Caution: Work in progress

Not quite a soft cabinet reshuffle

The disappointment and breast beating over the Union cabinet reshuffle last week comes from excessive expectations created in media and political circles by the kind of incestuous hype that appears to drive so much public discourse in India.

Media speculation was rife and fatuous panel discussions night after night, with opposition sharpshooters taking position among the pundits and media oracles, caused much fur to fly. When the actual event turned out to be a more modest and sobre, yet business-like affair in the given circumstances, political punters and others who had placed outlandish bets felt cheated. This is not to suggest that the reshuffle has given the country an ideal cabinet. But given the political and coalitional constraints he faced, the prime minister has not done too badly. Some non-performers have been put to pasture and good new faces brought in. Sometimes a change in portfolio can reflect on performance. One will have to wait and see. Some deadwood remains.

Jairam Ramesh has not been penalised nor pushed out from the ministry of environment and forests. He did a great deal to put that once-moribund ministry on the map and ably steered India’s position in global negotiations on climate change. He also took a firm line on implementation of conditionalities attached to forest and environmental clearances but perhaps pushed too far at the cost of avoidable delays in sanctioning landmark power, mining and manufacturing projects, using retrospective application of new laws in some instances to stymie progress. He had later softened his stand as in the case of the Jaitapur nuclear project. Yet he had become a red rag to the bull and this is perhaps why he was moved, yielding place to a more soft spoken but no less savvy successor in Jayanti Natarajan.

Ramesh will have every opportunity to show his mettle in the important rural development ministry where he will be the custodian of a number of vital grassroots programmes such as MGNREGS. One can have little sympathy with some ministers of state who desired no less than cabinet portfolios, their egos outrunning their abilities or sense of service over self.

More worrying than the naming of minsters is the balkanisation of ministries and departments within them over the years to accommodate all and sundry. This has added to costs, fragmentation of responsibility and incompetence without serving any real political purpose. This is something that calls for early and urgent reform.

It is a pity that the positions of parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers have disappeared whereas they could be a valuable training and proving ground for younger talent.

Similarly, the “weight” attached to ministries has been wayward, patronage and opportunities for rent seeking often being private criteria for preference rather than the social importance of the charge. Thus water resources, has been treated most casually in recent time and sometimes power, mining and health.

Ministers-in-absentia, like Mamata Bannerjee earlier and Alagizhi, also send out wrong signals and impair the culture of good governance. The Railways have been allowed to roll downhill over the years, most often being seen as a source of patronage and rent-seeking.

Urgent attention

These are important matters that demand urgent attention because UPA-II will be judged over the rest of its three year tenure by performance – progress on interrupted economic reforms, positioning India to take its place as an emerging regional and potential global power, and administrative reforms that must include systems improvement, personnel training, lateral recruitment, autonomy to regulators and cutting out fat in staffing while providing adequate numbers of judges, teachers ,doctors, policemen and other key functionaries.

The challenge before the government is not winning the Uttar Pradesh polls through brash grandstanding or petty manoeuvres, but by policies, performance and creating the basis for the next great leap forward by critical reforms, HRD and infrastructure development.

This alone will provide jobs, growth and make for poverty alleviation. The Land Acquisition Bill, the Lok Pal Bill (though the issues involved are far wider, including police reform and reform of the criminal justice system) and the Equal Opportunity Bill are only some among the major priorities. Autonomy for public service and community broadcasting should also be among things to do as communication and informed dialogue are necessary for participative governance.

It is good that the matter of higher defence management has again been raised through the appointment of a high-level committee under Naresh Chandra. The debate on a chief of defence staff and integrated theatre commands has been reopened.

The matter was studied by the Arun Singh Committee in the Rajiv era. It was again endorsed by the Kargil Review Committee and the task force on higher defence management set up as a consequence and approved by a GoM thereafter. The matter was intensively debated within the MoD and every effort was made to assuage the anxieties of the smaller services , the Navy and Air Force.

It was suggested that the first two CDS should come from these two services. The Fortress Command, established in the Andamans, has worked well. An Integrated Defence branch has been set up but there the matter rests.

It is necessary that a satisfactory resolution is soon found as higher defence planning and strategic thinking cannot be left to single services or a non-functional National Security Council. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, though useful, is not fully equipped for the task. A clear decision and early closure is required so that the country can plan its security and strategic framework more effectively.

Finally, there have been demands in the country, especially in Tamil Nadu, that India support the demand for a war crimes commission to probe the alleged genocide by Sri Lanka’s armed forces that brought the LTTE insurgency/war to a close. These are largely based on a documentary, “The Killing Fields” produced by UK’s Channel Four TV. The Sri Lankan authorities challenge the authenticity of the film and argue that a high powered internal commission is seized of all allegations and complaints and that its verdict should be awaited.

This is not an unreasonable proposition and could be more acceptable if international observers could be attached to the commission. India should be in no hurry to demand a war crimes commission to pacify domestic opinion as its own early role in assisting the thoroughly unscrupulous and murderous LTTE constitutes a sorry tale. There is need to act with caution here.