Column

One of the biggest causes of corruption in India is the sheer size of government. We are not talking here about the number of employees in government service, but the number of ministries in Delhi and the states. There are simply too many of them. The Manmohan Singh cabinet has 79 ministers, including the PM himself, and they have been distributed across more than 40-and-odd ministries in various combos.

Some make no sense at all: Salman Khursheed will run minority and corporate affairs. How are the two connected? Prithviraj Chavan will run five different departments, from earth sciences to public grievances. What’s the synergy? Almost every third UPA member of parliament is a minister of some kind. We need so many of them like a hole in the head.

If 18 years of deregulation and delicensing have not reduced corruption and graft, we should thank jumbo-sized cabinets for them. To get a power plant going, you need dozens of permissions and clearances. This means paying speed money at every stage to politicians and babus in various ministries and regulatory bodies. Little wonder, we are always short of power.

When we talk of reforms we tend to think of privatisation or foreign investment limits as though these are the critical ones. The most important one for improving governance is actually a reduction in the number of ministries. Why, for example, do we need a railway ministry when the Railway Board can manage the system like a profit centre? Why do we need a railway budget to be presented to parliament when there is no aviation budget or shipping budget? Quite obviously, to give the railway minister a platform from which to talk to his constituency.

If the first reform is a reduction in the total number of ministries, the second is that commercial undertakings in the public sector should be delinked from their parent ministries. This reduces conflicts of interests. The ministries should be making policy for the nation, not the public sector. The latter should be run efficiently, and not like personal fiefs of ministers.

If one takes a close look at all the ministries, it is clear that we don’t need more than a dozen overall. Ministries have proliferated because commercial enterprises under government have also grown in number and size. Once we delink the two, the number of ministries can also be brought down. The ones that will remain are defence, home, agriculture and rural development, urban affairs, industry and company affairs, health, education, law and justice, transport, finance, external affairs, energy, commerce and HRD. One or two more ministries could be added to this list, but 15 would be more than enough.

There is no reason why we can’t have one ministry of transport that looks at railways, civil aviation, shipping and automobile policies. Having a Mamata Banerjee, Praful Patel, and GK Vasan making policies for various modes of transportation can only lead to policy confusion. We certainly don’t need separate ministries running steel, textiles, chemicals, or a myriad other industries.

All industries can be run within one legal framework, but different regulators. One energy ministry can look at an integrated approach to all forms of energy use — electrical power, petroleum, coal and gas, solar and other renewable sources. Why have two ministries doing HRD and labour? One should do.

The more important reform is to pry public sector units away from their parent ministries and put them under a trustee-run holding company. The trustees can be retired public sector managers with impeccable track records, and their only job will be to see that all companies are insulated from political pressures and effectively run.

Government orders to any company will have to be routed through this board, which will ensure that no malafide decisions are taken. For example, if the government wants to direct oil companies to reduce prices, the trustee board should ask for the relevant subsidies to be paid in cash to protect shareholders.

While I am sure the UPA will be in no hurry to reduce the number of ministries — these are the only carrots it can dangle to allies — there is no gainsaying the fact that political interests cannot be entirely abandoned. What does one do with 79 ministers when the number of ministries is down to 15? Well, at three or four per ministry, 40-50 ministers and junior ministers can be taken care off straightaway.

The rest can be asked to become ministers representing state interests. If you are a minister in charge of Uttar Pradesh, your job is to ensure that all queries from the state government regarding funding and clearances of state projects are handled expeditiously.

While this will lead to friction when state and centre are ruled by different parties, it can also ease problems if the two are in sync. No solution is perfect. But we need to start somewhere.

Redundant ministries
Railways
Aviation
I&B
Labour
Steel
Sports
Chemicals
Shipping
Communications
Petroleum