[Reader-list] Reg: NAC: Needed or not?

[Rakesh Iyer]

Hi all

This is also an entry in my blog which I would like to put here for the sake
of (hopefully) a debate on the larger issue of NAC as to whether it's
required or not, and my views on it as the beginning. I hope it would be
responded to, at least by a few concerned people.

*NAC: Needed or not?*

The political drama over the issue of corruption and tackling it has taken a
new turn since the police assault on innocents at Ramlila maidan. The
Congress has become belligerent (expected by Shuddhabrata and many others
based on the history of Congress) and an attempt has been made to turn it
into a political football, a game political parties at centre are usually
adept at playing. Focus however must be played out also on another issue
which has been raised quite a lot in times, namely the issue of who has the
right to formulate laws and apply them in this country, and the limits
placed on civil society, notwithstanding the differences of opinion on the
definition of the very term 'civil society'. In particular, questions have
been raised about the existence of NAC and opinions against its very
existence have been seen among certain sections of our media (Swapan
Dasgupta and Pratap Bhanu Mehta in particular, but not limited to these).
Therefore, there has to be a genuine debate over whether a NAC is needed or
not.

The National Advisory Council, or NAC was created as an institution under
UPA - I to act as an advisory body which could suggest the government on
various policies which had a connection with the vast majority of people in
our country, who are not only poor, but are also socially and politically
powerless. One must realize though that the NAC itself consisted of two
different sections.  While one can wonder why the NAC may have been thought
to be created, a possible reason, at least for the Congress, would have been
to work for the 'aam aadmi' in whose name they had asked for votes in the
2004 general elections. By creation of the NAC and passing legislations
which could be termed pro-people, the Congress (or at least Sonia Gandhi)
thought that they would be able to gain votes and respectability among the
masses. On the other hand, the activists who joined NAC, or at least some of
them, had distinguished career records. Be it Aruna Roy, Jean Dreze, Madhav
Gadgil, M.S. Swaminathan, A.K. Shivakumar or Jayaprakash Narayan or even
N.C. Saxena, one cannot doubt that they are people who can be trusted for
their honesty or integrity. Most of these had been working even without
government support in their relentless agitations and struggles for securing
justice for people in their respective ways.. For them, the NAC provided a
mechanism to formulate pro-poor laws, something which was badly missing
particularly during the NDA rule and even during regimes prior to it. The
NAC continues to have people with distinguished records (some of them
repeated and others such as Harsh Mander and Farah Naqvi also taken in the
NAC -II).

So when one traces the reason for NAC to be formed, it was not one but two:
one, to ensure electoral victory for the Congress through implementing
pro-poor policies, and secondly to ensure betterment of Indian society. But
the creation of NAC did and still does raise questions.And it's extremely
important to answer these.

*1)  Why was the NAC the only way out to create such pro-poor policies? Were
the ministries not competent enough? Was it not possible for the Parliament
to have been able to actually debate and legislate such acts? Are our
political parties so incompetent that they can't come up with these?*

Firstly, the NAC may not have been the only way to create these policies. In
fact, such a body may not have been required in the first place itself, had
our democracy been functioning, had our systems been functioning as they
were planned. The lack of democracy in the Indian society found its
reflection in the Indian political life also, and the complete inter-mixing
of politics, society and economics ensured that the people supposed to be
powerful as per democratic norms were actually powerless, with the only
right possessed being the right to vote after every 5 years and then to
sleep and wait for the next elections. The political parties in general had
become corrupt and incompetent to such a degree that either they became
family-led firms, or in cases where they were cadre-based, the cadre lost
touch with the people, in particular the poor. In sum, the Indian politician
represented the worst of the Indian society in all possible ways. If an
Indian could be bad, the Indian politician represented the worst lot of
Indians, be it on corruption, nepotism, criminal history or even politics.
If actually these were not so, may be the activists who are currently in NAC
may have been doing something else, like say pursuing their careers
somewhere else. With concerns of politicians shifting over only to dominant
sections of our population (be it corporates, a set of caste panchayats and
others who could swing votes in their favor or against it) our politics
became more and more exclusive (contrary to the stated aim of achieving
'inclusive growth'). And this was only to spread among ministers and within
politicians of all hues. While the Left parties in India can claim to
support more pro-poor policies, even they were found to be rooting for
mindless industrialization when it came to Singur and Nandigram. And with
policy framework shifting to practice of neo-liberalism and support of
capitalism and withdrawal of state from areas relevant to poor, like
ensuring food, basic education and health to all, the government and the
Parliament became more a tool for the Rich. In fact, it came to the point
where it did not even matter which government came to power either at the
Centre or at the states; the government worked mostly for those whom it
deemed powerful enough to create troubles. Those who could not do so, could
never make their voices heard, even if those voices were genuine.

The results could only have been disastrous. Not only politicians, even
bureaucrats and planners had lost touch with how India functioned at the
ground and hence had no idea of how their policies would really function, if
at all they did. When a planner does not know that women farmers can exist,
how can he/she know that their suicides can be counted as 'farm suicides'?
When a planner does not know how his/her policy actually works on the
ground, it is very obvious that the effects of those would be extremely
different from what was intended. At such times, what is needed are not
theoretical economists (of which there is abundance, be it Swapan Dasgupta,
Surjit Bhalla and of course our very own PM). What is required are those who
have worked on the ground, who know how policies can be manipulated, and
therefore what can be legally done to tackle them. And our ministries and
policy makers are incompetent (or even corrupt) to tackle them.

The NAC therefore was not only born out of a party's desire to credit itself
with introducing 'goody-goody' acts, it was also in part due to the fact
that our politicians, our middle class (to whom bureaucrats belong to
mostly) and our policy makers had completely lost touch with the India which
still needs the state very much in their lives, as a welfare state. When
Sonia Gandhi had to choose its members, she chose such people over those
with their own stupid theories and powerpoint presentations. After all, she
couldn't choose the same set which would make up rubbish policies with no
possible implementation and being finally criticized, when she wanted to be
credited for these. For the NAC members, it was a case of being heard since
the head of NAC was the most powerful politician in the nation.

*2) Is the NAC allowed to make laws when it is not given the mandate by the
Constitution to do so? *

Efforts have been made to portray that the NAC is acting as an
extra-constitutional body. One must understand that firstly, this is not
possible because the NAC can't dictate laws as to how they will be. At best,
it can force the Cabinet into ensuring that its draft legislations are
considered the draft legislations of the government, and that too because of
its head. Secondly, any bill, particularly on important issues that the NAC
deals with, has to pass through the Standing Committees of Parliament, which
allow views to be expressed on these through inviting public views and
discussions on them. Thirdly, the Parliament is the final authority to pass
these laws, and while most of our Parliamentarians are incompetent to even
understand these, a few do understand legal implications of them and can
attack them. An example is Arun Jaitley's criticism of the Draft of
Prevention of Communal Violence Bill by the NAC.

*3) Why is the NAC hated so much? *

The NAC is hated by two different classes of people. On one hand stand those
who are against Left's idea of heavy state intervention in the interest of
the poor, since as per their ideology, it is anti-poor and against making
people work hard to gain success and prosperity. Such people (including
crony capitalists) would like the govt. to spend resources obtained from
growth to be spent only on measures which can promote further growth, even
at the expense of equity many a times. These people have issues with Dreze,
Roy, Swaminathan or even others. The other class consists of people who have
issues not with them but its head: Sonia Gandhi. Through the NAC, she gains
importance in formulating policies of the government while not having any
responsibilities for their success or failure, either in terms of legal
wording or implementation, and hence a body which should be advisory in
character becomes extra-constitutional in their eyes since it reduces the PM
to a paper figure. And some of course, have problems with both Sonia and the
other NAC members, like Swapan Dasgupta.

Interestingly, some people feel the NAC runs the country, which seems
strange, since if that were so, the Right to Food bill would have been
implemented in the nation by now. The fact that even things slow up there
does show up the fact that they don't. And its important not to confuse the
power of Sonia Gandhi with that of NAC or its members.

*4) Finally, is the NAC needed or not? *

The NAC is a good short-term solution, since it does bring about a policy
shift. But in the long term, whether such a body really helps or not is the
question we must think about. The need for NAC would depend on how our
political and executive institutions perform in the long term. If our
politicians, bureaucrats, policy makers and other important leading lights
move away from our problems and only indulge in political football,
mudslinging and selfish fulfillment of their own deeds while overlooking the
vast majority, then the NAC would be required even more and more.
Consequently, a reversal in this trend will make the NAC less important,
though the activist work carried out by many people from among the NAC would
still be required for effective monitoring of various socially relevant
legislations.

The real danger however lies in the members constituting it. A NAC with
current members may be ok, but one with corporates or politicians only
involved could lead to potential disasters also, and such a possibility
therefore demands that these institutions do reform, or our democracy is at
peril. Even the NAC does require checks and balances in the long run, even
with the current members around.

-- 
Rakesh Krishnamoorthy Iyer
MM06B019
Final Year, Dual Degree Student
Dept. of Metallurgical & Materials Engineering
IIT Madras, Chennai - 600036
Phone no: +91-9444073884
E-mail ID: rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com