)
The website narendramodi.in has an entry dated May 14, explaining the Prime Minister’s approach to administration. The philosophy, it says, is centred on the government acting as a facilitator. The focus is on ‘Minimum Government but Maximum Governance.’
It explains how ‘Narendra Modi had cut down on avenues for government interference while truly empowering people’. Experiences since the time of the entry done belie that promise.
The government has courted controversy over attempts to exert control over numerous institutions which, until then, had got along just fine without it.
A new Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bill has been proposed which will place these premier institutions on a leash, the other end of which will be in the government’s hands.
“Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Institute (IIMs) shall, for efficient administration of this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time,” a wire agency report said.
A plan to revive the university at Nalanda has faced similar troubles.
It has been widely reported that Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen blamed interference from the government and attempts to reconstitute the university board. “The issue is academic freedom,” Sen told a US newspaper. While political interference is not new, Sen said that its frequency “has dramatically gone up, and the voice of the academic community has dramatically gone down”.
The government had ‘brought into force a controversial law to appoint members to the higher judiciary’ whereby the government would have power over judicial appointments, the Indian Express reported. Judges earlier followed the collegium system by which they were chosen within the judiciary without government interference. That is now a thing of the past.
The Times of India reported that the appointment of Y Sudershan Rao as chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) has created some controversy.
The paper reported that ‘even some right-wing social scientists feel appointment of Rao could have been avoided in favour of a more professional historian. A senior right-wing social scientist from Delhi University admits, "It is a new low. He is not a professional historian. He relies only on ancient Hindu texts."
Subsequently it was reported that the ICHR chief recommended three members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to its top panel. Also, an advisory committee composed of eminent historians from around the world was dissolved.
A draft version of the Indian Financial Code proposes to limit the Reserve Bank of India’s veto in the monetary policy committee. It also proposes that the committee should be made up of a majority of government-nominated representatives.
Rating Agency Moody’s came down hard on the move.
“We believe a government-elected panel undermines RBI’s independence. Moving to the new model would severely dent the central bank’s competency: Credibility would be lower, politics would drive decisions, and transparency would be reduced. Overall, we believe that tampering with RBI’s independence would make it difficult to anchor inflation expectations. This would weigh on India’s economic prospects, particularly financial market stability,” it said.
Discount all conspiracy theories. Assume there is no RSS agenda. Assume there is no emergency in the making. Assume there is no threat to the idea of India. The recent moves are disastrous even then.
One person cannot do everything.
The government cannot be batsman, bowler, wicketkeeper and captain all rolled into one. The sooner this is understood by the powers that be, the easier everyone else can breathe.
