The ongoing state legislature session is witnessing a heated debate over the committees of Congress workers formed by the state government to ensure the implementation of its flagship guarantee programmes. Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Dal (Secular) legislators took it up in the Assembly and Council and also sought the Governor’s intervention to abolish them. The government, meanwhile, stuck to its guns.
The committees at the state, district, and Assembly constituency levels were formed a year ago by drafting over 3,000 Congress workers into the administrative system. District and taluk committee heads are paid Rs 40,000 and Rs 25,000 monthly honorariums, respectively. District committee members get a sitting fee of Rs 1,200 per meeting, while it is Rs 1,000 for 14 members at each of the 224 Assembly segments.
That effectively means the government pays several crores to Congress workers every year to ensure the implementation of schemes that are done through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) — financial assistance to women heads of households or unemployed graduates. Other guarantee schemes, free electricity of up to 200 units, free bus rides for women, and additional rice of 5 kg, are incorporated into the existing mechanism.
The Opposition lawmakers are questioning the Siddaramaiah government’s decision on the grounds that it curtails their rights and responsibilities as elected representatives. It also sets a dangerous precedent of drafting thousands of party workers into the system, using taxpayers’ money to pay them, which blurs the lines between party politics and administration.
In a way, it also points to the top bureaucracy’s failure to caution those in power that such a move undermines the well-oiled administrative machinery at all levels, which is mandated to ensure the implementation of government programmes. Are decentralised institutions at district, taluk, and gram panchayat levels incapable of executing these programmes?
The government’s enthusiasm for ensuring the effective implementation of the schemes, which have a budgetary allocation of around Rs 52,000 crore is understandable. There is nothing wrong in drawing the help of the party cadre in that mission.
But there are questions: Is it just to draft them into the administrative system by paying from the state exchequer? Can the committees consisting of a particular party’s members be non-partisan in implementing government programmes? Did the government do any due diligence in appointing the members who will coordinate with the local officials? These raise several concerns.
Political analyst Dr Harish Ramaswamy terms it a redundant exercise and a misplaced priority by the government that needs to take care of many other pressing issues. “It is an effort to strengthen the party cadre at the ground level at the cost of the government. Where is the question of governance?” he asks.
Former minister HM Revanna, who heads the committee at the state level, says the purpose of the committees is to oversee the implementation of the programmes. Instead of people coming to the government offices, the committee members go to their houses to ensure that the programmes reach them, he says.
Politically, it is a shrewd move as it gives a sense of involvement among the ruling party workers. It also seems to be part of the Congress’ efforts to further strengthen itself as a cadre-based party in Karnataka, a key state for the Grand Old Party. The promise of implementing the five guarantee schemes was considered to be a major factor for the Congress’ landslide victory in the 2023 Assembly polls, when the party’s prospects elsewhere in the country were gloomy.
As expected, during the debate that disrupted the proceedings for two days, the government stuck to its guns by ruling out any rethink on the issue. Given the subtle power tussle within Congress, local body elections around the corner and the large number of party workers directly benefiting from it, it is difficult for the government to reverse such a decision.
Justifying the government’s move during the heated debate in the Council, a ruling party member sarcastically asked that if they can’t appoint their own party workers, should they be appointing Opposition members to the committees?
It is not about having ruling or Opposition party members in such committees. The job of implementation of government programmes is best left to elected representatives and officials. The debate on the issue is likely to continue in the State Legislative Council on Monday.