A K Bhattacharya: Committees that defy common sense

NEW DELHI DIARY

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government loves to set up committees and task forces. If you don't believe this, take a look at the government's own account of its achievements in the last six months.

It has set up as many as 26 committees since its formation in May. That is like setting up a committee every week!

Most of them""as many as 21""were set up to tackle economic issues. The remaining five committees had different agendas. One committee was set up to advise the government on matters of cultural importance and to attempt co-ordinated implementing schemes and initiatives.

There was yet another committee to prepare a detailed blueprint to revamp the public administration system. And then there were three committees on security-related issues.

A task force was set up to deliberate upon the steps needed to deal with Naxalism, a committee was formed to review the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, to meet the aspirations of the people of Manipur, and, finally, the Prime Minister's Office constituted an inter-ministerial team to prepare a plan to rehabilitate Kashmiri migrants.

The setting up of a few of the committees like the Investment Commission and the Board for Reconstruction of Public Sector Enterprises were in pursuance of the promises made by the government by its finance minister in his Budget speech in July.

But a large number of them were constituted by ministries to seek expert opinion on policy issues on which they would like to take decisions.

Thus, the coal ministry set up a committee to review and recommend a road map for the coal sector. The chemicals ministry constituted a committee to review the span of price control on drugs and trade margins on them. And the steel ministry wanted a national steel policy to be formulated by an experts group.

Indeed, the range of issues on which different ministries set up committees in the last six months is vast and diverse.

They include the proposed formulation of a national biotechnology policy, flood management, soil erosion control, application of biotechnology in agriculture, sugarcane dues of farmers, consumer interest, minority education, implementation of centrally sponsored schemes through panchayati raj institutions, regulatory controls in gold trade, implementation of labour welfare as well as other schemes and promises made under the National Common Minimum Programme, rural co-operative banks, infrastructure projects and co-operative banks.

While the formation of such a large number of committees is an apparent sign of a government that is focused on its work agenda, the plethora of committees throws up a new set of issues that also need to be resolved.

How important is it for the government to set up a committee before taking a decision on an issue like sugarcane dues of farmers or infrastructure projects? Aren't there enough information and knowledge on such issues available within the government machinery to take quick purposeful action?

The fact is that answers to most of the questions pertaining to issues on which the UPA government has set up the committees are already available within the system. All that the government has achieved by setting up a committee is to buy some more time and consequently delay the desired action.

Worse, managing the work of so many committees through monitoring and follow-up actions can itself become an onerous responsibility. Thus, committees do create the impression of a government that is focused on its work, but they often fail to deliver results.

It is also a fact that recommendations made by several committees in the past continue to gather dust in government cupboards. Which is why committees are often seen as a deliberate ploy for delaying action.

Such an impression is strengthened particularly when a committee is set up on an issue in which sufficient knowledge about the desired action plan is already available with the government.

A former finance secretary had a novel suggestion to keep a check on the government's tendency to set up committees. When asked to seek experts' opinion on reducing the size of the government, the bureaucrat argued that there was no need for a fresh committee to look into the issue.

There were several committees on that issue and their recommendations, which were even accepted by the government, should be immediately implemented, he opined in his note to the minister. After this, there was no further action on this proposal.

The real problem with committees is that their recommendations are not binding on the government, even after they are accepted. The government's acceptance of the recommendations of a committee need not necessarily mean that these can be implemented.

In most cases, the specific recommendations have to be once again sent to the Union cabinet for its approval. That final journey is the one which most recommendations fail to make, rendering the work of most committees meaningless and often irrelevant.

akb@business-standard.com