Word is out about the possibility of reviving the National Advisory Council. A cabinet minister has said UPA-II is “certainly” going to do so, and Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot is on record with just such a demand. Were the NAC to be re-constituted, its mandate and institutional affiliation will be interesting to track, as too its similarities with the council’s first appearance under UPA-I.

In its first manifestation, the NAC appeared to reflect the emerging political division of labour of UPA-I. It derived its prestige from the chairpersonship of Sonia Gandhi, and was charged with implementation of the Common Minimum Programme. Its membership of activists and academics was seen as a way of harnessing the ground-level experience of civil society outside of the usual New Delhi clusters of politicians, consultants and bureaucrats. That experience was soon enough reflected in what became UPA-I’s two big-ticket reforms, both enacted as law by Parliament: the Right to Information Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. But the NAC, whose term officially “expired” on March 31, 2008, began to lose its clout with the resignation of Gandhi as its chief after an office-for-profit stocktaking in Parliament turned acutely political in early 2006. Without her, the NAC appeared almost irrelevant, and its demise two years later seemed inevitable.

Now as stirrings of revival are detected, the question is, what form will it take? Will it be led by the Congress president or a senior leader nominated by her, and will it confine itself to the Congress manifesto? And two, will the earlier accomplishment of gathering key civil society activists be again attempted? The debate is important, and not just for the Congress. Just as government too often closes itself to outside talent and experience, so do India’s political parties. The NAC attempted to be a think-tank for a political entity without binding its membership to political affiliation. But, in the end, it remained a work in progress, as seen by the subsequent resignations of, say, Jean Dreze and Aruna Roy. Interface between civil society and politics/ government will always be edgy, with the former wary of co-option and the latter mindful of administrative imperatives. Will NAC’s revival reflect this?