Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay

As COVID-19 has unleashed an information epidemic, or infodemic – as a result of which we are constantly plied with an overabundance of information, some accurate and others misleading – it has become very difficult to stay fixated on one ‘window’ on whatever device we’re using.

Consequently, commonplace queries get pushed to the backseat. This is at great cost to the mission to flag issues, so necessary in democracies during crises – especially civilian ones. The absence of such questions clears pathways for leaders already looking at securing a position beyond this ‘non-kinetic war’, even before they have successfully tackled the pandemic. An uppermost issue that must be examined is the most obvious: How and who is India being governed by in this hour of challenge?

Last week, there were several reports in the media regarding the decision to form ten empowered groups and one strategic task force to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak.

Altogether these have 68 bureaucrats, technocrats or other subject specialists. These committees, established under the powers conferred by invoking the Disaster Management Act, 2005, are “empowered to identify problem areas and provide effective solutions… delineate policy, formulate plans, strategise operations and take all necessary steps for effective and time-bound implementation of these…”

In short, these committees are sanctioned to do ‘everything’ pertaining to the challenge before the nation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs note announcing the formation of these committees listed names of members of these groups. Each has one member from the Cabinet Secretariat. Besides, every one of these committees will be ‘coordinated’ with a designated official from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Above all this, the prime minister’s principal secretary, P.K. Mishra, shall provide overall guidance to these groups. The CEO of NITI Aayog, Amitabh Kant, too heads one of these committees – it is tasked with coordinating with the private sector, NGOs and international organisations for “response related activities”.

Because the note is issued by the home secretary, it is certain that the move has the concurrence of the home minister. But besides this, the ‘order’ is completely silent about the role of members of the council of ministers, either those of cabinet rank or the juniors. The only mention of them inverts the hierarchy established within the cabinet system of governance.

It requires mentioning here that three days prior to formation of these empowered groups with sweeping powers, the government tasked 15 Union ministers with the job of ensuring that there was no disruption in the supply of essential commodities in 15 districts each that were listed for them to take care.

One report on the formation of these committees quoted an unnamed source as saying that these ministers shall be “reporting” to these 11 groups regarding implementation of the Centre’s policies and decisions.

We need to keep in mind that while ministers are elected representatives of the people, officials, technocrats and technical experts in normal circumstances work under the guidance and supervision of ministers.

We have seen in Hungary in the course of the COVID-19 outbreak how measures during a crisis can easily become permanent and lasting policies if democratic institutions in the country are weak. Since 2014, this government had undermined several institutions besides influencing autonomous arms of the state.

The present arrangement falls pat within the mantra once chanted by the prime minister before he assumed office six years ago: ‘Minimum government, maximum governance’. In practise, minimising government means reducing the role of elected leaders, mass or ‘unelectable’, and increasing role of people who cannot be held accountable.

The move to establish these empowered committees suggests that the cabinet system of governance shall exist, but as an apology during the entire pandemic period. The arrangement can last longer because once medical crisis somewhat eases, the country shall have to wage more battles on multiple fronts, most importantly in economy, trade, industry, labour and social welfare.

The cabinet has met for the first time on Monday via video conferencing since the prime minister’s first address to the nation. This shows the importance given to the cabinet system.

Will elected representatives hereon be mere showpieces displayed on the mantelpiece of the government, like those sitting mute during the prime minister’s video conference with state chief ministers on April 2?

As it is, in January a few weeks prior to the annual budget’s presentation, the nation was witness to the bizarre spectacle of the finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, missing from a crucial pre-budget meeting with economists and sector experts. She was also absent from another meeting between the prime minister and top industrialists, including Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata.

The question regarding the character of governance at this juncture is particularly essential to flag because there is a growing sense, especially in the vocal middle classes, that this is not the time, in the words of poet Alfred Tennyson, to make reply, not to reason why. For the past six years, we have witnessed every effort at questioning decisions of the government, as being a nothing but treasonous acts.

The power for this comes from the long dormant sentiment that democracy has negative effect on efficiency and slows down progress, and that autocracies or authoritarian systems are more ‘suited’ for India. People holding this viewpoint do not have high regard for elected representatives and are willing to dispense them in favour of those opaquely selected by the chosen leader.

Although waging a campaign against Chinese products, especially at this juncture, there is silent admiration for its political model. Yet, it is not recognised that despite its poor record of civil liberties, the government has a fair amount of people’s trust.

There have been several occasions in the past too, when over centralisation of power and dominance of the PMO in every sphere of governance made it appear that although India is a de jure parliamentary system, it was already a de facto presidential form of government. This sense could not be more obvious now.

Several chief ministers have also publicly stated that federalism has been badly compromised. Mamata Banerjee, after her first experience at the one-way video conference with the prime minister, stayed away from the next. Her party is also likely to remain absent from the exchange with parliamentary party leaders on April 8.

Some scholars have asked if it was wise to solely “depend only on (the country’s) elite administrative and law enforcement bureaucracy” and not delegate power to even local self governments who are not plagued by the trust deficit that dogs national and state governments.

Of course, there is possible viewpoint within the ruling party that not many ministers have displayed any capacity to burn the midnight oil. On the day of the Janata Curfew, one minister played antakshari on Twitter with celebrities.

The argument, however, rings hollow because it only shows the huge talent deficit that plagues this government and the ruling party. The problem is the Modi persona, which has not bothered from the Gujarat days to camouflage its message to ministers to step back during major crises. Non-consultation often results in embarrassing situations – the latest being the feared grid collapse due to the call to people to switch off lights in their residences.

It is indeed ironical that a democratic deficit has become visible in the world’s largest democracy when it faces its gravest post-independence challenge. How the threat from COVID-19 and its fallout on all fronts is governed will determine the future characteristic of the Indian state. This is the primary reason why it is important to debate who is governing India now and how.

(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a Delhi-based writer and journalist.)

***

Editorial addition: An article in The Wire by Arfa Khanum Sherwani, “Baghel: ‘Had PM Taken States Into Confidence on Lockdown, the Chaos Could’ve Been Avoided’ adds another important fact to the above issues:

“Speaking to The Wire over Skype, Baghel said that the Centre should have consulted the states before announcing the nationwide lockdown. “(If the PM) would have informed us in advance about the tentative date of the lockdown and that we should make necessary arrangements, we would have made a list of essential things and consulted each other,” the Chhattisgarh CM said. “If the chief ministers had been taken into confidence, we could have avoided the chaos which followed the prime minister’s lockdown announcement. “The people are in great distress. The Central government can issue orders but the implementation part has to be taken care of by the states.”

Baghel said that the chief ministers were contacted by the prime minister through video conferencing only after the announcement of the lockdown had been made. And even then, only a few chief ministers got an opportunity to express their point of views as it was mostly the prime minister or Central government officers who got to speak at the virtual meet.”

***

Editorial addition: Also related to the  issues raised in the above article are the questions raised by Manoj Harit in another article in The Wire, “Would Narendra Modi Please Care to Answer Some Questions About PM-CARES?” An excerpt from the article:

India has had a Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) since 1948. In recent years, that fund has emerged as the primary focal point for the mobilisation of public donations in the wake of natural disasters like floods and earthquakes. On March 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a national lockdown (to combat the COVID pandemic) … and on March 28 evening, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to Twitter to announce the creation of a brand new fund: “People from all walks of life expressed their desire to donate to India’s war against COVID-19. Respecting that spirit, the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM–CARES ) has been constituted. This will go a long way in creating a healthier India.”

Manoj Harit goes on to ask:

Why not the existing the PM National Relief Fund?

One would have expected the government to be more forthcoming about the objectives and reasons for creating a public charitable trust to basically carry out a government function. Especially when the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) has been in existence since January 1948, for meeting exigencies posed by disasters/calamities like COVID-19….

There should be no problem in the government answering the following questions:

1. When was it decided to form a public charitable trust for inviting donations for the prevention of COVID-19 spread?

2. Under which Act is the trust registered?

3. Are the chairman and three trustees working in their personal capacity or in the capacity of their constitutional offices? If the former, it would be a non-government public charitable trust, while in the latter case, it would be on a very weak and shaky legal foundation.

Then, there is due process in obtaining registration under 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Income of an organisation is exempted from tax if a public charitable trust has 12A registration. Section 12 AA provides the procedure for registration. Though this is a one-time registration, documents like a trust deed, registration certificate, trust PAN card, ID proof, books of accounts, etc. are required. Similarly, if an organisation has obtained certification under 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, then the donors of such an organisation can claim exemption from income tax.

It is necessary to know whether the due process of law was followed by PM-CARES. A failure to abide by the due process of law would make it susceptible to a legal challenge. Such a development would be unfortunate and unsavoury.

Given the provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, the PM–CARES Public Charitable Fund will need FCRA registration in order to receive foreign funds and donations from foreign citizens. One of the criteria for getting FCRA registration is submission of copies of the relevant audited statement of accounts for the past three years. It would be worthwhile to see if this condition has been relaxed for PM –CARES. On the other hand, foreign contributions are accepted under PMNRF. Prime Minister Modi has a considerable following amongst the rich and wealthy NRIs. Surely it would have made more sense if the appeal was for donations into the PMNRF rather than the new fund. The domestic contributions from corporate houses, celebrity actors, civil society would have come anyway. This aspect further colours the motive behind floating an NGO by a government led by a ruling party whose roots lie in an NGO but is yet extremely hostile towards a score of internationally acclaimed NGOs.

Finally, an independent observer would not be wrong to view the rollout of the fund with scepticism. The antipathy to transparency and accountability of the regime needs no iteration. The chronology is telling: The first tweet by Modi was at 4:51 pm on March 28. Within 15 minutes, through a tweet sent out at 5:09 pm, the IAS Association committed Rs 21 lakh (it is anyone’s guess when the association held a meeting and passed a resolution). Within 25 minutes, actor Akshay Kumar committed to donating Rs 25 crore by posting a tweet at 5:18 pm. By 5:34 pm, PhonePe put out a tweet providing a link to make donations to PM-CARES. The synchronisation of the rollout cannot be a coincidence, especially given the well-known obsessive media management and expertise of the regime.

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them,” said Patrick Henry. Will Modi care enough to tell us about his transactions?

(Manoj Harit is an advocate based in Mumbai.)