It is the considered view of your columnist, expressed on occasion in these columns, that India?particularly the government?changes and reforms only under the shadow of a grave crisis. The dramatic economic crisis of 1991, which brought the country on the verge of default, led to a clear break from the moribund economic policies of the past, and elevated us, permanently, to a higher plateau of economic performance and clout.
Can the 26/11 terror attack on Mumbai be a similarly defining moment for political, institutional and governance reform, all left largely untouched by the economic reforms of the last two decades? While one would certainly hope that 2008 does to politics what 1991 did to the economy, let us not under-estimate the difficulty of the task ahead. While economic reform required the government to simply stop poking its nose into business (which it had no business doing in any case), political and governance reform requires the government to amputate and rebuild many parts of its own institutional apparatus. Any such process will be painful and run into entrenched vested interest.
Yet, there is no other way out at least for internal security reform. Certain functions like intelligence, law and order and other essential public services have to be run by the government?there is no way we can consider outsourcing or privatising these functions to non-government agencies. That doesn?t happen anywhere in the world.
Unlike other parts of the world, however, there is very little ministerial accountability in India. After all if CEOs lose their jobs when companies do badly, ministers ought to lose theirs when the ministry they command fails in its duties. There was indeed a time ministers in India did resign owning up moral responsibility: Madhavrao Scindia?s resigned as civil aviation minister after the crash of a leased Uzbek plane in the early 1990s. There have been plenty of instances after that?excluding corruption and criminal accusations?when ministers ought to have quit(but did not) because of a failure on the part of their ministry.
Shivraj Patil?s resignation owning up to moral responsibility for the attack is, therefore, a welcome even if overdue decision. More heads are likely to roll including senior officials from the intelligence apparatus. While these resignations will help re-enforce the forgotten principle of moral accountability in a democratic government, there is a danger that the process of change will end with an almost cosmetic rolling of heads. The real problem lies in the whole apparatus from top to bottom. And deeper institutional change is required to stem the rot.
Are there any reasons to be hopeful of fundamental change? Majority opinion would probably be cynical and say no. This government, in the last six months of its term, is lame-duck and reluctant to push major policy reform. Yet, the government, in light of this terror attack and an already fledging economy, faces a fight for its political survival?any chance of re-election in 2009 requires visible change on the ground?-and not just the resignations of a few politicians. Fortunately for the government, large scale reform in the security apparatus doesn?t require legislative action?-most of the reorganisation, streamlining and coordination which needs to be done can be done with administrative orders. Even if legislation is required on security issues, the opposition is unlikely to block it under these circumstances. If any crisis was an opportunity to reform the security apparatus this is it. And the UPA government has everything to lose by procrastinating over it, and a lot to gain by showing us some genuine institutional reform. So, one shouldn?t rule out all hope for change.
The other reason for hope rather than cynicism is the choice of Shivraj Patil?s successor as Home Minister. P Chidambaram is in many ways a complete anti-thesis of the bumbling Shivraj Patil. Most importantly, he has shown a willingness to push for reform over his long political career compared with the compromising, status-quoist Patil. Admittedly his recent ministerial career, since 1991, has been spent in the economic ministries of finance and commerce, but he does have some experience as minister for internal security in Rajiv Gandhi?s government. Also, as finance minister he is an important member of the cabinet committee on security, which means he is in the know. Chidambaram is known as a tough, competent and no-nonsense minister?qualities which are necessary conditions for anyone who is to reform a hopelessly inept intelligence/security apparatus. Unfortunately, he doesn?t have much time, but he can turn that into an advantage to ram through reform. His reformist instincts have been under-utilised in the ministry of finance in this innings (mostly due to the partnership with the Left parties)?-they could find a very productive outlet at Home. Manmohan Singh will always be known as the father of economic reforms. Here?s Chidambaram?s chance to father internal security reforms.
Let?s face it: India cannot aspire to be a first rate global power with a second rate internal security apparatus.
?dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com
