'We need to shift to people-centric administration'

Q&A: M Veerappa Moily

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been saying again and again that he wants to overhaul the bureaucracy, stem corruption. But despite an Administrative Reforms Commission, no reform has taken place.

We have so far come out with three reports, one of which was on right to information and the other on crisis management. Both have recommendations for reforms. Part of the prime minister's promises will come in the governance and ethics report next month and the other will come in our report on civil services in March. There will definitely be recommendations for an overhaul. The PMO is closely monitoring every report coming from the commission.

Can you specify one change you foresee? For example, do you visualise specialists manning health services?

Margaret Thatcher restructured the public governance structure, but we have continued with what we inherited from the British. So changes are due. And definitely, administration should be by domain experts. There is no doubt about it. Also, we have to move from a government-centric administration to a people-centric one.

And corruption? How can you contribute to reducing it? What is your recipe?

We are looking at best practices. Our models are Finland, which is corruption free, New Zealand, Holland and Singapore. We will access the best system. The changes will be systemic. An honest system will displace or expel a dishonest man.

That is the recipe. We will mainly look at the arbitrary aspects of an officer's job, the discretions allowed in the case of officers, whether it is in the matter of transfers, postings or promotions. Look at VAT. It has reduced evasion from 60 per cent to 10 per cent. As discretionary powers go, corruption goes. So with officers. Adminsitration will be put on auto pilot. So tenures, postings and promotions will have objective grounds. More reforms like VAT will come.

Will you need a legislation?

A Bill may not be needed. Our report on governance and ethics coming next month will talk about making governance transparent.

What about the concentration of powers at the Centre? Why does the Centre, for example, have the privilege of making education schemes of a scale of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan? Why should there be such a massive health or education ministry in Delhi to ration funds to states?

We may ask the government to jettison a few departments. Decentralisation and devolution will become the order of the day, believe it or not. Reform doesn't allow concentration of power. Our reports on Centre-state relations and a federal polity will go deep into these issues as well.

How far will you go? Something like the federal system in the US?

Only as far as the Constitution permits. We can't go beyond that.

But what you say is not binding on anyone.

You must remember that it is after 40 years that such a commission is being set up. So both the prime minister and Sonia Gandhi are dead serious about reforms.

Do you hope to see any change within the tenure of this government?

Yes, definitely. I will submit the last of my 14 or 15 reports by September. The government has till 2009 to include the recommendations into the system. In fact, the changes are expected by the end of the 11th Five-Year Plan. The Planning Commission has sought recommendations from us for the Approach Paper for the Plan.

From your being the centre of attention as chairman of the Oversight Committee to your virtual anonymity as chairman of the Administrative Reforms Commission, do you feel uneasy?

I feel bad that transient matters attract media attention, while sustained development doesn't seem to interest anyone. The 16 to 17 subjects given to this commission for getting the best information and views is likely to change the way the nation functions in the next five years. It should interest people more than anything else.

You had a vision of reforms in education while penning the Oversight Committee report. What happened to that?

One of the references of that report, social capital, has been sent to this commission and we had a national colloquium in Anand last week. We are examining regulatory bodies in education like Medical Council, Dental Council of India, AICTE, University Grants Commission.

I will come back again to education, on the kind of system to be built to make it competitive and on a par with the rest of the world. We will have two more consultations on this before we give a report. We also are having consultations on health infrastructure and education infrastructure along with this.

Are you satisfied with the achievements of the Oversight Committee despite dissent among members?

There was very little dissent, just one or two persons who wanted the quota to be implemented in one go. The majority were in agreement.

But aren't OBCs in a minority? Shouldn't they be heard even in a committee meant for them?

Today everyone agrees that quota in one go was practically impossible. In fact, I feel satisfied that the conflict like situation that preceded the setting up of the committee was defused by us. We were being called Mandal 2. But we were able to win over everyone. That is an achievement.

What about the creamy layer?

I still feel that it should be excluded.

But Oversight Committee member B Mungekar says the same rule of creamy layer should then be applied to men and women. Shouldn't men be excluded from all spheres?

No, I don't think it is the same. Besides, I have been a pioneer in Karnataka in giving rights to women.