Surinder Sud: Caught in committees

FARM VIEW

Restructuring of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) seems to have become a favourite issue for the government to set up committees on. At least five committees have been set up for ICAR's reorganisation in less than three years since 2002, for no apparent reason or provocation.

In fact, one of these committees thought it pertinent to acknowledge (by way of justifying its existence) that its recommendations would help the ICAR to "move from a good organisation to a great organisation". No explanation is forthcoming as to why the government wants to experiment with a "good organisation" to thrust hypothetical greatness upon it.

The current committee formation spree indeed began with the constitution of the Hemendra Kumar committee in 2002. It was followed by the setting up of the J B Chowdhary committee and the S S Johl committee.

The present UPA government, too, lost little time after coming to power to constitute a committee under noted agriculture expert M S Swaminathan. And even before its report could be studied properly "" for which, again, a committee has been formed "" another committee was set up under the chairmanship of eminent scientist (though not an agriculture expert) R A Mashelkar, director-general of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

Though this committee is yet to submit its final report, it has made a presentation to the agriculture minister on its preliminary recommendations, most of which are ill-founded.

Interestingly, the reports and recommendations of all these committees are before the government and nobody knows whose suggestions would finally carry the day, if at all.

In any case, the recommendations of these committees are so diverse and, some even contradictory to each other, that any government would find it difficult to take a final decision. Perhaps another committee would be set up to go into these reports.

What is really worrying is that this needless exercise is proving counterproductive to the ICAR. The uncertainties bred by the reports of these panels have affected the morale of the scientists and science administrators alike. The common refrain of the terms of reference of most of these bodies has been de-bureaucratisation of the ICAR to lend it greater administrative autonomy and scientific independence.

But the net impact of the reports, if implemented, would be the reverse of it. The ICAR's autonomy would be eroded and the scientists would have to take orders from bureaucrats. Besides, many of the recommendations are either ineffectual or impractical.

The recommendations of the latest Mashelkar committee are a case in point. In response to one of the terms of reference seeking measures for ICAR's functional and financial autonomy, the interim report eulogises the "advantages that flow from being a full-fledged department in the Government of India".

Mashelkar then goes on to say, strangely, that while autonomy should be granted, these "advantages" should not be set diluted. And for financial autonomy, it suggests designating a secretary in the ministry of finance as the member (finance), ICAR. Such measures would, obviously, tighten the bureaucratic stranglehold on the ICAR rather than de-bureaucratising it.

Another pointless, as also misplaced, suggestion of the Mashelkar panel is that the ICAR society be headed by the prime minister (instead of the agriculture minister currently) who should delegate powers to the agriculture minister for smooth running of the ICAR. (Actually, the agriculture minister, being the president of the ICAR society, already has those powers.)

Moreover, to "facilitate decision-making", the committee wants "participation of all senior Cabinet ministers" in this process. Obviously, such a move would further complicate the decision-making process, rather than simplifying it.

This apart, the panel wants the posts of deputy director-generals (DDGs) to be abolished, allowing the director-general (DG) to deal directly with everybody. The futility of such a move is apparent, especially considering that the ICAR is the world's largest agricultural research network, comprising 47 central institutes, five national bureaus, 12 project directorates, 33 research centres and 82 all-India coordinated projects.

Besides it has to deal with over 40 agricultural universities and deemed universities and nearly 300 Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Expecting heads of all of them to deal directly with the DG is, obviously, impractical. And, if IAS officials replace the DDGs, it would be even worse.

Indeed, considering the importance of the ICAR for the country's agriculture, playing such games with this apex body should be stopped forthwith. Ideally, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should himself intervene to stop the ICAR being used as a guinea pig for organisational experimentation. Let the ICAR function peacefully to play its due role in the country's agricultural development.

sud@business-standard.com