<b>A K Bhattacharya:</b> Open access to expert reports?

The lack of clarity on the govt's response to such reports reflects poorly on its governance style

Governments often set up expert committees to deliberate on key policy issues. In due course, these expert committees submit their recommendations to the relevant ministries that had set them up. The Narendra Modi government is no different. In the last 32 months, it has set up many committees and has also received reports prepared by many of them.

However, there is a crucial difference. The manner in which the government has been processing the findings of these committees is often not too transparent. The government of course is free to decide how it wishes to deal with the reports of such committees. But the lack of clarity on the government’s response to such reports reflects poorly on its governance style.

Take for instance how the Modi government responded to the findings of the committee on education, headed by former cabinet secretary, T S R Subramanian. The human resource development ministry had set up this committee to identify the weaknesses in India’s education system and recommend corrective measures.

However, an unseemly controversy erupted soon after Mr Subramanian submitted the report to the ministry last May. First, the government seemed reluctant to release the findings of the Subramanian committee for dissemination. And then, there were reports that if the government did not make the committee’s findings public, Mr Subramanian could himself release the report.

The propriety of such action by the head of a committee set up by the government would have been debatable, but far less edifying was the ministry’s reluctance to make that report public. Fortunately, good sense prevailed on the human resource development ministry and an embarrassing situation was avoided. The ministry released the key findings of the committee, although Mr Subramanian later said that only a few of the recommendations were made public.

What did the Modi government gain by not releasing the entire report of the Subramanian committee? Several sections of the report are now available and the recommendations contained therein are being widely discussed in the media. It is a different matter that the government is now mulling the idea of setting up another committee to make recommendations on changes in the education policy.

It is possible that the government found the analysis of the Subramanian committee not fit for incorporation in its new education policy and recognised the need for another round of deliberations. After all, an elected government is within its rights to explore different shades of opinion on any matter before taking the final call. But it is difficult to appreciate the logic of attempting to hush up a report or making public only a few recommendations of the committee. No government loses its legitimacy or sovereignty if it remains open to feedback and comments on recommendations made by an expert committee. On the contrary, a decision against making the full report public deprives the government of the benefits from both dissemination of expert views and comments on them from a wide range of stakeholders.

The bigger concern is that the refusal to transparently engage with expert bodies and their recommendations afflicts even the finance ministry that has otherwise followed a fairly open system of debate on policy issues. Consider, for example, how the finance ministry has allowed a host of economic policy options to be discussed through its annual document, the Economic Survey presented just before the Budget.

The finance ministry may not have concurred with many policy options discussed in the Economic Survey of the last couple of years. But the benefits for the finance ministry’s decision-making process are immense because of the manner in which the issues raised in the Economic Survey are discussed threadbare by experts within and outside the government. It is, therefore, a little puzzling as to why the same broad-minded approach would not be followed by the finance ministry when it comes to dealing with some other reports submitted to it by expert committees.

For instance, the first Budget of the Modi government reiterated its commitment to reform government expenditure with an announcement that an expenditure management commission would be set up. The idea was to use the commission’s recommendations to prune a host of wasteful government expenditure. The objective was laudable and the finance ministry was not found wanting in its promptness in constituting the commission, which was headed by former Reserve Bank of India governor Bimal Jalan. The commission is believed to have completed its task after submitting two reports to the finance ministry. But the ministry is yet to make public either of the reports or their findings.

The finance ministry may well argue that the government has considered the reports and implemented some of those recommendations that were found suitable. But why not release the reports for dissemination? Why not let the people judge how progressive or conservative the commission was in dealing with the question of reducing government expenditure? More pertinently, making the report public would let everyone assess how bold or pragmatic the government has been in pruning government expenditure. If dissemination of ideas in the Economic Survey helped enhance the image of the finance ministry as an open organisation, what harm could have been done by releasing the reports of the expenditure management commission?

The question assumes significance in light of two more important reports submitted by expert committees in the last couple of months and the finance ministry showing no signs of making them public. The committee, headed by former chief economic advisor Shankar Acharya, has submitted the report on whether there is any need for changing the financial year of the government. Another committee, headed by former revenue secretary N K Singh, has submitted the report outlining what fiscal consolidation path the government should follow. 

There is no merit in the argument that releasing these reports might result in their being misconstrued as government documents and therefore the government might be held accountable to them. The finance ministry would do well to release them soon to help generate a healthy public debate over their recommendations. The larger question that also needs to be answered is whether it is the finance ministry that is holding these reports back from the people or is it simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister’s Office?