In March this year, Maharashtra Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde convened a special meeting of his team: to find room for 18 of his 69 ministers, some of whom are operating from home and offices of bureaucrats. Last heard, beyond temporary measures Shinde was considering spending Rs 70 crore to construct a fully computerised annexe.

The Union Cabinet meets the criterion but needs to trim

Shinde and the Government of Maharashtra may just be spared the trouble and the cost. Last week, the Union Cabinet resolved that no government-at the Centre or the states-could field a council that is more than 10 per cent of the size of the legislature. And for smaller states it would be a maximum of seven. If the resolution were to be ratified by Parliament, Maharashtra with 363 legislators (288 MLAs and 75 MLCs) would be allowed only 36 ministers, and Shinde constrained to drop 33 of his ministers.

It is not just Shinde or Maharashtra that would be spared of this jumbo-sized burden. India's 30 states elect 4,502 legislators (including MLCs in the bi-cameral states) which means under the proposed provisions all the state governments put together cannot have over 450 ministers. On the ground though, thanks to a volatile cocktail of regionalism, coalition politics and plain profligacy, India's 30 states bear the burden of 915 ministers. Very simply, if the two Houses of Parliament approve the Government's initiative state governments in the country would have to sack 458 ministers.

There is a counter argument that the trimming down of political fat would save only a few crores of rupees. Take Karnataka, which spends Rs 9.48 crore per annum on its council of 48 ministers. If it were to sack 19 ministers it would save around Rs 3.75 crore on a pro-rata basis. Maharashtra, which spends Rs 12.11 crore on its flock of 69 would save about Rs 4 crore and Punjab, which spends Rs 6.5 crore, may save Rs 4 crore if it trimmed its council. In Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu may save a fourth of the annual Rs 17.5 crore spend. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals a saving of around Rs 100 crore in salaries, expenses and allowances-peanuts given the size of India's Rs 25,00,000 crore GDP.

But it is not just what the governments spend on salary and allowances. Andhra Pradesh ministers have a travel budget of Rs 15 crore. In Punjab housing loans for ministers were recently hiked from Rs 6 lakh to Rs 10 lakh and constituency allowance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 8,000 per month. There is also the cost to the states' economies. Thanks to the Parkinson Principle each minister costs crores in terms of the bureaucratic baggage of secretaries and staff he drags along. Theoretically, a larger council could help devolve work and yield results.

Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi argues that "smaller states will suffer because of too few ministers" faced as they are with 54 departments. Perhaps. But in practice larger governments have only added to the inefficiencies. Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, for instance, welcomes the fiat "because given the political exigencies, no regime would be able to voluntarily adhere to a limit".

The fact is the size of government has less to do with the needs or complexities of governance and more to do with political expediency. Shinde's flock of 69 is an attempt to keep the constituents of the nine-party coalition happy. As it was with Kalyan Singh, Uttar Pradesh's chief minister in 1997. To weather the crisis that came with withdrawal of support by Mayawati, Singh inducted every defector to form a 93-member council which spent Rs 55 crore on tea, biscuits and entertainment for guests. The party, however, didn't last long. So in a sense the resolution would also curb defections and the kinetics of quid pro quo politics. Again it isn't only multi-party coalitions that are guilty of profligacy. In Punjab, Amarinder Singh has made every second Congress legislator a minister, and in Karnataka S.M. Krishna's 48-member council is the biggest ever in Karnataka.

This isn't the first time the size of government has been discussed by a Union Cabinet. In the 1970s a similar decision was taken but never implemented. The Opposition could be higher this time, given the expansion of coalition politics. There is hope though. A day after the Cabinet passed the resolution Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Laloo Prasad Yadav said, "It is no doubt a good decision but chief ministers should have been consulted." Clearly, the compulsions have peaked across party lines and holds true for the Centre too. At least a dozen ministries can be abolished even if the 78-strong team fits the norm given the total of 790 parliamentarians. The 10 per cent criteria is neither explained nor sacrosanct. Delhi too needs to trim fat. Preaching, like charity, must begin at home.

— with bureau reports