Was disbanding the Planning Commission consultative panels justified?

ARUN MAIRA
Chairman, The Boston
Consulting Group, India

I am not competent to judge whether or not the consultative panels of the Planning Commission should have been disbanded. However, I am pleased that the process of consultation with outside experts will continue albeit in another mode.

In my 25 years with the Tatas, I learned, from negotiations with labour unions and business partners, that "giving face" (a Chinese expression for conceding a point to help the other party maintain its dignity while you obtain your main objective) is often a wise course.

It appears that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia have given face but have not conceded their right to consult whom they chose to.

The principle of consultation, especially with people who think differently is vital for the progress of any organisation. Even Chairman Mao said, in a speech at an Assembly of Representatives in November 1941 (I am quoting from the famous Red Book), "Communists must listen attentively to the views of the people outside the Party and let them have their say. If what they say is right, we ought to welcome it, and we should learn from their strong points."

Having opened up the mind, and considered many options, better decisions can be taken by those who are being held responsible for creating policies that will enable faster progress. The bogey of sovereignty has been raised by parties of the Left to oppose the participation of "foreigners" in the consultative panels.

A cardinal rule for improving the process of idea generation is to consult with people who are not like one, and with whom one does not usually agree. Then only can really new ideas be explored.

To consult others does not diminish the sovereign: actually, it empowers him. The greatest leaders of the world have been the greatest listeners and learners. Thus, they were able to shape ideas that others around them could not.

Consultation must never be confused with decision-rights. The decider does not lose his right to take decisions that he considers best, merely because he sought ideas before evaluating the options that could be considered.

India has greater diversity within it than any other country "” more religions and languages, parties across the political spectrum, and wide economic disparities. It is also a country that has chosen the democratic path.

Therefore, in the course of the country's development, many perspectives have to be considered while taking major decisions. Given these fundamental and unchangeable conditions, the most critical capability India needs to accelerate its development is effective processes for discussion and dialogue that lead to good decisions that will be widely supported.

If dialogue breaks down in India, we can rapidly go downhill. Recently, Parliament, which is supposed to be the apex institution for debate in a democratic society, has passed the national Budget without even discussion. Later some people who were invited by the Planning Commission for consultative discussions refused to come if others are present.

Parties of both the Left and Right are culpable in these breakdowns. Such refusals to participate in discussions in Parliament and other forums weaken the country. They diminish the progress that could be made through processes for exploring different ideas for accelerating the country's development.

Fix the process to get better outcomes is the core lesson of "total quality management", with which Japanese industry vaulted itself to the top of the global league, overtaking industrial nations with more resources. (Incidentally, Japan took the help of Dr Deming, a foreign quality expert.) I would strongly urge leaders from all parties to apply themselves to strengthen the process of consultative decision-making in the country, with assistance from process experts if necessary.

Fixing the process may contribute much more to sustainable growth of our diverse and democratic country than clever ideas of developmental economists and consultants, whether of the Left or Right, Indian or foreign. Ideas have to adopted and implemented with support from all to obtain the outcomes we all seek such as faster, equitable growth that generates jobs.

Therefore, no matter which party or coalition rules our diverse, democratic country, it will need an effective process of dialogue with others to produce results. This capability is a common property that belongs to the entire nation.

Each time someone dents the process, by refusing to participate, or by diminishing the quality of the debate, he or she weakens a vital process our country needs for its survival and growth. Anyone who weakens the process is weakening the nation.

D RAJA
Secretary, National Council,
Communist Party of India

Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia had no reason to dissolve the consultative groups of the planning body. We are not happy with the decision. Instead of responding to our objections, Ahluwalia took the step of dissolving all the groups. It is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

One assumes that there was a purpose to the constitution of these groups in the first place. The decision to disband the groups makes it appear as though the real reason for constituting them was to accommodate members from the World Bank and other multilateral bodies in the planning process.

The Left parties issued a joint statement that the government's decision was uncalled for and that it won't be in the interest of the country. The policies of our country cannot be shaped on the basis of World Bank prescriptions. Whatever reforms are to be carried out should arise from our own needs and economic compulsions.

Even Ahluwalia seemed to agree with us that experts from multilateral agencies would have their own axe to grind. In his reply to us, he admitted that individuals from multilateral bodies might have their own agendas, but their views would be subject to close scrutiny. After this it was completely unwarranted for him to come out in favour of the foreign experts from London.

There has been some talk to the effect that the Left has got what was coming to it. It's not true that the government was forced to take this step because of the Left's opposition. We have said it repeatedly that we are not against consultation with experts from the World bank and other bodies.

We have only been opposed to the institutionalising of these experts. In our opinion, asking them to formally join the consultative groups was wrong. As far as the Left economists go, they said they would withdraw from the consultative groups based on principled objection to "formally" being part of the same plan group as experts from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and McKinsey. It was entirely their decision.

What was the need for the government to make the process of consultation formal this year onwards. The Planning Commission has had a tradition of informally consulting leading economists from around the world.

Therefore, the government has to explain why it wanted the groups constituted in the first place and now that the groups have been dissolved it has to explain what it is going to do next.

Right now their decision seems whimsical and autocratic. After all, the Planning Commission is part of our sovereign state. It is responsible to the people, it has to work within the policy framework of the country.

In such a body how can one have representatives from multilateral agencies? If the government wanted to get the views of the World Bank, then there is ready access to their reports that are country and state specific.

Since the groups have been dissolved, there has been talk of going back to the old mechanism of consulting experts independently. But we have to question whether the old mechanism is discretionary enough or whether all decisions will be left to the whims and fancies of the Commission's deputy chairman.

By dissolving the groups, the Planning Commission has not scored a point over the Left. The presence of these experts is not merely the concern of the Left parties, it is the concern of the country.

Ahluwalia should be aware that he is dealing with the elected representatives of state governments. He has to know how to deal with the political sensibilities expressed by the Left and the other parties.

As the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, Ahluwalia, cannot have a bureaucratic and a technocratic approach. The Commission is not the supreme body.

Every decision of the Commission has to be ratified by Parliament. The Left parties are part of parliamentary committees, so there is no legitimacy to the talk that the Left has been left out of the planning process.

We have already raised the issue with the prime minister. He said that he would look into the issues involved and try to evolve a mechanism for consultation in the course of time. Let us see what comes of it.