Below is an excerpt from Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s essay titled ‘The Cabinet: A Check on Authoritarianism’, on The Great Indian Manthan: State, Statecraft and the Republic, edited by Pushparaj Deshpande and Gurdeep Singh Sappal.Paragraph breaks have been added to the original excerpt to make reading on digital formats easier.A Brobdingnagian PMOWhile PM Singh was striving to balance coalition pressures, especially in the second half of UPA-II, a concerted campaign was undertaken by the Opposition with the help of the ‘deep state’ to portray him as ‘weak’. The key levers of power suddenly stopped functioning.The reasons became clear when many joined hands with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which subsequently rode to power under Narendra Modi. Even though he publicly promised to correct the perceived (and frankly manufactured) flaws that had crept into the institution of the cabinet and the prime minister, it soon became clear that the new dispensation was not correcting mistakes but taking them to the other extreme.The principles of collective responsibility in government have sadly been ignored. Precedents that were established so painstakingly since 1947 have been flouted.‘The Great Indian Manthan State, Statecraft and the Republic,’ (Rethinking India series Vol. 10), Penguin Vintage, 2023.One glaring indicator of this is the dismissal of EGoMs [Empowered Group of Ministers] and GoMs as soon as the ruling dispensation assumed power in 2014. This was purportedly done because they contributed to the much touted ‘policy paralysis’. This logic was flawed because EGoMs and GoMs provided the cabinet with detailed information on subjects entrusted to them and in the process, enabled better policymaking. In abolishing EGoMs and GoMs, the NDA government has undermined informed and inclusive decision-making.This was exacerbated by the merging of ministries such as corporate affairs with finance on the one hand, and housing and urban poverty alleviation with urban development on the other. Purportedly done to further the goal of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, this seemingly innocuous move centralized powers in the PMO. In a less publicized statement released by the NDA government, it was explicitly mentioned that ‘wherever the Ministries face any difficulties, the Cabinet Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office will facilitate the decision-making process’.The rationale given for this was that it would ‘expedite the process of decision-making and usher in greater accountability in the system’. Interestingly, the portfolio allocation for the council of ministers lists ‘all important policy issues’ among others against the name of the prime minister. This is an unprecedented first, and the locus of power has effectively shifted from the cabinet to the PMO.This has been exacerbated with the appointment of bureaucrats and technocrats as ministers, eschewing the earlier practice of having political heavyweights as ministers. While it could be argued that this infuses technical expertise within government, this has grave implications for India’s social contract. Earlier, ministers were chosen because they had deep ties to specific groups—to communities, to sectoral interest groups, to academics/think tanks, to the diaspora, to civil society, etc.—apart from administrative experience. Their connections were leveraged to engage in a sustained dialogue with India’s diverse interest groups, to ensure that governance was more people-centric. Today, only the PMO is permitted to engage with all of India’s interest groups.In this construct, the Prime Minister is no longer first among equals, but the sole Chief Executive, like that in the United States of America.The morphing of the PMO into an independent Executive force is a perversion of the cabinet system. When individuals who cannot otherwise get elected begin to disproportionately influence governance, it leads to an oligarchic control of the State apparatus. Today, the PMO is a de facto super cabinet, that plans, directs and monitors major policies and projects, while the cabinet rubber-stamps decisions. That is why laws are moved that are not responsive to the true needs and aspirations of the people.This appropriation of ministerial prerogatives and functions has been extended to other spheres of governance as well. For example, it is true that India’s foreign policy uniquely depends on the political and strategic acumen of the Prime Minister, who has to consider all geopolitical, economic and tactical variables that could best further India’s interest. Nevertheless, the PM is advised by the External Affairs Minister, the entire foreign service and numerous advisers who provide considered inputs based on their expertise and experience. Eschewing this, PM Modi has spearheaded a highly personalized form of foreign policy, drawing from past precedents.A case in point is his decision to stop over in Lahore in December 2015 to greet then Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif on his birthday. This effort, supposed to be out-of-the- box thinking, ended up undermining years of patient and skilful diplomacy through which India had cornered Pakistan.Prime Minister Narendra Modi with US President Donald Trump at the ‘Howdy, Modi!’ event in Houston, Texas, September 22, 2019. Photo: The White House, Public domain via Wikimedia CommonsSimilarly, that a Prime Minister would go to campaign for the leader of another nation (Howdy Trump rally in Texas, USA) and again host a foreign leader in India for a rally (Motera rally in Gujarat) is highly questionable. It goes against every principle of foreign policy and diplomacy, for it is tantamount to interference in the internal affairs of another nation.Likewise, after the devastating earthquake in Nepal, there was no need to be so roughshod with Nepal over the Madhesi issue. Given our ancient cultural, religious and political ties, the earthquake was an opportunity for India to help our dear friends in need and thereby deepen ties with the Nepalese people. Instead, by blockading Nepal on the Madhesi issue, the NDA government has pushed Nepal (the only Hindu nation in the world) into China’s arms.Likewise, with China, PM Modi also made excessively personalized overtures to President Xi Jinping (as exemplified by meetings in Ahmedabad in 2014, Wuhan in 2018 and Mahabalipuram in 2019). Yet, his efforts have done little to stop China’s efforts to undermine India’s territorial sovereignty.Worse, PM Modi’s personalized diplomacy has lulled him into passivity. He has refused to condemn and counter Chinese aggression in Ladakh, Doklam and Arunachal Pradesh. In personally displaying weakness, PM Modi has compromised India’s standing and image.Therefore, it must be said, every Prime Minister needs to remember that friendships are between nations, not leaders. Personal political interests can never supersede the national interest.Mallikarjun Kharge heads the Congress party, and is Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha.