Advising the Authority

The National Advisory Council was recently reconstituted as the think tank of the Government after a gap of 4 years. Once again it is Congress President Sonia Gandhi who will be its chairperson. After her resignation from the post due to the office of profit controversy in March 2006, the NAC was subsequently dissolved. But with the Supreme Court upholding the validity of the exceptions to certain posts in the Office of Profit law, the NAC could again be reestablished by the Government. The National Advisory Council was originally set up by a Government Order in June 2004, to monitor the implementation of UPA’s Common Minimum Programme (CMP). The CMP was the basis on which the Left parties had given their support to the UPA which allowed them to form the government in 2004.

The functions of the NAC include the formation of policy of the government and assistance in the legislative business of the state. The NAC would have access to all the cabinet papers and files. It can make recommendations and submissions to the various ministries, but being just an advisory body none of them are bound to pass them. The members to this body, which may be up to 20 with a tenure of one year, will be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the chairperson of the NAC. The members, like its last installment, is expected to be subject experts and civil society activists. In its first edition, the NAC included social and political activists like Aruna Roy and Jayapraksh Narayan, development economists like Jean Dreze and A.K. Siva Kumar amongst others.

The formation of such a body however, raises a few questions. The preliminary question is whether the NAC can play a positive role in the policy making exercise of the Government. One can also question whether there is a need for such an advisory body for the Indian state. The most challenging question it has to face is whether the formation of such a body goes against the framework of the executive and the legislature laid down in the Constitution of India. The NAC has already been accused by the opposition parties and few others as an unconstitutional body. However, these questions have to be addressed more sagaciously .

For addressing the first question, we need to look at the contribution of the NAC in UPA’s first tenure. It is important to note that some of the most celebrated aam admi legislations of the first UPA government has been because of the efforts of the NAC. The NAC was instrumental in the enactment of Right to Information Act and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Both these schemes were lobbied hard by the civil society for long and the presence of some of its advocates in the NAC would have helped. The reconstituted NAC is expected to propose changes that widen the scope of the Food Security Bill and the NREGA.

Though the Government has ministries which deal with most of the topics which the NAC deal with, it mostly works in a strict bureaucratic framework. Except when certain commissions are setup for specific topics, the government is deprived of experts from the civil society in its policy making. The existence of such a body will crystallize and legitimatize some of the demands the civil society has been raising for many years. So it can be argued that, there is a need for the presence of the NAC to fill the void in the present policy think tank in the ministries.

However, the worry is whether the NAC would emerge as an alternative cabinet. The NAC does not have any executive powers and can only give refutable advice to the government. However, given Sonia Gandhi's political standing, the other ministries may feel bound to follow the advice given by the NAC. So the allegation is that NAC would emerge as a parallel or a “super cabinet”. This would result in the unelected NAC, which is de jure an advisory body, de facto performing certain executive functions.

The Constitution of India makes the Executive answerable to the Legislature, but the NAC is not answerable to the Executive or any authority. Of course, the Constitution does not have any provision which provides for the NAC or a similar body. However, there is no provision which prevents the Government from constituting any advisory body. The allegation is that unlike the various advisory commissions which the government forms for particular tasks, the NAC exercises its advisory powers continuously over the government. The recommendations of the other Commissions are subject specific and often ignored as it disappears after it makes its recommendations. However the powerful Planning Commission of India, which also exercises its role continuously over many subject matters, is also not a Constitutional authority.

The constitutionality of the planning commission is seldom questioned as it’s a truism that it essentially performs an important role in planning for the government. The influence of the Planning Commission over the decisions of the government has been very high, especially in the last two decades. The “reforms” the Planning Commission is seen to bring in the different sectors lately, is often described as those supporting the “neo-liberal project”. Whereas the NAC has been seen to bring about more “pro-poor”, “aam admi” measures which is welfarist in nature. So is there some other reason for all the protest singled out against the NAC?

There is little opposition to the idea of institutionalizing expert advice from the civil society through the NAC. In fact, the opinion among the educated Indians is that the government simply doesn’t “perform” due to the unscrupulous politicians which the country has. So the prospect of bringing in experts from the non-political spectrum need not be damaging. However there is no scope of direct appointment of experts to executive posts under our parliamentary system. The top bureaucrats in the country have to go through the archaic Indian Administrative Services while all the Ministers have to be members of the Parliament.

The larger question is whether there is an need for the Indian polity to evolve into a system which strengthens the separation of powers (between the executive and legislature) and gives more meaning to executive accountability. Strengthening the Planning Commission and National Advisory Commission, both not being accountable to the Parliament, does not seem to solve the problem. A direct vault to the presidential system for having a more efficient executive seems far-fetched. But a Hybrid system, (which combines some of the features of the presidential system with the parliamentary system) whereby experts and activists are inducted into a council accountable to the parliament, seems to be an option. This cannot of course take place without some radical constitutional amendments which stand the “basic structure” test. Even in the present system the government has the option of appointing an expert as a minister and then try the Rajya Sabha route. Before all of this wider debates on the nature of Indian polity and a national consensus on changes in our political system, if any, is necessary.

Beyond Fuel Prices

The union budget was announced last week and whether, one understands economics or not, it does not seem to matter as everyone has an opinion. And why shouldn’t people have an opinion after all it does closely affect most people. The sensex rose by 400 points by the time the speech ended and the corporates have declared this as a good budget. Though Pranoy Roy and his colleagues in the Indian TV media have also rated this budget as a good one, the reaction among the people have been mixed.

The main issue bothering the people in general and also the opposition parites, both right and left which staged a never before seen walkout during the budget speech, is the rise in fuel prices. Meanwhile the positives highlighted are the tax concession for people with income between 3 and 5 lakh, the reduction in fiscal deficit to 5.5 per cent and the projected GDP growth of 9 per cent. Reducing the budget to fuel prices, tax concessions, fiscal deficit, projected GDP growth or market performance is a dangerously alluring trend one might fall into. What follows is that some of the larger issues tend to go unnoticed.

It is imperative that we understand what the broad areas this budget sought to address. The Finance minister, in his speech, flagged three challenges that India would have to deal with in the next few years
- To quickly revert to the high GDP growth path of 9 per cent and then find the means to cross the ‘double digit growth barrier’.
- To harness economic growth to consolidate the recent gains in making development more inclusive.
- To address the weaknesses in government systems, structures and institutions at different levels of governance.

The three questions raised are very pertinent for India to have a brighter future. In fact the whole budget speech, except Part B dealing with Tax proposals, spoke on the various ways of meeting these challenges. It is difficult to understand why the Indian media failed to highlight the three issues raised considering the fact that it was looking for broad policy trends from the government. Importantly, the finance minister did not present these as the achievements of India or the UPA but as the challenges which we must overcome. Whether the minister has identified the challenges correctly is one issue and whether he has the right plan to meet the challenges is another. And whether we would, in the near future, successfully meet these challenges is an entirely different matter.

Hardly anyone would say that economic growth is not essential; more so following the economic downturn. A higher GDP growth should generally mean more economic activity, more job opportunity and higher incomes. But the larger question is who all participate in this growth process. Is the growth triggered by small sections of the society while the majority cripples in depravation? This would mean we have to consider the second issue- how to make the growth more inclusive. Different social sector and welfare schemes are suggested for this. There are many flagship programs which the centre runs which seek to further this end. The funds kept aside for this might need to increase but even with increased funds the problem of structural and institutional difficulties in implementation arise. Hence third challenge regarding the need for tackling the weaknesses in India’s government and institutional systems comes into the picture. Strengthening transparency and public accountability at the different levels of governance can thereby be ways of tackling the implementation issue.

So from the global economic crisis one has come to the crisis in governability at home. Though the two may not be easily relatable at the first, as we progress from one to another, one can find the connection. This is one line of thought. There may be other approaches which seek to address the issues which comes before the budget. Nevertheless this line of thought, whereby the larger issue of goverenace is linked to the budget, appears to be appropriate or at least logical.

Yes, the governance issue was not the highlight of the budget. The highlight was better fiscal discipline from the government, at the cost of higher fuel prices. But there were many reasons why the government could reduce the fiscal deficit. It did not have any loan waivers or pay arrears to meet this time unlike the last year. Disinvestment and the one-time sale of 3G to the bidders in the telecom spectrum also helped. And finally, there was no extra subsidy on the oil account which also reduced the fiscal deficit but increased, much to the ire (or happiness?) of the opposition parties, the prices of the petrol and diesel.

The issue regarding the rise in fuel prices has dominated the Parliament this week which, thanks to the women’s bill introduced by the government, could soon get sidelined. The opposition, though with political motives, might have a point here as an increase in the fuel prices at a time of all-time high food inflation might have a cascading effect. Note that, it is not only the car and bike owners who would be affected. But with higher prices for diesel, prices of food, essential commodities and other articles might also rise. But expressing that the fiscal deficit has to reduce and fuel subsidies increase, do not seem to make any logic.

Also with all the clamour surrounding fuel prices, some other issues in the budget concerning the aam admi have been ignored. The additional provision for rural development just rose by 6.3 per cent and the rise in the allocation for NREGA is only 2.5% even when the GDP is projected to grow at a much higher rate. Meanwhile the rise in defense expenditure is more than 8 per cent. The question is whether the priorities of the government is in line with that what the majority of the country really need. Again, dismissing the government’s intentions might not be a good idea as social sector development constitute 37% of the total expenditure and the new reforms suggested include the decision to increase the banking options in rural areas and the introduction of National Social Security Fund targeted at the unorganized sector.

Also at the institutional level, a Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission was decided to be set up to rewrite the financial sector laws, an Independent Evaluation Office to be set up to evaluate the impact of the government’s flagship programmes in the social sector and a National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reforms has been setup to help reduce the backlog of cases in courts. There was hardly anything else on governance in the budget.Yes, its not the budget that has to deal with the larger issues of governance in India. In fact, it can do very little regarding this. But the very fact that the crisis in governance got some mention in the constricted budget speech makes this issue more important. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission had recently made a set of recommendations on this regard, but the people do not seem to be aware of its content. Why is it that we always criticize “the system” and when some serious suggestions are made to improve it, we simply do not seem to care? We have to first understand the various options that are available before us in order to critique and debate the shortcomings of our polity. Are we ready to engage in these issues eruditely?

The Day of the Declaration

It is in a funny way we treat important dates. August 15 is a day of celebration. It gave us independence. Or so it is believed. November 26 is a deadly day- 26/11 happened. I remember someone asking, “What happened on September 11, 2001?” It took some time for people to realize the obvious and soon the answer was acknowledged “Yes, 9/11 happened”. What does January 26 mean to us. Few people see beyond the unabashed display of arms and the President’s speech because we do not go into what it really stood for. The need to understand the history behind 26 January comes from the fact that only the past makes 26 January 26 January.

26 January, unlike popular belief, stood for Independence. Many Indians would know a lot about the much romanticized “Declaration of Independence” of the USA thanks to Nicholas Cage and his buddies in the Hollywood. But what about “our” Declaration of Independence and our original independence day. Some vague lessons of the much slept history classes and some mugged up question-answers comes in the mind. But even the memory of the topper of those short-term memory tests (a.k.a. examinations) may not be brawny enough.

Cutting all the gabble, 26 January, 1930 was the day India promulgated the declaration of Independence or the pledge of Purna Swaraj. On that day we declared ourselves an independent country, no longer under the clutches of the imperialists. The Declaration began “We believe that it is the incredible right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom to enjoy the fruits of their soil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth… if any government deprives a people of these and oppress them, the people have a further right to alter or abolish it”

It was the first time the Indian National Congress had declared complete independence and it was Gandhi who drafted it. The declaration said- “We believe therefore, that India must server the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence… We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this fourfold disaster to our country.” The Home Rule movement and the Nehru Report (under Motilal Nehru) had earlier advocated only for a dominion status of India within the British Empire. In December 1928, Mahatma Gandhi proposed a resolution that called for the British to grant dominion status to India within two years, which was later reduced to one year, failing which the Congress would demand for complete independence.

So after one year of British apathy, at the midnight of December 31, 1929 at a massive public gathering in Lahore, Jawaharlal Nehru declared “Purna Swaraj” or complete independence from the British and asked the people to observe January 26 as Independence Day. The Tricolour flag of India was hoisted by Nehru on the banks of the river Ravi in Lahore and later Nehru and his colleagues danced around the flag post. On January 26, 1930, the declaration of purna swaraj was publicly issued and people all over the country celebrated India‘s Independence day and this day was celebrated every following year.

Cut the scene to the August 15, 1947- while some people nonchalantly left their everything for an alien planet, others took up the sword and killed each other. Millions died. Gandhi mourned in an ashram. There was hardly any celebration or any sense of pride in what we won. August 15 does not stand for Independence, it stands for partition.

On the eve of August 15, Nehru began his celebrated speech “Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.” Sadly not many understand what it means. The tryst with destiny was the pledge India had taken long years ago- on the 26th of January 1930. However the pledge taken in Lahore, couldn’t be redeemed in full measure due to Partition. So the 26th of January is in no way subsidiary to the “independence” day. In fact even after August 15th, India was only a dominion which had not formally relinquished all ties with the British.

26 January also gives us an opportunity to introspect whether we have lived upto the values of the pledge. The declaration of January 26 says “The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually” It further speaks on how a normal Indian is heavily taxed, how the village industry has been destroyed, how customs and imported British goods are undesirable. It also spoke of how “The rights of free expression of opinion and free association have been denied to us” and how “the system of education has torn us from our moorings and our training has made us bug the very chains that bind us”.

Where have we reached 80 years after this declaration? Has the injustices decreased or has it been reaffirmed more so in the recent years? Its important to take one hard look at ourselves and the nation and try to reach an answer conscientiously. The extreme contradictions in the country does not paint a rosy picture, hence we must deliberate- where we have reached, which direction we are now heading and where we must be ideally heading.

There was also some mention of 26/11in the beginning. That was just to highlight the way we misconstrue dates. It was on November 26, 1949 that the Constitution was formally enacted, not on January 26, 1950. 26/11 stood for the spirit of the Constitution not the burning Taj. August 15th stood for partition, tragedy and the dominion status not independence or celebration. January 26 represented freedom, the promise of independence and the formation of the nation-state, and not just the Constitution and parade.

Hence January 26 is a day to celebrate. This also makes me wonder, why the government mandates January 26 to be a dry day while on August 15 you are allowed to celebrate with drinks. Perhaps its time to recognize the freedoms January 26 stood for. It’s time to analyse whether we have redeemed the pledge we undertook 80 years back. It’s time to resolve to take more actions in furtherance of the vision of January 26- that means more than just resolving to celebrate the freedom of the republic day with booze.