Backpage

THE decision to constitute a think-tank, somewhat g randiosely named the National Advisory Committee, ‘to help and advise the government to carry forward in an effective and time-bound manner the commitments of the CMP (Common Minimum Programme) for the benefit of the people’ does not seem to have elicited a positive response. Not because this body to advise Sonia Gandhi, head of the CMP coordination committee, has been stacked with worthless cronies. But, for at least one section of our intelligentsia, precisely because the think-tank consists of eminent experts and leaders of civil society, most enjoying an impeccable reputation.

Why should a group of worthies agreeing to help in a worthwhile task generate criticism? Sagarika Ghose, writing in the Indian Express, voices apprehension that this move deprives civil society of its most articulate spokespersons. If those whose duty it is to keep the government on its toes themselves become part of it, even if only in an advisory capacity, then who will keep up the pressure? Without quite ‘charging’ the members with having ‘sold out’, the argument is reminiscent of the popular refrain of ‘co-option’.

This, in some ways, is ironic. Normally, such debates are common within NGOs and social movements known for involvement in non-party political causes often placed in antagonism to the state. Keen to maintain their ‘purity’ and fearful of the state ‘misusing’ their ‘brand equity’ for essentially symbolic purposes, many individuals and organisations refuse to associate with official bodies, preferring to retain their independent status. Such a stance opens them to a charge of shying away from responsibility. It is thus surprising that this time around, when a few have agreed to run the gauntlet of official involvement, they should now be accused of letting down the larger cause. Dammed if you do and dammed if not.

It is not only social activists/groupings who revel in such purist posturing. The decision of the Left Front to extend support to the UPA government but not join it reflects a similar tension. ‘Since we are not in a position to direct the affairs of government, why risk the odium of having to defend its "anti-people" policies.’ Even without subscribing to the Mohan Kumarmangalam thesis, is this not like enjoying power without the burden of responsibility?

There are, however, more serious reservations about the NAC. As a recent editorial in the EPW points out, the NAC is not an informal body to advise the coordination committee constituted to oversee the CMP, but has been set up by the head of the coordination committee with resources provided by the PMO. Enough has already appeared about the ambiguous position of Sonia Gandhi in the current dispensation, about her being given a cabinet rank, and thus the ‘fears’ about a dual centre of power. This fear has not subsided, though fortunately the ‘unwise‘ proposal of the law minister to make official files available to Ms. Gandhi has been scuttled. So what exactly is the status of the NAC, and what is it expected to achieve?

Earlier experience of advisory groups drawn from civil society and attached to line ministries has rarely been positive. Not only do these committees meet but infrequently, their views are usually disregarded. Worse, the functioning of these groups – the drawing up of agendas, time kept aside for serious discussion, and so on – hardly inspires confidence. All that seems to happen is that some members gain proximity to officials and politicians and can leverage this to subserve their personal agendas. So, if it is to be business as usual, the NAC will be one more toothless tiger.

If, however, the presence of Sonia Gandhi invests the NAC with greater significance, we need to know more about how it will function and what its role will be. In particular, care needs to be taken that it does not become a powerful lobby which usurps the legitimate functions of parliamentary committees whose business it is to ensure that ministries and their programmes function properly. In parliamentary democracies, it is dangerous to undermine the political class and organisations.

Hopefully, the current rulers will be mindful of institutional and procedural niceties and, in their enthusiasm to vigorously pursue pro-people agendas with the aid of civil society, do not add to the existing cynicism about the political class. Today we may be appreciative of the various members of the NAC, but what if, under another regime, we have another, more distasteful set? The BJP-NDA reliance on the RSS is no secret. We should do nothing to legitimise such arrangements.

Nor should we jump the gun and focus only on the ‘worst case scenarios’ of institutional innovation. In all fairness, one needs to give the NAC some time before deciding on its worthwhileness.

Harsh Sethi