Stopping the buck

Some ministerial resignations must be accepted

These days it is not often that ministers offer to resign, accepting moral responsibility for a lapse on the part of their ministry. So, one must commend ministers like P Chidambaram and Praful Patel for setting a good example in the recent past. It is not always necessary for the prime minister to accept such resignations. However, there are many who believe that in the case of Mr Patel there was a good case for his resignation being accepted given the facts of the Mangalore air crash on May 22. As investigations thus far have shown, it is the civil aviation ministry’s negligence that was partly responsible for the crash, so Mr Patel was right to accept moral responsibility, and the prime minister would have been right to concede it. It now emerges that the Bajpe airport fell short of several critical International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidelines on runway length, especially those concerning the length of the spill-over (it was 150 feet short) and the space for the under-carriage to touch down (100 feet short). Taxed about these and other deficiencies in a recent TV interview with Karan Thapar, Mr Patel did not even seem to be aware of them. Instead, he limited his answers to assurances that the problems would be corrected or passed the buck to the sector regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. It is possible that Mr Patel may not have known about these issues before the crash — in itself an inexcusable lapse — but surely he should have taken the trouble to apprise himself of the facts afterwards.

Interestingly, Mr Patel was quick to shift the responsibility for many of his decisions to others in government. The decision not to privatise Air India? That was a collective Cabinet decision, nothing to do with him (he apparently strongly supports divestment). The decision to convert aircraft-buying options for Air India into expensive fixed contracts? That was decided by a Chidambaram-headed committee. He has similarly absolved himself of Air India’s steadily mounting losses by pointing to collective decisions made by the Cabinet, government committees or the parlous state of air travel. It is true that all airlines suffered during the downturn between 2008 and 2009. But where most listed airlines have been able to contain their losses and are already posting quarterly profits, Air India’s losses are expected to rise to Rs 7,000 crore this year from Rs 5,000 crore in 2009-10. The airline’s turnaround plan, after two hefty equity infusions by the government, is also awaiting Cabinet approval. The obvious response to all these excuses is to suggest that since Mr Patel is not responsible for critical decisions concerning his ministry, he shouldn’t be there in the first place. In UPA-II, he himself would reportedly have preferred another portfolio, such as power, but Dr Singh chose to keep him in his old bailiwick to sort out the problems there. It is a task he has manifestly not achieved. His position as minister of state with independent charge merely appears to fulfil a quota imposed by the coalition calculus: with nine MPs in the Lok Sabha, his Nationalist Congress Party props up the UPA, support that has become ever more crucial given the fractious nature of the coalition.