View: Fixing governance shortfalls, expanding NDA dispensation's political footprint

Sunday’s Cabinet expansion must be simultaneously assessed on the basis of the criteria chosen to select new ministers over other contenders and the dropping of existing ones. The reshuffle was last significant one before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, especially since Prime Minister Narendra Modi had reallocated responsibilities among ministers just twice after assuming office.

Barring the gutsy statement of putting a woman in charge of defence, the exercise is a shade underwhelming. It will remain so unless BJP president Amit Shah concurrently initiates significant structural changes. Two areas that required fixes were shortfalls in governance, especially deliverables and expanding GoI’s political footprint. There was a case for innovation in structure and style, considered Modi’s hallmark, besides addressing issues of ministers holding crucial multiple portfolios and ejecting subpar performers. In the political domain, there was an argument for making government more representative.

In the immediacy of the 2014 verdict, GoI could get away with being primarily a BJP ministry. But with developments in Bihar and Tamil Nadu, and with the government touching the two-thirds mark of its tenure, it would have been politically prudent to ensure it transformed, at least symbolically, into an NDA government.

But Modi is not altering the terms of engagement with allies. He has conveyed bluntly that allies require the BJP more than the other way around. Confining the Cabinet expansion to his party is a measure of this self-assurance.

Tackling deficits in governance was a priority. As was political messaging. The loudest word has been sent out with the dramatic elevation of Nirmala Sitharaman. Her appointment as defence minister, which ensures two women in the Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) along with foreign minister Sushma Swaraj for the first time, underlines that, one, gender is no barrier to rising within Modi’s close ring, and two, personal loyalty is recognised.

The elevation of Piyush Goyal and Dharmendra Pradhan indicates that Modi also places emphasis on rewarding performance. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi’s promotion shows that in the aftermath of the instant triple talaq judgement, wooing Muslims will be a thrust area.

Of the six ministers dropped, Mahendra Nath Pandey is the only one who has a new job. Clearly, if accomplishments were a criterion for promotion, its absence is reason for demotion. This underscores a contradiction: in a PMO-centric government, many ministers felt hamstrung and unable to function with autonomy, which took a toll on deliverables, deadlines and targets.

Those with greater administrative aptitude or political heft weathered the pressure. Those who failed were labelled underperformers.

Even among them, those with a more solid political foundation have survived. Take Uma Bharati. Losing the ideologically critical River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation to Nitin Gadkari is a mark on her report card. Yet, she stays in the Cabinet, in charge of drinking water and sanitation, with two ministers of state.

Likewise, there is no change in the agriculture ministry, where greater urgency is required in the run-up to 2019, though junior ministers were reshuffled. This indicates social and political considerations remain decisive factors when making key selections. The 4Ps — performance, potential, proficiency and professionalism — cited as criteria for selection was another nifty alliteration.

Including former career civil servants is a significant departure, but would cause heartburn within BJP. It is paradoxical that portfolios allocated to the four has little correlation with past professional achievements. If specialists were required, why has Hardeep Singh Puri been given Housing and Urban Affairs, a portfolio more apt for Alphons Kannanthanam?

Whenever bureaucrats or other professionals have been inducted in the past, they seldom were allotted portfolios on basis of past strength — the only difference being when it came to finance professionals. This hints at the political leadership concluding that bureaucrats develop linkages that lead to conflict of interest. If such be the case, then the raison d’être behind their induction is lost. This reshuffle does not appear to be an act under duress, but reflects a PM on track for another term.