:: P.C. Alexander

A Cabinet reshuffle that was not

By Dr P.C. Alexander

Improving the efficiency of administration is the main objective of a Cabinet reshuffle. Therefore, it should be an occasion not just to drop the misfits and induct new talent, but also to restructure the ministries to eliminate overlapping of work and wasteful expenditure. However, of late, a Cabinet reshuffle has come to mean only the exit of a few ministers and the entry of a few others to fill up the vacancies.

When the UPA government came to power in 2004, for the first few days it was not clear as to who will head the government and who will hold which portfolio. In the absence of a shadow Cabinet system in India, the task of selecting ministers on the basis of their past experience and suitability has always been a difficult exercise for Prime Ministers. The difficulty got aggravated in 2004 because of the realities of coalition politics.

Eventually, Cabinet formation in 2004 became an exercise of finding berths for all those who were to be accommodated in the council of ministers. This was achieved by creating new ministerial positions. The result: Manmohan Singh’s council of ministers — with 80 members — became the largest ever headed by a Congress Prime Minister after Independence. Indira Gandhi, with 353 Congress members in the Lok Sabha, had only 59 ministers; Rajiv Gandhi’s council of ministers had 62 ministers though there were 415 Congress members in the Lok Sabha; and Narasimha Rao, with 232 Congress members, had 67 ministers. However, with only 145 Congress members Dr Manmohan Singh has an 80-strong council of ministers of which 57 ministers belong to the Congress. Of the 34 Cabinet ministers 24 are from the Congress and six out of the seven ministers of state with independent charge too hail from the party. It is obvious that if there is any failure on the part of the government to measure up to public expectations, the blame would be laid at the Congress’ doorsteps.

The general expectation was that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would take an early opportunity to restructure the council of ministers that was cobbled up in a hurry in 2004, besides getting rid of the non-performers. In a parliamentary democracy, whether of a coalition government or of a single party government, it is the Prime Minister’s right to undertake such an operation. The coalition partners can, at best, suggest the names of substitutes for the minister to be dropped. They, however, cannot insist that the Prime Minister retain a minister found unfit for the job. However, the Cabinet reshuffle in October 2006 was only an exit-entry exercise. It was believed then that a complete revamp will take place after observing the ministries and the ministers’ contribution for some more time. But this "some more time" dragged on for almost one-and-a-half years. Finally when the reshuffle was announced, with only a year left for the General elections, it proved to be nothing more than another exit-entry exercise involving half a dozen ministers of state.

No attention appears to have been paid to the task of restructuring the council of ministers in order to eliminate overlapping of responsibilities or to trim the size of the council. In the absence of a plan for more rational regrouping of portfolios, dropping a few ministers of state and inducting the same number of new ministers of state can turn out to be just a cosmetic change. There are now separate ministries for new and renewable energy, social justice and empowerment, tribal affairs, women and child development, heavy industries and public enterprises, housing and urban poverty alleviation, youth affairs and sports etc. There is scope for grouping them with ministries handling allied subjects in order to avoid duplication of work and ensure greater efficiency in both policy making and implementation.

Further, there is a great need for more rational distribution of work among the ministers. The arrangement of tagging fertilisers and chemicals to steel, or development of northeastern region to panchayati raj are just two examples of irrational distribution of work.

Once ministries are regrouped based on the criterion of maximum efficiency with minimum administrative costs, it will become clear as to which ministry should have ministers of state to assist the Cabinet minister and how many. In the absence of any such plan, the ministers of state are posted to various ministries without any reference to the requirements of the concerned ministry.

What is surprising is that the recent reshuffle left ministers at the Cabinet level practically untouched. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh surely cannot be absolutely satisfied with the work of all his Cabinet colleagues in spite of strong public perception that there is a lot of deadwood in this category. The policy appears to be that young leaders should first prove their eligibility through their performance at a lower level before they can be considered for Cabinet appointments. Surprisingly, the policy was also applied to an experienced civil servant like M.S. Gill who had held the post of the country’s Chief Election Commissioner with distinction, but was given the rank only of an MoS with independent charge.

I would also like to express reservations about the arrangement by which one MoS has to work under two different Cabinet ministers. This has all the potential for creating practical difficulties in day to day administration and even for distorting the concept of accountability of the ministers of state to their seniors at the Cabinet level. Already there are problems in several ministries arising out of strained relationship between the MoS and the Cabinet minister regarding their respective responsibilities. Making the MoS work under different Cabinet ministers can create new difficulties instead of resolving existing ones.

Dr P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and a former Rajya Sabha MP