Anything Is Possible
After 50 years of democratically elected governments, Indians have learnt how their prime ministers decide who, from amongst rival claimants, will be a minister and who wont. Personal loyalty, caste, service to party and service to the constituency in that order all play a role.
But few have bothered to reflect on how ministers are allotted their portfolios some of which, like the railways which Ram Vilas Paswan plundered on Wednesday for party political purposes, are critical to the well being of the economy.
Where the big ones are concerned, such as finance, external affairs and home, there is really no problem. Usually, in keeping with their stature in the party, the seniormost MPs get them (although in recent years technocrats such as Manmohan Singh, and politically well-leveraged players like P Chidambaram, have also been picked much to the irritation of the senior politicians).
But how about the second order ministries such as industry, commerce, railways, telecom, petroleum, civil aviation etc, which can be almost as important? How does a Jaffer Sharief become the railway minister, to be followed by a Ram Vilas Paswan? How do the Sukh Rams and C M Ibrahims happen in this many-splendoured country?
Most people believe that the selection is random and that it is pretty much the luck of the draw. Others believe that it depends on the size of the budgets. The more important you are in the junior league, the bigger budget you get to spend.
A third group would also add the potential for patronage in a particular ministry as an important determinant of who gets what at this level. Fourthly, there are the poor misguided fools who think that a lot of thought goes into portfolio allocation and it is a horses-for-courses approach.
Intrigued by the number of scams involving so many ministers, I have tried over the last two years to find out why Mr X was given a particular portfolio and why Mr Y given another. Where did his appeal lie?
Thus, why did Mr Narasimha Rao make Rajesh Pilot the telecommunications minister in 1991? Why did he allot the same portfolio to Sukh Ram in 1992? Why did Mr Deve Gowda give civil aviation to Mr Ibrahim and railways to Ram Vilas Paswan? What special qualities did the two prime ministers see in these worthies who, but for the grace of God and a little bit of luck, would have been complete nobodies?
The answer, in the case of Narasimha Rao, is that he didnt really care who got what portfolio as long as he didnt rock the Rao boat. That was the sole criterion and to ensure that it stayed that way, Mr Rao decentralised everything including, as it now turns out, corruption.
In the case of Mr Deve Gowda, it was pure and simple bargaining-power of the MPs. They simply demanded and got what they wanted (whence, it will be recalled, the three-day delay last June in announcing portfolios).
Mr Deve Gowda, I have been given to understand, was so completely thunderstruck at having becoming prime minister, that he forgot there was nothing Mr Paswan and others could have done had he refused their demands. Whence, indeed, the home ministry to Indrajit Gupta and defence to Mulayam Singh Yadav.
And now the results are there for all to see. Clearly, as the TV advertisement says, anything is possible.