 "Is a unified ministry the answer to India's transit woes?")
"No other significant country in the world has a proliferation of ministries in the transport sector. Even Russia and China have unified ministries of transport," Rakesh Mohan, former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, told Business Standard in a recent interview, while drawing attention to the report of the National Transport Development Policy Committee, which he heads. The committee has recommended an integrated ministry of transport.
As of now, five different ministries are responsible for India's crucial transport sector - the ministries of railways, road, civil aviation, ports and shipping, and urban transport. They might have overlapping roles, but each of them continues to, by and large, work in isolation. The reason that the sector has multiple ministries isn't purely because having smaller ministries means a more focused and efficient administration. The compulsions of coalition politics have played a critical role in creating this maze of ministries.
In 2009, for example, when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power for the second time, one of the things it did was to split the surface transport ministry into the ministry of road transport and highways, and the ministry of shipping and ports. Shipping might be a relatively smaller ministry, considering that India is still a small player in the global market for maritime services, but it is of immense importance for politicians from Tamil Nadu. For Tamil Nadu's main opposition party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which was until recently a UPA ally, the Sethusamundram canal project - an ambitious, though controversial, maritime project worth Rs 2,427 crore that would make navigation between India and Sri Lanka easier - has always been a centre of political attention. Even now, right before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, DMK has raked up this issue. Which is why, in 2004, DMK, an important ally then, bargained hard with UPA and succeeded in bagging the surface transport ministry for its senior leader, T R Baalu. Shipping and ports was then a department under the ministry. The outcome wasn't encouraging. Road and highway projects, particularly, got neglected. So, when UPA returned to power in 2009, Balu was out. Of the two new ministries that were created, road transport and highways went to Kamal Nath, and shipping and ports was given to G K Vasan, a senior Congress leader again from Tamil Nadu.
The first cabinet of independent India had just about a dozen ministries. By 2004, when it was evident that the era of coalition was here to stay, the number of ministries had crossed 42. It's gone up further since and now there are 51 ministries. For instance, soon after liberalisation, what was once the ministry of power, coal and non-conventional energy was split into three ministries: power, coal and non-conventional energy (this was later renamed the ministry of new and renewable energy). Similarly, corporate affairs was separated from the law ministry; women and child development was carved out of human development; and consumer affairs, foods and public distribution were born out of the agriculture ministry. (See box).
Yogendra Narain, former Rajya Sabha secretary general, says such restructuring could be based on a suggestion of a reform committee looking into a particular sector - like the National Transport Policy Development Committee's recent recommendation for an integrated transport ministry. Or, it could be an outcome of political expediency where allies demand a particular portfolio. (For example, ministers from the eastern states like Bihar and West Bengal hanker for the Railways, while those from the coastal states in the east and the south want control over shipping). Or else, there could be a functional requirement to bifurcate or trifurcate a ministry, or merge some ministries.
Going into the merits of a creating an integrated transport ministry, Narain says when in 1985 Rajiv Gandhi, then the prime minister, integrated the railway, aviation and surface transport ministries into one, the experiment failed miserably. Narain, a former Indian Administrative Service officer, was then joint secretary in the ministry looking after shipping. "It became an omnibus ministry and individual departments could not get much attention." Haryana stalwart, Bansi Lal, was the minister then. Though he delegated much work to his junior ministers, Narain says handling the consolidated ministry wasn't easy for Bansi Lal. "It became difficult, especially during Parliament sessions, when bureaucrats brief their minister on the important issues concerning their ministry that might come up for discussion," says Narain. The ministry had to be soon broken down.
Narain later returned to the ministry as secretary, surface transport. After his exit, the ministry was split into road transport and highways, and shipping. "The first was an attempt at better administration, though it wasn't successful. But the second one was done purely to accommodate more ministers," he says. The risk with having a unified transport ministry is that issues concerning the railways will dominate, says K K Pandey, professor of urban management at the Indian Institute of Public Administration.
"While urban transport should continue to be under the urban development ministry, it is important to have an integrated approach towards the transport sector," he says. Urban transport, however, is essentially a state subject and projects like the Bus Rapid Transit System are implemented by the municipal bodies. Its administration is, therefore, required to be under the ministry of urban development. "As far as resource planning in, say, the transport or energy sectors is concerned, this is done by the Planning Commission," he says.
Pandey cites the case of Germany where the entire government functions through a cluster approach with a group of ministries and departments being placed under one minister. Loosely, this is similar to the system of creating a group of ministers (GoMs) in India, though GoMs here are constituted to take collective decisions on issues that are beyond the scope of a single ministry or cannot be resolved in a larger group like the Cabinet. At one point, the government had some 37 GoMs and empowered group of ministers (EGoMs). But with Pranab Mukherjee alone heading some 24 of these groups, before he moved on to become president, efficiency and decision-making suffered.
Replicating the German model in the current political scenario is, however, difficult. Regional satraps need representation in the council of ministers. And they often refuse to listen to ministers who belong to other political parties.
Besides, says Narain, over the years the scope of work of the ministries has increased tremendously. To have an energy ministry, for instance, would mean combining coal, power and petroleum. "Each of these is big in itself and combing them would be tough. For a minister, to take a decision or to overrule a proposal will become extremely difficult unless he is very good."
Even within the current government set-up there are different ministerial structures. For instance, in the ministry of external affairs there is one Cabinet minister, two ministers of state and four secretaries. By contrast, a smaller ministry like corporate affairs, carved out of the ministry of law and justice, too functions. Though Narain agrees that this has streamlined matters relating to company affairs, Pandey says ultimately the work is carried out by the officials, hence multiplicity of ministries or upgrading departments to ministries does not improve decision-making.
What, however, restricts such political expansiveness is Article 75 (1A) of the Constitution, inserted through the 91st Amendment in 2003 by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. Under this, the total number of ministers, including the prime minister in the Union council of ministers, cannot exceed 15 per cent of the total number of Lok Sabha members. Similarly, in the states, the number of ministers, including the chief minister, cannot exceed 15 per cent of the members of assemblies.
Clearly, forming a government might not be as tough as winning an election, but balancing political ambitions with administrative requirements requires tactful handling each time a new council of ministers is constituted.
MINISTRIES THAT SPLIT*
SURFACE TRANSPORT
* Road transport and highways
* Shipping
LAW, JUSTICE AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
* Law and justice
* Corporate affairs
TOURISM
* Tourism
* Culture
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
* Urban development
* Housing and urban poverty alleviation
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
* Rural development
* Drinking water and sanitation
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
* External affairs
* Overseas Indian
* This is not an exhaustive list
As of now, five different ministries are responsible for India's crucial transport sector - the ministries of railways, road, civil aviation, ports and shipping, and urban transport. They might have overlapping roles, but each of them continues to, by and large, work in isolation. The reason that the sector has multiple ministries isn't purely because having smaller ministries means a more focused and efficient administration. The compulsions of coalition politics have played a critical role in creating this maze of ministries.
In 2009, for example, when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power for the second time, one of the things it did was to split the surface transport ministry into the ministry of road transport and highways, and the ministry of shipping and ports. Shipping might be a relatively smaller ministry, considering that India is still a small player in the global market for maritime services, but it is of immense importance for politicians from Tamil Nadu. For Tamil Nadu's main opposition party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which was until recently a UPA ally, the Sethusamundram canal project - an ambitious, though controversial, maritime project worth Rs 2,427 crore that would make navigation between India and Sri Lanka easier - has always been a centre of political attention. Even now, right before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, DMK has raked up this issue. Which is why, in 2004, DMK, an important ally then, bargained hard with UPA and succeeded in bagging the surface transport ministry for its senior leader, T R Baalu. Shipping and ports was then a department under the ministry. The outcome wasn't encouraging. Road and highway projects, particularly, got neglected. So, when UPA returned to power in 2009, Balu was out. Of the two new ministries that were created, road transport and highways went to Kamal Nath, and shipping and ports was given to G K Vasan, a senior Congress leader again from Tamil Nadu.
Also Read
Before this, Nath was the commerce minister. This time round, the prime minister wanted to keep him out of commerce. However, being an important leader of the Congress, he could be accommodated with no less than a ministerial berth. Splitting the surface transport ministry took care of both the issues without any feathers getting ruffled.
The first cabinet of independent India had just about a dozen ministries. By 2004, when it was evident that the era of coalition was here to stay, the number of ministries had crossed 42. It's gone up further since and now there are 51 ministries. For instance, soon after liberalisation, what was once the ministry of power, coal and non-conventional energy was split into three ministries: power, coal and non-conventional energy (this was later renamed the ministry of new and renewable energy). Similarly, corporate affairs was separated from the law ministry; women and child development was carved out of human development; and consumer affairs, foods and public distribution were born out of the agriculture ministry. (See box).
Yogendra Narain, former Rajya Sabha secretary general, says such restructuring could be based on a suggestion of a reform committee looking into a particular sector - like the National Transport Policy Development Committee's recent recommendation for an integrated transport ministry. Or, it could be an outcome of political expediency where allies demand a particular portfolio. (For example, ministers from the eastern states like Bihar and West Bengal hanker for the Railways, while those from the coastal states in the east and the south want control over shipping). Or else, there could be a functional requirement to bifurcate or trifurcate a ministry, or merge some ministries.
Going into the merits of a creating an integrated transport ministry, Narain says when in 1985 Rajiv Gandhi, then the prime minister, integrated the railway, aviation and surface transport ministries into one, the experiment failed miserably. Narain, a former Indian Administrative Service officer, was then joint secretary in the ministry looking after shipping. "It became an omnibus ministry and individual departments could not get much attention." Haryana stalwart, Bansi Lal, was the minister then. Though he delegated much work to his junior ministers, Narain says handling the consolidated ministry wasn't easy for Bansi Lal. "It became difficult, especially during Parliament sessions, when bureaucrats brief their minister on the important issues concerning their ministry that might come up for discussion," says Narain. The ministry had to be soon broken down.
Narain later returned to the ministry as secretary, surface transport. After his exit, the ministry was split into road transport and highways, and shipping. "The first was an attempt at better administration, though it wasn't successful. But the second one was done purely to accommodate more ministers," he says. The risk with having a unified transport ministry is that issues concerning the railways will dominate, says K K Pandey, professor of urban management at the Indian Institute of Public Administration.
"While urban transport should continue to be under the urban development ministry, it is important to have an integrated approach towards the transport sector," he says. Urban transport, however, is essentially a state subject and projects like the Bus Rapid Transit System are implemented by the municipal bodies. Its administration is, therefore, required to be under the ministry of urban development. "As far as resource planning in, say, the transport or energy sectors is concerned, this is done by the Planning Commission," he says.
Pandey cites the case of Germany where the entire government functions through a cluster approach with a group of ministries and departments being placed under one minister. Loosely, this is similar to the system of creating a group of ministers (GoMs) in India, though GoMs here are constituted to take collective decisions on issues that are beyond the scope of a single ministry or cannot be resolved in a larger group like the Cabinet. At one point, the government had some 37 GoMs and empowered group of ministers (EGoMs). But with Pranab Mukherjee alone heading some 24 of these groups, before he moved on to become president, efficiency and decision-making suffered.
Replicating the German model in the current political scenario is, however, difficult. Regional satraps need representation in the council of ministers. And they often refuse to listen to ministers who belong to other political parties.
Besides, says Narain, over the years the scope of work of the ministries has increased tremendously. To have an energy ministry, for instance, would mean combining coal, power and petroleum. "Each of these is big in itself and combing them would be tough. For a minister, to take a decision or to overrule a proposal will become extremely difficult unless he is very good."
Even within the current government set-up there are different ministerial structures. For instance, in the ministry of external affairs there is one Cabinet minister, two ministers of state and four secretaries. By contrast, a smaller ministry like corporate affairs, carved out of the ministry of law and justice, too functions. Though Narain agrees that this has streamlined matters relating to company affairs, Pandey says ultimately the work is carried out by the officials, hence multiplicity of ministries or upgrading departments to ministries does not improve decision-making.
What, however, restricts such political expansiveness is Article 75 (1A) of the Constitution, inserted through the 91st Amendment in 2003 by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. Under this, the total number of ministers, including the prime minister in the Union council of ministers, cannot exceed 15 per cent of the total number of Lok Sabha members. Similarly, in the states, the number of ministers, including the chief minister, cannot exceed 15 per cent of the members of assemblies.
Clearly, forming a government might not be as tough as winning an election, but balancing political ambitions with administrative requirements requires tactful handling each time a new council of ministers is constituted.
MINISTRIES THAT SPLIT*
SURFACE TRANSPORT
* Road transport and highways
* Shipping
LAW, JUSTICE AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
* Law and justice
* Corporate affairs
TOURISM
* Tourism
* Culture
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
* Urban development
* Housing and urban poverty alleviation
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
* Rural development
* Drinking water and sanitation
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
* External affairs
* Overseas Indian
* This is not an exhaustive list