For five years from 2009, he was with the Planning Commission, which he describes as India's cockpit. Arun Maira has now written a book, An upstart ingovernment , that analyses what slowed the nation’s economy. In his conversation with Bloomberg TV India, he shared some interesting facts about his recommendations for the winding down of the Planning Commission.
In the book, you talk about an event in 2013, when then PM Manmohan Singh concluded a Planning Commission meeting by asking four questions and you say, “I was completely taken aback. Had he not asked similar questions about the Planning Commission’s relevance in the new millennium? Had we not given him the answers to these questions in 2010, which he had approved of? Had we not been struggling to implement the changes required, which he was aware of? So why was he asking these questions again?” Mr Maira, why indeed?
I don’t know. The mind of Dr Manmohan Singh is a very fine and reflective mind. What made him ask questions he had already asked — we know he had the answers and he knew that we were applying the answers already. Speculation is that he realised that the change that had taken place was insufficient for what was required. So he was like a statesman of the country popping questions about this institution to find an answer too.
And I was therefore quite pleased actually when Mr Modi took it up and he did say we will have to dispense with the Planning Commission in its present configuration and we will have to think of a new institution, if we need one in its place. And when the new institution (NITI Aayog) was announced, it sounded very much like what we had been suggesting the Planning Commission would become. So it came as a relief.
You also say in the book the change in the Planning Commission could not be implemented fully because the leadership did not demonstrate that it was committed to it. The Deputy Chairman was a reluctant reformer and this is obviously a reference to Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Wasn’t Montek Singh an out-and-out reformer?
Reform can be a stroke of a pen, description of what is required to be done, and that is a very important part of the reform. But the tough part of the reform is actually changing impaired institutions, points of view. It’s a political game almost and I know that.
So did he fail at the politics of it or at the complexity of the task?
What is causing the complexity? The complexity is being caused by the fact that there are emotional forces, political forces, people’s egos involved. You can call all of that political, if you so will.
There’s also a reference in your book that is very significant. You talk about the fact that there was a dream team in place. Manmohan and Ahluwalia, because of their understanding of the economy and their involvement and experience in the government, were unparalleled. You certainly had no experience in the government. Many of the other people did not have experience in the government. As you have said, Manmohan has probably held almost every job that is worth holding in the economic policy administrative setup in India before he became the PM. Yet they failed. Why?
It was in my view. Montek announced to the media that we were going to reform the Planning Commission. They said they would take my help — since I had come from outside with some experience in changing institutions — to do this. Both Manmohan and Montek Singh had been Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Commission for five years already. They would understand by now where the shoe pinches. They should have figured out how to figure out those challenges. Besides, as you said, both of them have been reformers. They do know what is required to change within the Indian political setup.