Revisiting ‘autonomy’

The Central government is doing exceedingly well in several fields including foreign affairs, finances and defense matters, and the entire world is aware of it, but in many other critical spheres, the government functionaries — both at the political and bureaucratic levels — are excelling more in rhetoric than concentrating on implementing sincerely the policy objectives. One such example is in the field of forest and environmental conservation. Only if the Prime Minister takes an interest and the PMO is pursuing the matter, the officials work to achieve the goals. One such case of good work done recently by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change relates to bringing back the majestic beautiful Cheetah from Africa. Another success relates to the achievements of the Nationally Determined Contributions on the Paris Climate Change deal. In both these cases, the Prime Minister had himself taken the initiative. But a Prime Minister cannot be expected to run the entire government by himself, and it is up to the minister in charge of the concerned department to oversee and take interest in cajoling the bureaucracy to perform.

A news item published on February 21, 2023, surprised me completely when the administration of one of the flagship institutions of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change — the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) — intimated the pensioners that the pension payment will be stopped as funds have dried up, and as and when funds are arranged it will be resumed. The ICFRE was created as an autonomous institution while reforming the world-famous Forest Research Institute in the year 1991, ostensibly to allow it flexibility in taking day-to-day decisions and to get funds from international agencies like the World Bank. What the mandarins in the ministry did at that time was to kill a well-entrenched research organisation in the name of granting autonomy because, then, it was becoming a fashion to create autonomous organisations. The whole business of converting government organisations into autonomous societies proved to be a retrograde step, especially after the finance ministry realised that these bodies need not be funded from the treasury but made self-reliant. It may be true in many cases but, in critical sectors like agriculture, forests and the environment, it cannot work as these sectors need continuous government investment. The ICAR and CSIR survived as autonomous organisations because they also function as independent departments, and the Directors of the individual institutes are granted functional autonomy. It worked in their case. The creation of ICFRE was part of the larger agenda of the then Environment and Forest Secretary TN Seshan who envisaged the creation of ICFRE on the lines of ICAR and CSIR so that a better futuristic infrastructure of administering the sector could be created to meet the new challenges. The January 1, 1990 resolution of the Ministry created the ICFRE with eight regional institutes and the Indira Gandhi Forest Academy so that research and training of forestry professionals can be improved. Seshan also created regional offices of the ministry, and these are the ears and eyes of the ministry today. These reforms were the biggest in the sector in the post-independence era. Though Seshan is known more for his tenure as Chief Election Commissioner, today, I firmly believe that Seshan — a tough IAS officer — was the best ‘forester/ environmentalist’ this country has seen. His determination to achieve success and forest conservation benefited a lot. His vision is today showing results in administering the forest and environmental laws. However, except in the case of ICFRE, he could not create it the way he wanted it to be because he was transferred from the ministry. When the ministry, in 1991, granted it autonomy, the cabinet note mentioned that it will be on the lines of ICAR and CSIR. However, after Seshan left the ministry, the bureaucrats, especially secretaries, only functioned in cocooned small groups rather than working jointly and, hence, promoted inefficiency and misdirection. I have vividly described in my book ‘Quest or Civility’ how the ICFRE is being slowly killed by the ministry, with poor ministers heading it and at a heavy cost to the nation. The present situation is a sad commentary on the part of the government when one notices that the right hand of the government does not know what the left hand is doing, or is not willing to move seamlessly and promote the left hand to go in the opposite direction.

The stoppage of pension in ICFRE is not a short-term problem but a manifestation of a larger malaise of how we run our institutions of national importance. In this case, what is glaring is the violation of the commitment the ministry had made in 1991 to the then Central government’s scientists and staff that their pension and other benefits shall be protected under the CSS (Pension Rules) 1972, believing that the employees opted for the autonomous ICFRE in 1992. In this process, however, more than 800 scientists and staff did not opt and were sent to the surplus cell of the Personnel Ministry. It was in itself a big setback to the research set-up. During my incumbency as Director-General, I ensured medical facilities and constantly pursued the issue of pension and the creation of technical cadres with some success. The ministry, again, in 2009, agreed to shoulder the pension liability of pre-ICFRE recruited employees. Now the question is why the ministry and the ICFRE governing board, headed by the secretary, and the society, headed by the minister, failed in steering the ICFRE smoothly and implementing the commitment. It shows that the people sitting in important positions in the allocation of funds have neither sympathy nor competence to lead such institutions. I have tweeted to the Prime Minister for an inquiry into how such a lapse can happen because he has stated that environmental conservation is a deep commitment for his government.

To improve the governance in key critical areas like forest conservation, one should end the saga of fake autonomy and bring back such institutions like ICFRE to the government’s fold because these institutions, amid climate change, have tremendous prospects of improving the food and water security as also the farmers’ earnings and livelihoods of our tribal people. There should be a complete ban on the creation of autonomous bodies. The need of the hour is to relook at how we allow the heads of departments to function. The Central government must promote the creation of separate agroforestry and ecotourism departments in the states and focus on managing the natural biodiversity through the strengthening of working plans. This sector needs a thorough relook and a revisit of its policy framework, which only the Prime Minister can do.

The writer is Chairman of Centre for Resource Management and Environment. Views expressed are personal