The 145;N146; in NGO

Aruna Roy8217;s letter resigning from the National Advisory Council is more revealing than she perhaps intended it to be. Roy, who has done impressive work in gaining the right to information in Rajasthan and in pressuring legislation on the subject at the Centre, says she is doing so in the absence of unequivocal government support to the Common Minimum Programme. The specifics of her complaint are interesting. For all her good intent, for instance, her letter to the PM demands of his government an alarming inflexibility and overreach. She is pained to see work on the Narmada dam proceeding apace, never mind that it is on the Supreme Court8217;s orders. But the dilemma posed in her letter is larger. It calls in question the sort of partnership between government and civil society proposed by the NAC.

In the euphoric aftermath of the Congress8217;s return to power at the Centre, a new way was announced. The expertise and experience of the non-governmental sector was sought to be harnessed in an experiment in keeping the government honest to its stated promise. Men and women from NGOs would assist NAC Chairperson Sonia Gandhi 8212; also gone from the post, for other reasons 8212; in advising the government on how to adhere to provisions of the CMP. In that effort, Jean Dreze 8212; who resigned earlier 8212; brought considerable expertise in drafting the employment guarantee legislation. Roy made her presence felt on RTI. Two years on, their departures testify to the flawed vision on which the NAC was populated.

For government, it raised the uncomfortable question: who should lead policy, those elected by the people or those inducted to advise on a vision document drafted by the ruling coalition? It raised questions about accountability. The accountability of legislators, ministers and bureaucrats is clearly worked out in a democratic system, but what about experts from civil society advising from outside established institutions? And for grassroots workers like Roy who have spent a lifetime in agitating for people8217;s rights, the move carried the danger of co-option. It threatened to take the moral edge off their protests. Roy8217;s resignation was inevitable. It should also serve as a valuable lesson for government and civil society.