Former CEAs would do well to be less political

The utterances of former advisors who have turned political don't fully pass the smell test. It would help if they are a bit more respectful of their profession, which demands neutrality

India has had many chief economic advisers (CEAs) since 1956. They all sit in the finance ministry and are, in fact, advisors only to it. The title CEA is a bit too grandiose. But until about 20 years ago, it was a low-profile one.

It’s an apolitical job, or was until 1970, when an economist, who made no secret of his political preferences, was appointed to the job. The term bhakt had not been invented then but he fitted the bill perfectly. He later went on to become finance minister of West Bengal when the CPM came to power.

That appears to have kindled a few ambitions amongst some of the CEAs of the past 15 years. After all, one of their predecessors had even become prime minister, though that wasn’t because he had worked to become one. It was as much a bolt from the blue for him as it was for the country.

But after 1972, for a very long time, the old tradition held its own and the CEAs remained overtly apolitical regardless of their private preferences and friendships in the political and administrative establishment. They also mostly stayed away from the media. A mild exception was in the 1980s.

But since the BJP came to power in 2014, we have been seeing a gradual erosion of this tradition of being quiet and apolitical after relinquishing the post. Three out of the former CEAs since 2009 have clearly revealed their political preferences now.

One is a BJP MLA in West Bengal who doesn’t speak much. Two others are believed to be advising Rahul Gandhi. And one — the only one I don’t know — is believed to be a fan of the current ideological dispensation.

This doesn’t matter by itself. Despite what is being said on a daily basis about the death of free speech and independent political belief in India, Indians are free to have their political preferences.

So what’s the problem? It arises, at least for me, when these former CEAs make politically loaded statements. These statements appear credible, not because of the person who makes them but because of the position that he held. It lends authority to a slanted viewpoint.

Thus we have two former CEAs being highly critical of this government’s economic policies and one admiring those very policies. The objectivity that a citizen expects from them is either missing completely, or diluted very considerably. That’s not good.

The CEAs who criticise forget what they had said, or done, or caused to be done, when they were in office. Equally, the admirers omit the obvious mistakes of the government and the outright manipulation of data by it. That’s why the utterances of these former CEAs who have turned political don’t fully pass the smell test.

Even this wouldn’t matter if it didn’t affect the quality of economic discourse in India, which has suffered. It’s not just politics that has become polarised. There is an entirely unwelcome skewness that brings no credit to a profession that claims to be a science and, therefore, objective. The distribution of views is not normal. They are, shall we say, leptokurtic.

There has also developed a tendency to shoot-and-scoot via Twitter. Even the facility that’s now available of longer posts on Facebook is avoided. These Twitter interventions are ridiculously ill-informed. Whataboutery is the order of the day, as is derision. And it’s all so undignified.

It’s no coincidence, I should mention here, that each of the four CEAs I have in mind was an academic before he was appointed directly to the job. That seems to have been a bad idea even though two of them had had a fleeting experience of government. All the others, as far as I can recall, were employees of the government for a long time before they were made CEA. I wonder if that makes a difference.

And, after much thought, I have developed a simple theory to explain this change in behaviour. After 2002, the post of CEA has entailed a lot of media exposure and I think these economists miss that glamour when they stop being CEA. What’s better than to adopt a quasi-political role to get back in the limelight? As the Hindi saying goes “Bhagtey bhoot ki langot hi sahi”.

I think it would help if these worthies were a bit more respectful of their profession, which demands neutrality. They should be less political in their public statements as all CEAs before 2009 were. It isn’t just a matter of propriety that is important. It’s also a matter of dignity and good taste.