• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

PMO

B. S. Raghavan

A FURORE is raised from time to time against the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) poking its nose into proposals and activities of Ministries. Certain officials of the PMO have also become grist to the gossip mill following the tehelka.com st ing.

The recent transfer of Mr N. K. Singh, officer on special duty in PMO, to the Planning Commission as Member was seen as part of an attempt at placating critics. It is said that it is only a matter of time before Mr Brajesh Mishra also is eased out.

Will these moves in themselves save the PMO from future criticism? Not likely, because the scope for resentment is inherent in the situation. It stems from an ignorance of the role of personal offices of the chiefs of organisations going by whatever name , whether in governments or corporates. Every one who is the ultimate boss has a personal office, from presidents and prime ministers to chairmen and CEOs.

There is a genuine need for each one of them to have around him competent and experienced aides to study the papers coming to him in an unceasing flood from various departments. The larger the organisation, the greater the need. They may have been sent t o the chief for directives which only he has the necessary power and authority to give; or, they may be references for his guidance on the further course of action, briefs posting him with the current status of an ongoing programme, or answers to the que ries raised by him earlier.

In the case of the Government, an uninformed suggestion is often made by arm-chair pundits that intercession by unseen goblins the PMO should be dispensed with and disposal of files should be a matter between the PM and his Ministers. This overlooks thre e very important considerations.

First, the issues covered by the cases can be extremely complex, controversial and politically sensitive. Many of them are bulky tomes with many linked files, going back to several previous dispensations. It is impossible for the PM personally to invest the time necessary to digest and comprehend the contents in order to be able to pass the right orders choosing one among all the available courses of action. Second, human nature being what it is, the Ministers already committed to a position in making t heir recommendations may lose their objectivity and stick to their views. Third, there is also the PM's answerability to public opinion and accountability to Parliament, devolving on him by virtue of his being a direct appointee of the President; he bear s a responsibility for the Ministers' good behaviour as well since they are appointed indirectly on his advice.

The aides in the PMO, functioning under the guidance of the principal secretary, scrutinise the cases on behalf of the PM from these perspectives, prepare summaries and present the choices for the PM. Where necessary, they consult the Ministers or the Se cretaries concerned to obtain and record clarifications before the files go to the PM. Complicated cases may involve discussing the cases personally with the PM who may also ask the Minister or Secretary concerned to be present. It cannot be helped if so metimes the ultimate decision goes counter to the Ministry's recommendation.

Such a contingency is integral to the process itself and has to be accepted as such, so long as it is unbiased and untainted. Recently, the US President's White House office forced the powerful Defence Secretary, Mr Donald H. Rumsfeld, to rescind an orde r that he had already issued and made public. All concerned took this in their stride. That is the index of a mature democracy.