JUNE 16, 2016

By Naresh Minocha, Our Consulting Editor

"POLICIES presented to Parliament and to the public must be the agreed policies of the Cabinet. Ministers cannot dissociate themselves from or repudiate the decisions of Cabinet or their Ministry colleagues unless they resign from the Ministry," says Canada's governance mantra captioned 'Open and Accountable Government' released in November 2015.

It adds: "All members of the Ministry are collectively responsible for carrying out the government's policies as established by the Cabinet. They are therefore expected to work in close consultation with their ministerial colleagues. This principle is the foundation of a key constitutional convention known as Cabinet solidarity."

Public accountability votaries would expect Narendra Modi Government to unveil such an initiative to lend credence to #Transforming India campaign.

Had the Government laid down Canadian-type Ministerial Code of conduct (MCC) after its formation in May 2014, Minister for Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, would have had to resign. She would have done this either before or after making wild allegations against Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, and his Ministry on killing of wild animals.

The latter would have also faced music, if not exit from Cabinet, for violation of MCC in 2015 by utilizing Rs 20-lakh Toyota Fortuner for a few months in Delhi. The vehicle was bought by public enterprise SAIL for use by field staff of Forest Department in Odisha.

Mr. Javadekar and his Ministry ducked queries put by Indian Express, which broke the shocking story. Even the daily's RTI plea for disclosure of file notings on this issue was spurned.

As put by the Story, "It is not unusual for the Ministry's regional offices or state forest departments to ask for vehicles from project proponents for site inspection. SAIL's Barsua iron mines itself has delivered six vehicles (five Boleros and a Scorpio) to the Odisha forest department since 2011. But never before had it supplied a highend SUV like the Fortuner and, that too, to New Delhi rather than the field office."

Did Mr. Modi order probe into this vehicles scam? Is it not abuse of projects clearing power by Environment Ministry for extortion of materialistic pleasures? Does this misconduct come under the domain of soft corruption? PM would be confronted with many more such questions for want of a comprehensive MCC.

Mr. Modi, however, need not sack either of the two ministers or any other deviant colleagues. He should take Ms. Maneka's outbursts and Mr. Javadekar's SUV compromise as wake-up call to admonish the entire Council of Ministers and to prepare a zero-tolerance MCC.

Several other democracies have MCCs. Even an island with a population of less than one lakh, Turks and Caicos Island, has an excellent MCC. These are elaborate standard operating procedure (SOP) for all activities undertaken by ministers. Some countries and provinces have Integrity Commission for ministers and MPs, which are similar to our proposed Lok Pal.

Anyone can come across more such instances in the cyberspace to drive home the urgency for ushering in #Transforming India from the Cabinet itself.

If Mr. Modi continues to shun good governance ideas from independent quarters, he might one day face a situation where defiance and deviation by ministers becomes the trend.

Mr. Modi should avoid being likened to India's so-called weakest PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh. Under his tenure, certain ministers indulged in conduct that would not fit in standard MCC.

Mr. Modi ought to consider substituting the existing, outdated, personal integrity-centric Code of Conduct for Union & State Ministers with a comprehensive MCC. Apart from containing exhaustive integrity provisions, MCC should specify how ministers should conduct themselves in Parliament and in Public in discharge of their duties.

Before elaborating on proposed MCC, consider what Ms Maneka has been doing over the years, breaching principle of collective responsibility enshrined in the Constitution. And she has been allowed to get away with waywardness just because she is a political asset for BJP in its battle against Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, apart from being an empowered woman and animal rights zealot.

According to Article 75 (3) of the Constitution, "The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People." This provision ought to be elaborated in MCC.

Ms Maneka would perhaps remember that when she was Minister of State for Environment and Forests in National Front Government, Prime Minister, late V.P. Singh had invoked this principle to sack Deputy PM, Late Chaudhary Devi Lal in August 1990. One of three grounds for dismissal was that Mr. Lal levelled charges against his cabinet colleagues in an interview with a magazine.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Lal, Mr. Singh stated: "For these acts of yours, of violations of all cannons of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, I have recommended to the President of India to drop you from the Council of Ministers."

Turn now to Ms Maneka's deviations from this principle under Modi Government. In October 2015, she publicly criticized reduction in budget allocation of funds to her ministry following enhanced devolution of resources to States in keeping with the Finance Commission's recommendations and resulting restructuring of centrally sponsored schemes.

In an interview with Reuters, Ms. Maneka stated: "We still have problems because our cut has still not been restored. Literally, it's a month to month suspense on whether we can meet wages." The interview was headlined 'India's budget cuts hurt fight against malnutrition: Maneka Gandhi'.

In December 2015, she took a stand on climate change that was radically different from what India took at climate change summit in Paris. In an interview to NDTV headlined 'PM in Paris, Minister Maneka Gandhi in Delhi: 2 Voices on Climate Change', Ms. Maneka said: "India is one of the main players in destroying the climate."

Her latest stance is at complete variance with what she stated while answering a question on climate change in Parliament on 29th May 1990. Ms. Maneka said: "India's contribution to any possible global change is negligible."

Recall now her recent outburst over culling of certain wild animals.

Reacting to news about killing of nilgais (Blue Bull) in Bihar, she reportedly expressed her annoyance at Environment Ministry's "lust for killing animals".

According to a news report, when asked about Mr. Javadekar's role in it, she said: "Now you tell me what could be the role? He only has to give permission. This is the first time environment ministry is giving permission to killing animals."

She reportedly alleged that "Environment ministry is writing to every state, asking which animal should be killed and that they will give permission for it."

"In Bengal, they (environment ministry) have permitted the killing of elephants, in Himachal Pradesh they have ordered killing of monkeys, and in Goa they gave permission to kill peacocks," she added.

Javadekar reacted cautiously by denying that his Ministry had granted permission for killing of elephants and peacock. He clarified that permission to cull Nilgai, wild boar and a particular species of monkey had been granted on scientific basis in specified regions following requests from certain States.

Had Ms. Maneka cared to read a long background to the culling of animals declared as vermin, she might have adhered to principle of collective responsibility.

A few facts have to be put on record to focus on Ms. Maneka's half-truths and half-knowledge, which are trademarks of any over-enthusiastic activist.

Start with what she stated in Parliament on 22nd August 1990 while answering a question as Minister of State for Environment and Forest. Ms. Maneka said: "Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA), there is a complete ban on hunting except when necessary for saving human life and for scientific purpose..... For other species, the State Governments are empowered under the Act to issue hunting licences. However, for species listed in Schedule V of the Act and which are vermins, no hunting licence is required."

Successive Governments have articulated this legal position while fielding questions in Parliament about wild animals wreaking havoc on human habitations, crops and livestock.

It is here pertinent to cite a reply to parliament question dated 5 March 2013 relating to damage to crops caused by Nilgais given during UPA regime. The answer reads as: "The Chief Wildlife Wardens have been empowered under Section 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to permit hunting of wild animals specified in Schedule II, Schedule III or Schedule IV, on being satisfied that the animal has become dangerous to human life or to property (including standing crops on any land)."

It continues: "An advisory for management of Nilgais for protecting the crops has been circulated on 7th March 2012 to the State Governments of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, West Bengal, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu."

NDA Government has also reiterated the legal position on prospective killing of animals that inflict heavy damages on human beings, crops, etc. In reply to a question in Parliament, Mr. Javadekar stated on 6th August 2015: "Keeping in view the losses to crops inflicted by the wild animals, this Ministry, on 24th December, 2014 issued an advisory to the States highlighting the legal provisions under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to deal with the human wildlife conflict situations. Vide this advisory, Ministry has also sought proposals from State/Union Territory Governments, after objective assessment of the situation with details of the areas in which notification under section 62 of the Act, declaring any wild animals as vermin for specified period, could be helpful in management of conflict."

Ms. Maneka should take a break from propagating rights of animals to appreciating the rights of hapless farmers and the country's right for food security.

She might find it enlightening to go through the minutes of the Brainstorming session on management of Blue Bulls held in Agriculture Ministry on 17th December 2009.

Reviewing the pulses production scenario, "National Consultant (Agronomy) reported the extent of crop damage due to blue bulls to be 50-70% in Uttar Pradesh, 50-60% in Haryana, and 10-20% in Gujarat." The minutes have recorded loss to pulses crop in Bihar due to same reason at 18%.

Most of the participants in the brainstorming meet believed that shifting of Nilgai from Schedule III of the WLPA to Schedule V (Vermin category) would "ease out the proceedings as killing of vermin would not attract the attention of Wildlife Protection Act."

The minutes continue: "IG, Forests cautioned that even killing of vermin should be conforming to the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

It was agreed at the meeting that Agriculture Ministry would pitch for "change in status of blue bull from Schedule 3 to vermin" for its effective control.

The meeting also advocated use of all other options including chemical repellents and electric fencing to deter Nilgai from raiding standing crops.

Ms. Maneka might also find it interesting to read letters exchanged among top officials of Himachal Pradesh government on how monkeys have trampled the rights of human beings.

In a letter to Principal Secretary (Forests), written in mid-2015, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, replied: "the 'Monkey Management' is the most challenging issue for the wildlife wing and the Government; and facing great hardships due to public criticism...."

The letter says: "the monkeys have become the biggest public nuisance today. They destroy crops (kitchen gardens, orchards), bite people, contaminate the drinking water in storage tanks and there by transmit diseases, steal things, tear clothes, snap telephone and electricity wires, cable TV and dish TV set up, broad band wires, break tube lights, street lights/bulbs, vehicle window wipers, rear view mirrors, create dents on the roof of the parked vehicles by jumping on them, raiding crops, stealing and snatching edible items from the passers by creating panic among the people, sometimes even risking their lives (people fall from roof out of fear of the monkeys), steal food by gaining entry into homes, snatch articles (Jhaku temple in Shimla) thus the human-monkey conflict is always on rise, sometimes resulting into casualties."

The letter continued: "The wildlife wing has already exhausted all possible deterrents but the impact of the attempts made to prevent the menace has been insignificant."

Noting that 51% of the population of the macaques in the state have been sterilised, the letter adds: "Animal activists are creating great number of hurdles at every stage for carrying out the sterilizations."

As a Minister for Women and Child Development, she should thus fight against brutal killing of babies and kids by wild animals, street dogs and pigs. She should speak up against pittance paid by State Governments as compensation to human beings disabled by injuries caused by animals. Can a permanently disabled human being dance like a monkey after receiving meagre Rs one lakh compensation?

She might like to moderate her enthusiasm for animal rights by referring to National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) release dated 14th August 2015. It says that NHRC has taken "suo motu cognizance of media reports on the stray dog menace and observed that prima facie, it is of the view that Human Rights should weigh above animal rights in a situation where human lives are at risk due to attack by animals. However, this calls for a debate by the civil society."

This brings us to the need for incorporating in MCC a clause that ministers should eschew the urge to double as activists. They should not detour from their ministerial responsibility to balance conflicting demands and ideas to serve the interest of public. And they should not publicly ridicule the working of other ministries.

As put by the United Kingdom's MCC, "The principle of collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees, including in correspondence, should be maintained."

As for conduct of ministers in Parliament, Mr. Modi might like to take a leaf out of Bermuda's MCC in April 2015. MCC says: "It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignations to the Premier."

To set MCC ball rolling, PM should first immediately constitute Lok Pal through an ordinance. Later, the Government should urge Lok Pal to draft MCC on the basis of best features of MCCs of other countries. Let winds of transforming India blow from the top.