Reading the tea leaves wrong

Reading the tea leaves wrong

In a country where the head of government happens to be a former tea vendor, it stands to reason that denizens (a person, animal, or plant that lives or is found in a particular place.) of New Delhi's corridors of power are obliged to closely control the welfare of India's tea industry. And why not? Tea comprises India's largest single-product agri-business in value, exports as well as employment, direct and indirect. This has been so for decades altogether.

Governance, good or bad, is often fraught with the burden of adopting self seeking, here-and-now methods in an anxiety to demonstrate action. The impending dissolution of the Tea Board of India, should very recent media reports be true, would be a worrisome misstep whose logic and timing are opaque.

First, a lesson in history. Early in the post Independence flush (pun intended), the then government, headed by a mere imbiber of this delightful beverage, legislated The Tea Act (Act no. 29), 1953. The first sentence stated: “It is hereby declared that it is expedient ((of an action) suitable or appropriate.) in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tea industry.” These 23 fateful words endowed all Union governments since, including the current one, with the right to 'control' the tea industry.

The Tea Board owes its birth (genesis) on April 1, 1954 to Section 4 of The Tea Act of 1953. The board was created as the enabling administrative tool for the Union ministry of commerce and industry to exercise the 'control' cited above. Over 80 per cent of India's harvest was, and still is, grown in Calcutta's hinterland; therefore, by executive order, the new board was headquartered in this city.

Since its inception, the Tea Board has always been a credible (tenable) representative body. By writ of law, members of the board - up to 40 in number - collectively embody interests of tea-garden owners, growers, manufacturers and employees. Dealers and traders, both exporters and domestic, consumers, governments of tea-growing states as well as Parliament are represented too. Clearly the act was drafted well enough to ensure adequate protection of all stakeholders of the tea industry.

There is a catch, though. The Tea Act specifies that the board will consist of "persons, who, in the opinion of the Central Government, ought to be represented on the Board." In other words, all members are government nominees.

There's one more peremptory (not open to appeal or challenge; final) provision. Section 11 of the Tea Act states that the “Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the Board shall be dissolved from such date and for such period as may be specified in the notification.”

It is rather unusual that authority to dissolve a statutory board does not vest with Parliament but with the government of India. Apparently, as quoted above, Section 11 does indeed allow dissolution by executive fiat (a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.) . This isn't quite so. The Tea Board remains a “perpetual body”; only the board's body of members is changed. Sitting members vacate office, new faces are brought in.

To its credit, for years altogether, the Tea Board has done consistently well in promoting and developing the tea industry. In fiscal 2016-17, for instance, the volume of India's tea production reached an all-time high of 1,251 million kilogrammes (m.kg), up from 1,233 m.kg the previous year. Exports stood at a robust 223 m.kg despite purchase cuts by Pakistan and Russia. By all accounts, the board works quite efficiently from its current headquarter in Calcutta. Surely there is no imperative to replace existing board members wholesale.

The board's ability to deliver results probably flows from its pan-Indian administrative structure. Geographical coverage is very satisfactory, with 20 regional and 67 sub-regional offices spread over the country's 15 tea-growing states. With 558 employees, the Tea Board's annual reports express no grouse (complain about something) about staff shortage either.

With its spirit of self-confidence running strong, the board also 'extends support' to popularize tea as a beverage through Tea Councils in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany. A Promotional Directorate located at the head office in Calcutta and at overseas Tea Councils supervises the good work being done by these councils. Exports are going up, after all.

One wanders into the realm (a field or domain of activity or interest.) of conjecture but politics seems to play a role in the Centre's policy of revamping its control over tea. The industry's nodal body, the Tea Board, runs from a state where the ruling party at the Centre is a minor player in the Opposition. Its political stake in Assam, India's largest tea- growing state where the Bharatiya Janata Party is now in power, is very high. Besides, all it takes is an official notification to create a permanent tectonic ((of a change or development) very significant or considerable.) shift in the Indian tea industry's balance of power. It's easily done.

Opportunity for good governance doesn't end here. Under the Tea Act, the Centre is not required to explain why action is being taken. Therefore it need not divulge the whys and wherefores of the felt need for dissolution.

At the end of the day, runs our sad surmise (a supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it.), the cup of tea brewed by the Tea Board, Calcutta, doesn't cheer its bosses in New Delhi. Nobody knows why, and never will.