The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in India seems to believe in the slogan of ‘the more the merrier’. It appears that Cabinets in the era of coalition governments were not enough trouble for the UPA. It has added another dimension of complexity by frequently constituting Group of Ministers (GoMs) to decide on official policies. Though many may argue that collective decision making would allow arriving at better and broad based policies, UPA’s record proves otherwise.
The count of GoMs under the current government is close to 160. It is contended that government indecision has been outsourced to GoMs to create smokescreens or douse political fires. A polished variant of the GoM in the form of EGoM, where ‘E’ denotes ‘empowered’, has also been availed by the Government. The EGoM, headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee, was commissioned to discuss the draft food security bill. The recent decision to free petroleum prices from government control was also decided through an EGoM. GoMs have been constituted on every conceivable issue: recruitment and status of officers on duty in Prasar Bharati, India’s largest public broadcaster; discussion of proposal to set up a greenfield international airport at Greater Noida; provide guidelines for securing India’s energy security needs; decision on inclusion of caste in the census process; reconsider Bhopal compensation package; 3G auction.
The procedure to set up GoMs is part of the Parliamentary system of Government but the UPA appears to be using the mechanism to deal with public anxiety and media criticism. GoMs are constituted to give an impression that the Government is deliberating on specific issues, the outcome however fails to offer decisive solutions.
GoM on caste based census, after failing to arrive at a consensus, decided to involve all parties in the discussion. Was the Government unaware of the position of its own Ministers on the issue? How will the government deal with views of opposition parties given the fact that coalition partners are unable to arrive at an understanding? According to the Economic Times, the Government is indulging in delaying tactics after realizing repercussions of implementing such a decision. The fact that Ministries are headed by members of different political parties makes these groups more a turf for bargaining respective party positions rather than deliberating on public policy.
The Government sought to pacify the public outrage against Bhopal verdict by instructing the GoM to submit a report within 10 days. However, issues of popular concern like holding DOW Chemical accountable for financial compensation, extradition of Warren Anderson and clean-up of the affected zones were dogged by the GoM Report. The decision to set up a GoM successfully diverted public attention away from the speedy bail of the eight people sentenced by the Courts.
It seems that the UPA is publicizing inter-ministerial meetings as GoM to impress the voters. Apart from the efficiency, the number of GoMs is becoming a matter of concern. EGoMs, earlier headed by individual Ministries, were even unable to hold regular meetings. To redress the situation, meetings of EGoMs are now conducted under the aegis of the Cabinet Secretariat for ensuring better coordination and punctuality. The composition of the GoMs appears arbitrary. For example, the Defense Minister is not a part of the group on energy security. The Cabinet Secretariat has issued a circular asking the Government to explain the efficacy of constituting GoMs and questioned the procedure of dissolving many defunct ones.
Rather than encouraging inter-ministerial dialogue for better coordination and informed decision making, the UPA is employing GoMs to put hot topics in cold storage.
