There was a time, not so long ago, when to become a member of the Planning Commission was regarded as a great honour. It was seen as a fitting culmination to a long career in public service or as a recognition of intellectual eminence. Alas, no longer.
As several reactions to the transfer of Montek Singh Ahlu-walia show, the appointment is now regarded with pity tinged in some quarters with what the Germans call schadenfreude (malicious pleasure at someone else's discomfiture). To go to the Planning Commission is, for a senior public servant, to be unceremoniously discarded, dumped, or more endearingly in bureaucratic jargon, shunted. For politicians, it is the smallest of small crumbs.
"Far better", a senior civil servant told me in 1993, "to go to the World Bank, IMF or the UN. You can at least earn some money ." There was never any money in bei-ng in the Planning Commission. Today, there is no prestige either.
More From This Section
The money thing can be easily rectified, of course. The emoluments of the members can be raised to something respectable like a lakh a month (except for the attendant danger of the IAS swiftly encadring the posts). If necessary, an exemption from income tax can also be provided to put the jobs on par with the World Bank, IMF and the UN.
But what about prestige? How can this be restored? Over the last decade or so, there have been many explanations for the decline of the Planning Commission. Most have to do with its perceived loss of clout, especially with the Prime Minister, who is also its chairman.
Rajiv Gandhi was chiefly responsible for this because it was he who started the process of denigration. He called the Commission's members a "bunch of jokers". The member-secretary at the time was none other than Manmohan Singh. Today, ironically, he is a loyal servant of Rajiv's widow.
There was no fiscally compelling reason, at least of the sort that came into being in the 1990s, for Rajiv Gandhi to let the Planning Commission go out of favour. Through his prime ministership, the State was still investing 80 per cent of the total investment in the country. It was silly of him, therefore, to publicly ridicule the only co-ordinating body that existed. He should have invested it with sufficient prestige, if not power. Instead, he gradually neutered it by appointing several unsuitable persons as its members.
There was a fleeting chance during the non-Congress interregnum of 1989-91 to render unto the Commission what was rightfully its. But so pre-occupied were Messrs V P Singh and Chandrashekhar with survival that the opportunity was missed. Indeed, during the four months he was Prime Minister, what Chandrashekhar did had exactly the opposite effect. He used it as a device for dispensing patronage to his favourite economists.
Then came the crisis of 1991 and the Planning Commission was further devalued. As a result, since 1992 it has increasingly become a parking lot for the economic technocracy. People are sent there while they look around for something more "suitable" to do.
Alternatively, they wait for their former patrons to return to power so that they can be re-instated. This when the State is still making around 70 per cent of the total investment in the country.
In fact, this is the heart of the matter. As long as the State is still the leading investor -- and it is going to remain so for a long time -- the Planning Commission will be needed. It makes sense, therefore, to restore it to the power and the glory. Mr Ahluwalia's appointment is better seen in this light, not least by himself.
There is also the federal aspect. If, as everyone expects, the states are going to gain importance, there is a mediatory role to be played which would have to be different from the one in the past. So for this reason, too, the Planning Commission is going to be of importance.
That is why, the BJP has (as is its habit, wholly unwittingly) made the best appointment to the Planning Commission in several years. Mr Ahluwalia is a fine economist and having served at the heart of web -- PMO and the finance ministry -- almost uninterruptedly since 1985, even if he doesn't know it all, he has certainly seen it all.
He has the intellect and the integrity to carry conviction. He can present a case as few can (as indeed we have seen him do, first defending high deficits during 1985-90 and then excoriating them during 1992-98). He can, if he so chooses, re-convert the Planning Commission into the centre of excellence that it was once was.
The point, in the final analysis, is this: there is always need for an influential and credible voice in public affairs which can also deeply influence policy. The Planning Commission could play that role if only it would step away from the continuous struggle for power and supremacy that personally ambitious persons cause it to engage in, especially with the finance ministry.
Montek Singh Ahluwalia has the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and provide a new beginning. It will be interesting to see whether -- and how well -- he grasps it.