#dna edit: Exercise in pragmatism

Sunday’s Cabinet expansion marks a new phase where the NDA government is signalling that it is ready to shift gears after a sedate start. Unlike the UPA which initiated a breakneck 100-day agenda on returning to power in 2009, only to make heavy weather of it, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has cherry-picked a few schemes and carefully spaced out his policy announcements over the five months that he has been in power. The 21 ministers sworn in represent Modi’s attempt to recalibrate his Cabinet based on administrative as well as political imperatives. In the process, the PM has failed to match the catchy slogan used to describe his Gujarat Model – “Minimum

Government, Maximum Governance” — to his Cabinet’s size. As PM-designate, Modi had visualised a “convergence in the activities of various ministries where one Cabinet minister will be heading a cluster of ministries who are working in complementary sectors”. This led to speculation that consolidated energy, transport and social sector ministries were in the offing.

Such reorganisation is easier said than implemented, because it involves a thorough understanding of departmental structures and legacy practices. Nevertheless, at 65, the NDA’s Council of Ministers is smaller than the UPA’s, which at its peak had 80 ministers. But to expect Arun Jaitley, holding the weighty finance portfolio, to indefinitely keep charge of defence, was a tall order. In this regard, Manohar Parrikar’s appointment is a masterstroke. With defence deals traditionally mired in corruption scandals, the UPA played safe by entrusting defence to “Mr Clean” AK Antony, but decision-making suffered. Parrikar’s reputation as a clean and firm administrator will suit the defence ministry’s needs. Suresh Prabhu’s inclusion, despite not being the Shiv Sena choice, is reflective of Modi’s desire to utilise his proven track record as a political hand with policy expertise. Hansraj Ahir has been rewarded for exposing the Coalgate scam and his sterling performance as a parliamentarian.

However, the Cabinet expansion is also proof that merit and performance alone can not serve the purpose for even the strongest of Prime Ministers. Bihar is headed to the polls next year and the inclusion of Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Ram Kripal Yadav and Giriraj Singh is a clear message to the electorate of that state. The inclusion of Giriraj, who spouted some of the most communally polarising rhetoric in the Lok Sabha campaign and is under the scanner for the amount of Rs1 crore stolen from his house, is clearly not in line with Modi’s focus on performance or clean politics. Ram Kripal, ex-aide to Lalu Prasad Yadav, appears to have been accommodated to court Yadav voters. In Rajasthan, Modi appears to have done a Rajput-Jat balancing act. The inclusion of MPs from West Bengal, Jharkhand, Haryana and Maharashtra is a recognition of the party’s growing clout in these states.

This was, perhaps, the least troublesome expansion and reshuffle in recent years; a reflection of Modi’s overwhelming dominance over the government, BJP, RSS and the NDA. In contrast, his predecessor Manmohan Singh had to put off Cabinet reshuffles and according to at least one contemporary narrative of his tenure could not act against non-performing ministers.

The perception of paucity of talent in the BJP, reinforced by a few trusted ministers holding multiple but divergent portfolios, could change now. Besides, the Prime Minister’s Office is intensely involved at all levels of decision-making. Whether the Cabinet expansion is an exercise in political accommodation or administrative expediency, it is unlikely that the preponderance of first-term MPs in the Council of Ministers can reverse this unprecedented centralisation of decision-making in the PMO.