Why India needs a National Policy Evaluation Council to unlock reform
India’s biggest growth constraint is not capital, technology, or talent.
It is the absence of an enabling policy-making process for difficult reforms.
Almost every serious reform India needs today is politically risky.
- Labour laws
- Land acquisition
- Police reform
- Judicial accountability
- Nuclear power
- Defence spending
- Environmental laws
- Electoral reforms
- Administrative overhaul
- And more…
Each of these reforms has strong arguments on both sides.
And that is precisely the problem.
In a politically surcharged democracy, logic and reason die first.
China’s advantage, and India’s dilemma
China grows fast because it does not ask permission from anyone.
India slows down because it must seek consensus.
From everyone who matters, and everyone who doesn’t.
Even if it works, authoritarian decisiveness is not good in the long term.
But democratic paralysis is equally dangerous.
India today sits between two extremes:
- China’s unchecked executive power.
- India’s political compulsions punish long-term thinking.
Neither is a model to emulate fully.
The real question is not whether reforms have costs.
Every reform does.
The real question is: How does a democracy arrive at reasoned national decisions when politics pulls in opposite directions?
And within a reasonable time.
Why political debate alone is not enough
Parliamentary debate is essential.
But it is also adversarial by design.
Opposition will almost always oppose. It’s their tool for survival.
Governments exist to survive elections.
In such an ecosystem:
- Long-term national costs are invisible.
- Short-term political pain is magnified.
- And reforms get postponed until crises force them through badly.
It’s the nation and its people who suffer the consequences.
India needs a pre-political deliberation space:
- Where facts are argued before slogans.
- And trade-offs are examined before positions harden.
The missing institution: A National Policy Evaluation Council (NPEC)
India needs an independent, professional, multi-disciplinary body:
- A National Policy Evaluation Council
- Mirrored by similar bodies at the state level
This is not a decision-making body. It is a decision-enabling one.
How is this different from NITI Aayog?
NITI Aayog primarily formulates policy and acts as an arm of the executive.
NPEC’s role is to deliberate on these policies across the ideological and professional spectrum.
It does not just propose one ‘best path’.
It deliberates and maps all paths, including the ones the government might prefer to ignore.
Its strength lies in its broad-based representation: From apolitical professionals to politicians from diverse ideologies.
And the mandatory publication of not only the majority views, but also the dissenting ones.
The majority viewpoint points in the direction of the Council.
The dissenting views highlight the points to ponder.
This body could be composed of:
- Economists and scientists
- Engineers and doctors
- Social scientists and environmental experts
- Lawyers and retired judges
- Administrators with real governance experience
The specific numbers and proportions, and the process of election/ selection, are matters of detail to be worked out after further deliberation; the focus here is the institutional principle.
What this council would do
When a government proposes a major reform, it refers it to the Council.
The Council:
- Studies the pros, cons, risks, costs, and long-term outcomes
- Publishes individual opinions, minority views, and areas of consensus
- Makes no binding decision, but leaves a public intellectual record
This report is:
- Placed in Parliament/ Respective State Assemblies
- Made widely accessible to citizens
- Used by government and opposition alike
The government still decides.
The opposition may still choose to oppose.
But neither can pretend ignorance of professional views.
Why this changes the political equation
Reforms fail not because they are wrong,
But because they may have political consequences.
NPEC does three critical things:
1. Shifts the debate from intent to evidence
Reform discussions move from rhetoric like ‘anti-poor’ vs ‘pro-corporate.’
To evidence-driven national choices that optimise growth and welfare together, replacing ideological slogans with hard outcomes.
2. Creates shared responsibility
When experts across ideologies agree on hard truths,
Political parties lose the excuse of denial.
Even if they do not reach a consensus, the transparent record of their deliberation makes the ‘political cost’ of a reform easier to manage.
3. Enables decisive governance while preserving full democratic accountability
Decisions are still made by elected representatives
But informed by structured national reasoning.
Examples where this would matter immensely
- Should India sharply expand nuclear power despite public fear?
- How much environmental cost is acceptable for strategic infrastructure?
- The cost vs benefits of labour reforms
- Should defence spending rise substantially even at fiscal cost?
- How far should judicial accountability go without eroding independence?
- Need for Police Reforms
- These are not yes-or-no questions.
They are complex national trade-offs.
Statutory or informal? Start informally, then evolve
Should this body be statutory? Possibly.
But it need not begin that way.
India can start with:
- A formally recognized but non-statutory council
- Fixed tenure members
- Transparent selection criteria
- Mandatory publication of reports
Once credibility is earned, statutory backing can follow.
What matters is institutional continuity, not immediate legal force.
Will this undermine Parliament and Assemblies? No. It will strengthen them
Some parties may fear that such a body makes legislative debate redundant.
The opposite is true.
This elevates debate from noise to substance.
Parliament remains supreme.
But its debates will shift from rhetoric to substance.
Why this is vital, not optional
Without institutional mechanisms for consensus on hard reforms:
- India will always reform too late, if at all
- At a higher cost
- Under crisis pressure
China makes quick decisions.
The West debates, but has deep institutional advisory systems.
Smaller countries move fast because they align early.
India debates endlessly, and decides reluctantly when it does.
Lack of reasonable ease in the parliamentary process is no longer affordable.
The bottom line
This is not another committee.
This is not bureaucratic layering.
This is democracy upgrading itself.
If India wants growth without authoritarianism.
And reform without political suicide.
It must make essential but politically difficult decisions easier to take.
NPEC is not a luxury.
It is a strategic necessity.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
- One way to make difficult reforms possible - December 23, 2025
- Systemic solution to India’s aviation pilot shortage - December 15, 2025
- A ‘least objectionable’ solution to Ukraine war - December 6, 2025
