The introductory remark in your editorial “A sub-optimal reshuffle” (January 20) is conceded for a large parliamentary democracy like ours with several states and all the more so in a coalition arrangement — the editorial reads, “No one should imagine that in a parliamentary democracy, where ministers are picked from among members of Parliament, talent alone determines allocation of ministerial portfolios.” Yet, misgivings on the reshuffle will arise on other grounds too. One, if another and more serious surgical operation is to come after four months, couldn’t this “mini-reshuffle” have waited a little longer? Two, the editorial refers to some cases in which the prime minister has shown his displeasure at performance, one of them being Praful Patel. Mr Patel’s pet exercise, the creation of the National Aviation Company of India Limited, has not shown results in the last three years. The relief by way of equity capital infusion did not come for far too long with the minister and his ministry treating the airline as the ministry’s petty branch. Ministerial leadership, guidance and succour to the airline were not considered at all — the aid was too little and too late. However, the concept of political accountability has been turned on its head and the failing minister has been rewarded with an elevation in rank. His transfer to another ministry is no comfort since now he has to look after public enterprises. The portfolio of heavy industries allotted to Mr Patel is important even if less glamorous since that sector is going to play a crucial role in helping India achieve a high rank among global economies by 2020.
However, your concluding remark that “this partial effort at weeding out incompetence and rewarding competence has to be followed up by a new agenda of governance reform and of ministerial accountability” is soothing.
S Subramanyan, Mumbai