Jumbo Cabinets

By C. Subramaniam

HUNG PARLIAMENTS and State Assemblies are becoming a frequent feature of Indian polity. One subterfuge adopted to access power in such a situation is to dangle the carrot of office before the fence-sitting and unscrupulous members. This leads to untenably bloated Councils of Ministers. We have witnessed particularly shameful manifestations of this phenomenon in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, two of the largest States. The term ``jumbo Cabinet'' has the dubious distinction of entering the Indian political lexicon.

The Constitution provides for the President appointing the Prime Minister and for the Governor appointing the Chief Minister. In turn, the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister name their ministers. The Constitution places no restrictions on the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister in the formation of the Council of Ministers. Their discretion appears total. When we drafted the Constitution, we did not have the foresight to visualise hung legislatures and ministerial berths becoming pawns in no-holds- barred political chess games. We took it for granted that the Prime Ministers and the Chief Ministers would invariably be men of stature and probity and would act in the best interests of the country. We expected them to exercise due restraint in determining the size of their Cabinets and manifest a sense of responsibility in choosing their ministers with emphasis on their qualifications and character. I must state in retrospect that the architects of our Constitution were guilty of naivety in making these facile assumptions. As a surviving member of the Constituent Assembly, I am prepared to bear my share of the blame.

The picture, however, is not all bleak. Tamil Nadu is a shining example of restraint in the size of its Cabinets. During the 13- year Congress rule from 1954 to 1967, we managed with a Cabinet of merely eight. The State had a well-deserved reputation for efficient and clean administration with this small Cabinet. Since 1967, the State has been ruled by the Dravidian parties and their Cabinets have also continued to be slim. Many other States had also had Cabinets of reasonable size until hung Assemblies and opportunistic alliances started infecting our system.

At the Centre too, we had only about 50 members in the Council of Ministers. When the 51st Minister was inducted, some of us used to banter amongst ourselves in the Cabinet: ``Who will be the 52nd and who will be the first joker in the pack?'' If memory serves me, we had no joker in the pack till 1977. And now, we have some 80 Ministers at the Centre.

The limit was reached when Uttar Pradesh had some 90 Ministers. All dissidents from the Congress(I) were made Ministers. It is now the turn of Bihar. All Congress(I) MLAs have been offered office - one as the Speaker and all the others as Ministers. This is a transparent form of political corruption and cynical pursuit of power at all costs. There is no modicum of shame in such an unprincipled grab for power. The use of political power and public money to entice members to gravitate in support of the aspiring Chief Minister is a flagrant abuse of the trust vested by the Constitution in the Chief Minister and mockery of the basic norms of democracy and representative government.

This is undoubtedly an important moral issue. But there is more to it. It has a disruptive impact on governance. The logical corollary to a large Cabinet is an increase in the number of ministries/departments. This is invariably accomplished by an irrational splitting and proliferation of departments with scant regard for functional efficiency and logical linkages. As the various aspirants use their political clout to corner attractive assignments, the Chief Minister adopts the path of least resistance. The logically-configured departments are hacked out of recognition and new departments and ministries carved out to buy political peace with the hungry and unscrupulous aspirants. This causes a serious and long-term structural damage to the apparatus of governance.

Functional cohesion and logical grouping are important ingredients of an efficient Council of Ministers. Unless subjects relevant to a broad functional area come under one umbrella, it will be a sure formula for chaos, confusion and lack of coordination.

There is another dimension to the bloated ministries. A minister comes not alone, but with accompanying administrative paraphernalia. A complement of personal staff (special assistant, private secretary (secretaries), confidential assistant(s), drivers, peons, etc.), a secretary with his/her own status symbol of additional/joint/deputy secretaries - this is part of the ministers' baggage! Ministerial-level bungalows, cars, travel budgets and related costs inexorably follow. And a visible ring of armed security men as a new status symbol! Each minister seeks to keep up with the Joneses and relentlessly pursues an objective of replicating the paraphernalia and perquisites associated with the other ministries. The grind goes on ignoring efficiency economy and public interest. It should be useful for the newly- constituted Expenditure Commission to estimate honestly the incremental of creating a new ministry/department.

Another related concern is the quality of ministers. It is naive to imagine that anyone can function as minister. Governance is serious business. It requires talent to run a government. Administration is becoming more and more complex with the advent of new technologies.

I am inclined to repeat the lessons I learnt from Rajaji: A minister should learn the content of his job by detailed discussions with professionals concerned and through a serious study of related literature. Should learn about the government administrative structure, inter-relationships among parts and the broad procedural and processual framework. Otherwise he will lose his way in the bureaucratic jungle and the officials will draw circles around him. While retaining leadership firmly in his hands, the minister should involve a cross-section of his colleagues, officials and other stakeholders in the decision and implementation processes. Personal and group interests should not be permitted to cloud judgment or compromise optimal decision. Have the courage and the good sense to admit mistakes; correct them, if possible, and learn from them. Do not repeat mistakes. The devil's in the detail. Do not shy away from details, but always keep the larger picture in view.

We are painfully aware that such norms do not inform the conduct of many ministers. We often find them indulging in populist grandstanding, in utter disregard for fiscal prudence. Sub- optimal concentration on the part of some Central Ministers on their constituencies and home States makes the national government a misnomer. Even dacoits and persons with criminal record have found their way into Cabinets in this era of manipulative politics. A public office should be regarded as a valuable opportunity to serve the people and contribute to the enlargement of national wealth and widespread well-being; and not as a means of exercising power and promoting personal aggrandisement. Ministers should approach their jobs with a humility to learn and resolve to serve. This appears to call for a behavioural revolution.

The size of Cabinets and the qualifications for ministers are two major areas of concern left uncovered by our Constitution. Fifty years of experience points to the need for filling this gap. I recall the words of Rajendra Prasad in his valedictory speech in the Constituent Assembly. He recognised that we had not deliberated upon and provided for the qualifications of ministers. The newly-constituted Constitution Review panel under the distinguished leadership of Justice Venkatachaliah should endeavour to remedy this shortcoming and also address the question of the size of Cabinets.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Panskura seat and the 'mahajot'
Next     : Reply to a tirade