‘Abolition of AIHB in consonance of minimum government, maximum governance’

The Union textile ministry recently abolished the All India Handicrafts Board, Handloom Board and the Power Loom Board in consonance with the government’s vision of minimum government, maximum governance.

The ministry also changed the status of the eight Textile Research Associations to “approved bodies”, instead of the earlier “affiliated bodies”.

• It was in 1950, in a newly independent India that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehruhad invited noted cultural and handloom activist Jayakar to study the handloom sector and work out plans for its revival.
  • Eventually, she served as chair of the All India Handloom Board and Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation.
  • Jayakar also founded the National Crafts Museum in 1956. The board also has an imprint of Chattopadhyay, who was the driving force behind the renaissance of Indian handicrafts and handlooms post-independence.
  • She was instrumental in establishing the All India Handicrafts Board and the Central Cottage Industries Emporia.
• The All India Handloom Boardwas set up in 1992, to advise the Government in the formulation of overall development programs in the handloom sector.
  • It was also responsible for advising the Government on how to make handlooms an effective instrument for reducing unemployment and underemployment, and how to achieve higher living standards for weavers.
• The board soon became a leading voice for the revival of Indian handloom and handicrafts.
• Thereafter, the All India Handloom Board has been reconstituted from time to time.
• As India celebrated the National Handloom Day on August 7 2020, this was the first time it does so without the All India Handloom Board.

• Autonomous bodies (ABs) are a major stakeholder in the government’s functioning as they are engaged in diverse activities, ranging from-
  • formulating frameworks for policies
  • conducting research
  • preserving the cultural heritage
• Institutes imparting technical, medical and higher education fall in this category.
• Most of the ABs receives money from the Central Government by way of grants-in-aid (GIA). Since 2016-17, the Union budget accounts for the GIA figures to ABs separately.
• As per statement no. 24, 2017-18 (revised estimates), the amount disbursed to autonomous/grantee bodies was Rs 799.55 billion, which, in 2019-20, was increased to Rs 943.84 billion.
• These ABs employ a sizeable number of people as well. The apex administrative body of ABs is called governing council or governing body and is chaired by the minister or the secretary of the respective ministry.
• Besides, the ABs have specialised committees such as the purchase committee, works committee, finance committee, with nominated ministry officials.
• These ABs are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the annual report is presented in the Parliament every year.

• Ministries and departments frame policies and ensure their implementation.
• They are supported by a number of organisations such as autonomous bodies, statutory bodies, subordinate and attached offices, and affiliated organisations, etc.
• Their mode of establishment and funding, and functional autonomy differs.
• This is a bold step in achieving leaner government machinery and to introduce systematic rationalisation of government bodies.
• The intention to review the “other” government organisations has been evident for quite some time.
• In the 2016 Union Budget speech, then finance minister Arun Jaitley announced that a task force has been constituted for rationalisation of human resources in various ministries. He also contemplated a comprehensive review and rationalisation of autonomous bodies.

Despite a laid out administrative structure in ABs, there are a number of governance issues that needs review.

• On one side of the debate are proponents who believe that since these bodies are funded by taxpayer’s money, they should follow the policies of the government and be accountable the way the government departments are.
• Others claim that they being “autonomous” have the right to make their own financial and administrative policies.
• Not clearly defined: Obviously the stronger side wins, as autonomous bodies are not clearly defined.
  • To compound matters, the exact count of ABs is not known, with estimates ranging from 400 to 650 plus.
  • Then, ABs employ a considerable number. For example, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, an AB under the ministry of agriculture, has almost 17,000 employees.
• No uniform recruitment: however, unlike the government and the public sector undertakings, in which the recruitment rules are uniform and the recruitment is done by a centralised body such as the Staff Selection Committee (SSC), the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and the Public Enterprise Selection Board, there is any such body for CAB recruitments.
• Accountability issues: Finally, there is an accountability issue. Even though the senior ministry officials are required to attend ABs’ committee meetings, they mostly don’t due to their busy schedules. They nominate junior officials who often lack the jurisdiction to take meaningful decisions during the meetings. As regards audits, some ABs are audited by CAG whereas many are done by chartered accountants.

There is an urgent need to review the governance of ABs, and devise uniform procedures. The following measures should be adopted at the earliest:

• Legal framework: First, a legal framework to describe an AB should be drawn up, which defines the boundaries of its working, its autonomy, and the various policies that it must follow. This will simultaneously help identify the numbers.
• Comprehensive review: Based on a laid-out framework, each ministry will need to undertake a comprehensive review of ABs under their jurisdiction.
• Objective oriented: ABs that have outlived the cause for which they were established may need to be closed or merged with a similar organisation or their memorandum altered as per the new charter.
• Dedicated task force: In order to bring about uniformity in the policies, a task force needs to be set up under a pan-Indian agency such as SSC or UPSC to streamline the recruitment rules, salary structure, allowance and perks paid to employees, and mode of recruitment.
• Focus on participation: To ensure the participation of ministry officials, committee meetings of similar ABs should be held together so that the appropriate authorities could provide meaningful suggestions.
  • It is also alleged that most of the agenda items raised by ABs are routine in nature. This should be discouraged, and only the important policy issues that need the ministry’s intervention should be taken up in such meetings.
• Performance audit: A one-time performance audit of ABs should be undertaken by an independent agency. CAG had done an exhaustive performance audit of autonomous scientific bodies in 2016, highlighting the gaps in their performance. Such a theme-based audit should be done for other ABs as well.

 As of now, the board is not there. In future, the government may set up a central body to regulate handlooms and handicrafts in the country.