|
| A K Bhattacharya: Congress Minus Partners | | Without a Common Minimum Programme, the UPA's Congress ministers are performing, the allies aren't |
| A K Bhattacharya / New Delhi Oct 13, 2009, 00:22 IST |
|
An evaluation of how Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s new council of ministers has performed in the first few months of its formation should begin with the generally accepted view that the quality of people who are now entrusted with some of the key ministries has been far superior to that of those who figured in the previous government. In other words, United Progressive Alliance-II has better and more active ministers than UPA-I had.
Here we are not just talking about veteran Congress ministers in the Cabinet. Yes, they have made a difference. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has shown that he has lost none of his touch after taking charge of the finance ministry even after a gap of about a quarter century. In his new role as the home minister, P Chidambaram has shown what UPA-I lacked for the first four and a half years when Shivraj Patil was in charge of India’s internal security. Even Kamal Nath in his new role as the surface transport minister has made sure that the development of infrastructure receives the kind of importance it deserves.
The difference is evident also in the running of the human resources development ministry. With Kapil Sibal heading this key ministry, a lot of action in the days to come has been ensured. Similarly, Jairam Ramesh as the minister of state for environment and forests has given the people confidence that India’s case at the international negotiations on climate change will be well-argued. Even the new Commerce and Industry Minister Anand
Sharma has played a constructive role in pressing for the resumption of the deadlocked Doha Round of trade talks.
There are also those who have done precious little to justify the faith their prime minister had reposed in them when they were chosen to head those ministries. Sushil Kumar Shinde, the power minister, will be topping that list. The target for power capacity addition during the current Plan continues to be scaled down, while there are no signs of any movement in power sector reforms. The performance of Murli Deora as the petroleum and natural gas minister has remained average. Nor has anybody heard of any major policy initiatives from Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad or Urban Development Minister Jaipal Reddy.
What about the performance of ministers from the other partners of UPA? You have Sharad Pawar and Praful Patel from the Nationalist Congress Party. Nothing much is known of what Pawar has tried to achieve as the minister for agriculture and food in UPA-II. In sharp contrast, Patel as the civil aviation minister has been all over the media, thanks to the deteriorating financial condition of the ailing Air India and the problems associated with airport modernisation. The controversy has done no good to Patel as an impression has gained ground that he has failed to resolve Air India’s problems and has allowed the controversy over privatisation to derail the airport modernisation plan.
Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee, another UPA partner, has treated the Indian Railways as an instrument to strengthen her political base in West Bengal. Her primary goal is to win the West Bengal assembly elections in 2011 and form her government in the state. Thus, Banerjee has used all her political clout to support populist moves like stalling the proposed land acquisition legislation and lowering the qualification standards for recruitment in government jobs.
There is a lesson to be learnt from the manner in which different ministers in UPA-II have performed in the last few months. The performance of Congress ministers has been generally better than that of ministers representing the alliance partners. This could be because the goals of ministers from alliance partners are not necessarily the same as that of the principal party that runs the government, which in this case happens to be the Congress.
Perhaps, the absence of a national minimum programme to be implemented by all ministers of the alliance is being felt. UPA-II has no agenda like the one UPA-I had in the form of a National Common Minimum Programme. It is interesting that the Prime Minister’s website refers to President Pratibha Patil’s address to Parliament on June 4, 2009, if any visitor wishes to take a look at the UPA Government’s agenda.
The question is whether a government formed by an alliance among different political parties should have a common minimum programme. Indeed, if ministers from different political parties have to be accommodated in the Cabinet, then a national common minimum programme helps. The ministers from smaller political parties then can be asked to fall in line with the approved programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
