沙邦省中，被當地村落視為代表神聖的山裡進行鐵鋁氧石的開採。他在8月26日匆促得向他們表明自己的立場，如同他們「德里來的侍衛」。而卻時他們也真的需要這樣的角色。村落的選票約占總選票的8%，對於掌控國會有相當的幫助。

但是如果胡拉爾 甘地可以讓長期的土地取得法案在國會中立法通過則將會對印度有更大的幫助。這個法案將會重新定義政府在為產業發展徵收土地時的規範，在一個貧窮又擁擠的國度裡，有其迫切的必要性。

THE weightlifting auditorium has a leaky roof. The athletes’ village has no kitchen. Stagnant monsoon water, abuzz with dengue-carrying mosquitoes, collects at most of the stadiums being hurriedly built for the Delhi Commonwealth games, which are due to begin on October 3rd. The security arrangements, in terrorism-stricken India, are shot to pieces because of 24-hour processions of workmen at most venues. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, reiterates the official line that these will be the “best games ever”. That may depend on how you define “best”.

This shambles, for which corruption, feuding ministries, sapping bureaucracy and shoddy workmanship are all to blame, does not matter to many Indians. Athletics is not cricket. And few know much about their country’s image abroad. Yet it is depressing, not least because it mirrors how large parts of India are run.

When Mr Singh’s government, a coalition dominated by the Congress party, came to power in May last year it was considered to be in a strong position to improve matters. Congress had won a general election convincingly, letting it shake off a few of the troublesome partners, including Communist parties, who dogged its outgoing coalition administration. Its main opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, was deflated by electoral defeat. And Congress’s leaders, Mr Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the party chief, are highly regarded.

The government has at least managed the economy steadily. On August 31st it said that output had grown by 8.8% in the second quarter compared with the same quarter last year. This figure was made especially rosy by the relative gloom of a year earlier. Yet it puts India back in its wished-for realm of 9% growth, and it is based on strong growth in job-creating manufacturing, which increased by 12.4%.

But almost everywhere else the results are disappointing. The government has brought almost none of the economic reform India needs. And it has done no more in other pressing areas, like infrastructure and health care, than its predecessor. It may even have jeopardised one of that government’s biggest achievements, a civil nuclear co-operation deal with America that was expected to lead to big investments in nuclear energy. On August 30th India’s upper house passed a nuclear-liability law that will make suppliers of nuclear fuels and related gear liable for 80 years in the event of any malfunction. That may well deter them.

Worse, the government’s poor management of several crises makes it seem incompetent. These include violent separatist protests in Kashmir, where an 11-year-old boy was killed by police on August 30th, becoming the 65th victim of the year, and a worsening Maoist insurgency in east India, which has cost almost 900 lives this year.

The easy response to this disappointment is to blame unrealistic expectations. Despite hopes bandied about by businessmen, there never was much prospect of this leftist government bringing economic reform to India’s statist financial sector or protected retail industry.

But even when the government has tried bits of reform it has often got stuck. The biggest, an effort to prune the country’s dreadful thicket of indirect taxes into a tidier form, an all-India Goods and Services Tax, has been pushed back by a year, to April 2012. Another, to scrap a petrol subsidy, announced in June to many loud public protests, has been followed by only one rise in petrol prices, which suggests they are not yet free.

The government’s inability to make itself work better is a more basic failing—richly evident in the games’ foul-up—for which Congress, in charge of the Delhi state government, is especially guilty. To address a big weakness of the previous government, road-building, an able minister, Kamal Nath, was appointed. He promised to build an average of 20km a day, but this looks unlikely.

In education, another priority, early progress has slowed. The education minister, Kapil Sibal, has promised an array of improvements, including universal primary education, partly provided for through private schooling. This has been enshrined in law, yet its implementation is bogged down. State governments are against any change that the centre will not fund; and its negotiating skills are poor.

A lack of strong leadership underlies that. Mr Singh’s power is limited. From her central Delhi bungalow, at 10 Janpath, Mrs Gandhi controls the government. Ministers also pay more heed to the man expected to be the next prime minister, her 40-year-old son Rahul, than to the current one. Yet on the rare occasions when Mr Singh has decided to put his shoulder to the wheel, it has moved. That explains why the America-India nuclear deal was passed by the previous government, despite much hostility to it.

Why Mr Singh, a formidable economist and liberal, has not tried to do more—especially to calm the crises in Kashmir and the east—is baffling. But his reluctance to act more vigorously explains why he is rated less highly at home than abroad. According to Newsweek he is the world leader “other leaders love”. India Today, by contrast, found that 1% of Indians consider him their first choice for prime minister.

Mr Gandhi, a late-developer, meanwhile shows little interest in the tough business of policy. He is devoted to rebuilding Congress, especially in populous north India; forthcoming state elections, in Bihar in October and West Bengal next year, will be important tests of his progress. This ambition also explains Mr Gandhi’s single recent policy statement. After the government forbade a big mining company, Vedanta, to extract bauxite from a mountain in Orissa sacred to local tribes, he rushed to present himself to them, on August 26th, as their “soldier in Delhi”. Indeed they need one. And the tribal vote, about 8% of the total, would certainly be helpful to Congress.

But it would be more useful for India if Mr Gandhi could get a long-stalled land-acquisition bill through parliament. It would redefine the terms under which the government can acquire land for industry, an urgent need, in a poor, crowded country.