Ministerial fiefs have expanded manifold. The Ministry of Culture boasts an impressive list of two attached offices, six subordinate offices, four Akademies, four Buddhist institutes, six libraries, seven museums, eight zonal cultural centres, five national missions, 21 schemes and nine other institutions.

In 2017-18, this Ministry proposes to spend Rs.888.26 crore on promotion of arts and culture, Rs.241.17 crore on public libraries and Rs.875.37 crore on the Archaeological Survey of India and Rs.362.94 crore on museums, among other items.

Of course, to ‘manage’ so many institutions, this Ministry has provided Rs.319.40 crore for its own establishment with a generous Rs.75 lakh for foreign travel of its own officers/Minister. Contrast this with the state of our monuments.

The fiefdom of the Department of Commerce is headed by a Minister, a Secretary and assisted by an Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor, four Additional Secretaries and 14 Joint Secretaries and JS-level officers and a number of other senior officers and other establishments that are proposed to cost over Rs.699.38 crore in 2017-18, including a foreign travel grant of Rs.4.80 crore for its officers/Minister… out of atotal budget allocation of Rs.4465.77 crore in 2017-18.

Incidentally, these figures are only for the department’s own establishment and do not include its subordinate organs. This department has six main divisions ~ International Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Territorial, Export Products, Export Industries, Export and Economic Services.

The remaining four are either redundant or ancillary to the others. In addition, it controls five attached and subordinate offices, six autonomous bodies and five autonomous commodity boards, five PSUs, 14 export promotion councils and six other organizations.

In the Ministry of External Affairs, the Economic Division (MEA-ED) is the nodal division which promotes and facilitates foreign investment flows, etc. in consultation with the Ministries concerned, business chambers, media houses, and consultancy firms.

Where is the need to maintain the Department of Commerce as an independent entity? Its seven core divisions and at least 3/4th of its subordinate fiefdom could be profitably merged into the MEA-ED.

The international cooperation divisions of all other Ministries, that have healthy foreign travel budgets, could also be brought under the MEA-ED’s umbrella with minimal additional staffing. The Department of Financial Services under the MoF is no different.

The introductory line in this department’s web page reads: “The mandate of the Department of Financial Services covers the functioning of banks, Financial Institutions, insurance companies and the National Pension System. The department is headed by the Secretary, (Financial Services) who is assisted by two Additional Secretaries, six Joint Secretaries, two Economic Advisers, and a Deputy Director-General”.

What it conveniently omitted is the fact that these worthies are backed by a team of six Directors, five Deputy Secretaries, two Joint and Deputy Directors each, 17 Under Secretaries, five Assistant Directors and Research Officers and a dozen Section Officers plus the corresponding ministerial staff of at least 5-6 times the total of these numbers.

Banking and non-banking and insurance services are regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) while all FIs function within well-defined rules, expansive legislation and qualified personnel.

Why then are so many senior officers and support personnel required to ‘cover’ the functioning of self-administering agencies? In spite of having a regiment of personnel, why is the department’s Annual Report beyond 2013-14 not available in the public domain?

This department’s Budget Estimates for 2017-18 show that its allocation has been nearly halved from Rs.31500 crore in 2016-17 to Rs.17450 crore in 2017-18, owing to recapping of public sector banks’ eroded share capital. Thirty-five clarification notes below the estimates project this department as no more than a broker for funding various agencies.

If GOI’s intent in channeling funds for other government entities through this department was to ensure accountability, how is it that the same department was unable even to gauge the extent of NPA/CDRs, etc. in state-owned banks and, even today, has not initiated any visible action against culpable bank officers and Directors?

If GOI can directly transfer recapping funds to banks, why can’t this be extended to other government agencies and states within a supporting regulatory framework staffed by domain specialists? It is, therefore, imperative that Ministries are restricted only to policymaking while implementation is hived off entirely to departments that must be held accountable directly by legislatures that already have scrutiny committees.

Policymaking could be subsumed in a cogent group of Ministries conforming to the three-fold division that already exists ~ social, economic and general.

Why do the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education, Urban and Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, Social Justice, Sports & Youth Affairs, etc. need to exist as broking royalty of public finances and supreme dispenser of favours, when their services are delivered, close to cent per cent, by states? Air-India and innumerable other CPSUs and the severest decay of our educational and health institutions and roads and highways bear mute testimony to the seven-decade long policy-implementation nexus.

Breaking this nexus would restore the classical separation of powers, the pivot of a vibrant democracy in national governance, the harbinger of a new phase. This would not only make implementing entities competitive but also fix accountability in the top management and end the blame-game. It would also minimise rent-seeking and criminal waste, delivering greater bang for the buck.

For the Government of India to become a regulator-facilitator of development, it is imperative that its accountability mechanisms are considerably strengthened, such as expansive and peripatetic executive monitoring and reporting and internal audit teams, real-time accounting and budgeting systems, GIS monitoring and similar cutting-edge technology, substantial devolution of financial powers to Secretaries and Chief Executives, transparent and timely recruitment of domain specialists by lateral entry into the civil services at all levels and mandatory “portability” of civil services across posts above the rank of Deputy Secretary are essential.

A landmark legislative end to the unconstitutional policy-implementation nexus would be India’s biggest single gamechanger and script its rapid progress in the immediate future. It would also recognize the critical role of states and mark an overdue fundamental change in delivering maximum governance with accountability and economy. The Prime Minister however, deserves praise for his first steps in breaking this allconsuming nexus.

Policy-making and implementation exemplify a lethal conflict of interest, with one being tailored to meet the needs of the other and perpetuating the government as the final objective, instead of the public good. The huge waste and organized rent-seeking chains in policy-implementation are mainly responsible for the impending financial crises the nation’s governments face today.

The electors must only blame themselves for their electoral complicity in their own steamrolling by a genetically opportunist colonialpolitical system. Till then Indians must learn to pay for profligacy, rent-seeking and debt servicing for about Rs.200 lakh crore that is steadily rising every year.

(Concluded)

(The writer is a senior public policy analyst and commentator)