There is no doubt where the primary responsibility belongs for the problematic continuance of the old method of coal block allocations: with the central government, and ultimately with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who retained the coal portfolio for a crucial period. This newspaper has previously argued that Dr Singh must explain his government’s delays in introducing more equitable methods of allocation, such as auctions, through a discussion in Parliament. The principal party of opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), by not allowing such a debate, is thus guilty of a dereliction of its duty to India’s voters, who need to be allowed to make up their mind. However, further information is now slowly coming to light and being assimilated, which has forced many observers to start considering whether the BJP’s obduracy stems not merely from agitation or the chance to press home a political point, but from the desire to ensure that any debate does not, in fact, take place.
In particular, attention has focused also on the role of the states in the coal block assignment process. Blocks were handed out, at least till 2009, by a committee that included representatives from several central ministries — and the chief secretary of the state concerned. Recommendations for private companies were handed by the state government concerned, and evaluated by the committee. Clearly, this system is prone to manipulation at the state level as well as at the Centre. When the United Progressive Alliance assumed power in 2004, this problem was recognised, and the long and inappropriately delayed process of replacing it began. However, it has been reported that several states – in particular the coal-rich states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal, all ruled at the time by parties now in opposition – objected. Of course, it is incumbent on the Centre to overrule such objections. The BJP’s Arun Jaitley has dismissed any concerns that federalism might impinge on the Centre’s decision, saying that “major minerals” like coal are not a state subject. Perhaps not; but the Chief Justice of India issued a reminder in a recent interview that land, after all, is — which might possibly have given the Centre pause.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the constitutional position of a reform in coal allocation, these concerns make an open debate even more important. It is not just the prime minister who must explain himself; the BJP and other state-level ruling parties, too, must explain why their state governments apparently took a stand that is difficult to defend. If there are issues of state power involved, they must be aired in Parliament. And India’s voters need to know why, in effect, most major political parties were complicit in perpetuating a mechanism that is prone to the worst abuses of crony capitalism. Important voices in the BJP, too, are making similar points now; Arun Shourie, for example, has said that the principle of ministerial responsibility should not be diluted by disruption — and, thus, that Dr Singh must explain the facts as he sees them. And the Opposition, led by the BJP, should also take the opportunity to explain what its stance was in the past and why it has chosen to alter it going forward. If India is to achieve a more efficient and transparent paradigm for the allocation of public resources, its political parties cannot evade their responsibility.
