The Power Of Ideas

When the National Advisory Council (NAC) was set up on May 31, 2004, headed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, it was promptly described by the BJP as a "parallel PMO". The serious part of the NAC's mandate—"to monitor the progress of the implementation of the National Common Minimum Programme" and "provide inputs for the formulation of policy by the government and support to the government in its legislative business"—was dismissed as a cover for institutionalising the "power behind the throne". The fact that the NAC was to be "serviced" by the PMO and Sonia was given cabinet status added to the speculation.

Fifteen months on—and even if the NAC was set up to provide Sonia Gandhi with some official leverage in government policy—it has emerged as an effective instrument for pushing the UPA's social equity agenda, which has seen some of its members clashing with the government.

Clearly, the fact that Sonia heads the NAC has ensured that the suggestions of the body—which ultimately only has recommendatory powers—have made their way into stated policy. Says NAC member N.C. Saxena: "The NAC is a unique experiment. The person who had the political legitimacy to rule the country decided not to become the prime minister. It is this that gives moral weight to Sonia in this job, even though it is done in a low-key way and there is no interference." Adds a political analyst, "No matter how committed and well-meaning individual members of the NAC may be, it is undeniable that without Sonia Gandhi, it would have been far more difficult to ensure that the social equity agenda remains centrestage." For instance, despite the reform lobby's criticism of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS)—as so much money down the drain—it has been legislated, albeit with some dilution, and will be functional from January 2006.

All this comes not a day too soon: the UNDP's latest human development report warns that unless India acts swiftly, it might miss the development bus. As CPI(M) politburo member Sitaram Yechury says, "We feel vindicated by the UNDP report. We have been saying for long that growth alone is not a guarantor of equity—it is not enough to say that we have achieved a seven to eight per cent growth rate."

The report points out that that while the Indian economy is booming, the nation houses more than its proportionate share of the world's poorest, unhealthiest, and most disadvantaged, that its records in child mortality and health are far lower than that expected of a rapidly growing country, and that its social indicators compare unfavourably even with Bangladesh. Stressing the need for greater allocations for education, health and other social sectors, it also underlines the need for governance reform, and improving delivery systems, of linking outlays to outcomes. Says agricultural economist and NAC member Ch Hanumantha Rao, "The National Common Minimum Programme's importance lies in its recognition of the need to give special attention to social indicators."

Ironically, when the NAC was set up it was attacked for trying to "coopt" the "jholawalas"—as its members were derisively referred to even though all its members, ranging from social activists, former civil servants, to experts in education, tribal issues and development economics, are largely mainstream. The spin put out by the BJP was that a vehicle had been created to accommodate 'pseudo-secular' ngos and friends of the Left.

The UPA's critics refused, and still refuse, to accept that the NAC was the government's way "of opening up to civil society in an institutionalised way", as Congress Rajya Sabha MP and NAC member Jairam Ramesh puts it.Or that it provides the opportunity for "unhurried deliberation in government, for reflection and strategic thinking, which differentiates it from the Planning Commission," as Jayaprakash Narayan, ex-ias officer and founder of Lok Satta, a leading civil society initiative working in the field of governance reforms, says.

Indeed, it was all this that drew people like Magsaysay Award winner and founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatana, Aruna Roy, to join the NAC: "The CMP recognises what was voiced in the mandate of 2004 and espouses the cause of the poor—unusual for a national government—unlike the NDA's India Shining campaign. After all, governments are not elected only by the middle class but by the poor as well. The CMP addresses real, not popular, issues which often brings it into conflict with the policy of liberalisation—the privatisation of power and water, for instance. This is what drew people like me and Jean Dreze to the NAC."

Dreze, who is a development economist, social activist and a member of the NAC till recently, adds: "Institutions like the NAC have to be judged from their results. In that respect, I think that the NAC has done quite well in its first year. Neither the Right to Information Act nor the Employment Guarantee Act would have seen the light of day without the NAC, and both acts are major achievements. There have also been useful NAC interventions on issues like midday meals, child nutrition, tribal land rights, and so on. The main argument for the NAC is that it gives some sort of voice to marginalised people, and I think that it has been able to play that role to a significant extent."

Sonia Gandhi has also leveraged her excellent personal relations with Left leaders to push the social equity agenda. Says Aruna Roy, "The support of the Left has been very important in helping bring together pro-people forces to promote human development as against mere economic development. If the NREGS and the RTI become operational and are administered by those who understand the spirit of these laws, it will build a better India."

But despite its successes till now, NAC members recognise that there are two key areas on which it needs to focus—more money, and governance reforms which will ensure an effective delivery system. Jairam, who says that the NAC's focus from now on will be putting in place an effective delivery system, stresses, "The bottomline as far as the CMP is concerned is that it is a charter for increased social spending."

Especially since public spending in India for education and health are abysmally low. If Narayan underlines the fact that the government spends only 3.2 per cent of the GDP on education and 0.9 per cent of the GDP on health, another NAC member, Dr D. Swaminadhan, an expert on tribal issues, adds, "There can be no two views on increasing allocations for the social sector. And in this era of globalisation, that spending must be done by the government." Aruna Roy, while agreeing with the need for greater allocations, says, "Much more than the money needs to be spent, the delivery system needs to be decentralised, and more democratic spaces need to be created for participation and mechanisms put in place to stop corruption. This, along with the effective use of the RTI will help to improve the delivery system."

Answering the criticism of the pro-reforms lobby that money for schemes like the NREGS is a waste because of the leakages, Dreze says, "It is true that the delivery of these services is very poor in many (but not in all) Indian states.But the way forward is to restore accountability in the public sector, not to abdicate essential social responsibilties." Also, there may be a celebratory air about the fact that the panchayats will be empowered to administer the NREGS, But Saxena has a word of caution about it, "While giving the authority to the panchayats, we need to ensure also that they are conscious of their responsibilities. We now have a master-slave equation—that needs to be changed. We need horizontal mobilisation, not vertical mobilisation," he says.

So while there is a broad consensus in the UPA government that the NAC has been a success, Dreze adds a caveat: "However, if this good work is to be sustained, some important issues relating to the functioning of the NAC need to be addressed. Chief amongst them is a lack of transparency in the proceedings of the council. The NAC must set for itself the same standards of transparency and accountability as it has sought to promote in other spheres of governance. The necessity of doing so arises partly from the fact that the NAC as an institution may endure. Even if its powers are well used under the present government, the same may not apply later on, unless some safeguards are in place."

But for a start it has been a good one. Team Sonia has proved that her detractors had got it wrong and that if the UPA has to fulfil even a part of its commitment to the aam admi, then the NAC has a vital role to play.