By Anil Swarup–
(Anil Swarup is a former Education Secretary and Coal Secretary in the Government of India. He is also a renowned author. The views expressed in this article are his own)
“TMC moves privilege motion against ED and CBI in West Bengal Assembly”: ANI
It is a “war”. A very unfortunate one. The Centre and the States are at each other’s throats making a spectacle of themselves as the country suffers. The tension between the Centre and the States is nothing new but very rarely in the past have we seen a relationship like the present one.
Sometimes we forget that Centre is a geographical fiction and all action is in the states. We also forget that India is a federal country. The “distance” that exists between the Centre and the States is the cause of failure of a number of initiatives and schemes. It is indeed ironical that a number of officers that would have worked in their respective states (especially those belonging to the Indian Administrative Service) look at states with disdain and look down upon them. One could discern such an attitude amongst some officers in Delhi. One of the major factors contributing to the success of schemes or initiatives has been on account of the partnership forged with the states. This was in evidence yet again when we look at the problems that beset Coal and Power sectors. Coal could come out of the crisis ‘untainted’ in 2016 but “UDAY” couldn’t go much beyond ‘dawn’, forcing the government to think in terms of UDAY 2.
Coal sector faced an unprecedented crisis in 2014 (it re-surfaced recently once again on account of the tension between the Centre and the States). Everyone was given to believe that this crisis was on account of alleged scams. It wasn’t so. It was just the other way around. These so-called scams were a consequence of shortage of coal in a country. India boasts of 300 billion tonnes of coal reserve with a requirement of just 800 million tonnes per annum. Yet there was a crisis as the coal production did not meet the target and 25 percent of the coal was being imported. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court, based on ‘presumptuous’ calculations of a rampaging CAG, cancelled allocation of coal blocks to private entities that were contributing around 90 million tonnes per. The coal blocks had to be auctioned now and by the Central Government. It was indeed a difficult job as these coal blocks did not exist at the “centre” but in states, some of which were being ‘ruled’ by an ‘opposition’ government. National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had its government at the centre but states like West Bengal and Odisha were ruled by non-NDA parties. Hence, a strategy was chalked out to get the states on board. It worked because states were treated as partners and, instead riding a rough shod, a value proposition was conveyed. The states got convinced that the auction of coal blocks and the process defined for the purpose was in their interest. Such an approach is even more imperative now as almost all the coal bearing states (West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Odissa and Maharashtra) are under non-NDA governments. Auction for commercial coal mining cannot succeed without taking these states on board.
In terms of coal production by Coal India Limited (CIL) that is still the primary contributor to coal production (80%), partnership with states is even more important. Coal production depends upon a number of factors but the most important amongst them are: a) Land acquisition b) Environment and forest clearance c) Evacuation of coal. The first two factors are totally dependent upon what happens in the states. The process of land acquisition is under the control of and influenced by state governments. For environment and forest clearances, the entire groundwork is done in the states. Hence, states have to be taken on board. During the years 2014-16, a well-defined strategy was worked out. Under this strategy, no meeting was held in Delhi to resolve issues that were local in nature. As Coal Secretary, I travelled to the states and held periodic discussions with the state level officers and District Collectors to expedite clearance. An effort was also made to convey a value proposition to the states regarding coal mining. It worked. Coal production increases by 34 million tonnes during 2014-15. This was more than the cumulative increase of four previous years. During the following year, 2015-16, the production rose by another 44 million tonnes. Coal shortages were a thing of the past as no power plant was critical on account of paucity of coal. We were even toying with the idea of exporting coal to Bangladesh. The states were happy because their power plants had surfeit of coal and they were getting larger amount in form of royalty on account of increased production.
Goods and Services Tax is another example where the approach of treating states as partners has worked. Yet again, the whole approach was masterminded by none other than the master-strategist, Arun Jaitley. There was a mission to engage with the stake holders and convey a value proposition to them. Assessing ground realities constituted very useful input in formulating policies and approaches to resolving issues. This has been a game changer. A “connect” has been established with each stake holder, including the state governments.
Now that the States like Tamilnadu and West Bengal are also going on the offensive, matters have become worse. A number of civil servants are getting caught in this political cross-fire. All this can actually derail the administration.
What is sometime forgotten at the Centre is that the States also have elected and responsible governments and that the Centre is not the sole repository of all wisdom. This attitude gets reflected in a number of policies that are announced by the Central Government. The details of such policies are defined to an extent that leaves little flexibility with the states and the auditors have a field day. In as complex and varied country as India, only the broad national parameters need to be defined and sufficient flexibility needs to be given to the states, treating them as responsible partners. The details of each scheme and initiative will have to be worked out locally. This will impart a greater ownership amongst the States giving the schemes greater chance to succeed.
In the interest of the country, this ongoing “war” needs to be stopped forthwith. The initiative will have to be taken by the Centre. Those in the States will also have to own the responsibility of ending this unfortunate “war” that has the potential to derail all the development as the country.
