I think between such congresses there are also national elections. I think that we have always set store by the fact that our elections must be free and fair, allowing the electorate to articulate their view about the trend and direction of government. That serves as a check and balance in the system of democracy.
The approach that we eventually take to the Planning Commission is that we are mindful of all of these. What we don't want is a commission that finds itself impaled on a fundamental difference between itself and the executive because the Constitution vests executive authority with the President and the Cabinet. You cannot deal with the contradiction or have a lapdog commission. You can't have a commission that sets itself up as a place where bargaining takes place.
I am hoping that, in exploring these kinds of issues and making recommendations, as I have already indicated to the ad hoc committee, we would be persuaded by the issues that they raise in their report. We are undertaking to go back to them to indicate the issues that we will be taking forward, arising from the detailed work that they are doing.
We must find the kind of balance that would give the commission the necessary authority over and power to implement the issues that they raise. It is a difficult path. It may have been easier in 1994 to establish a National Planning Commission like this, but I think we have taken the decision that we want to have greater clarity and participation about the future. The perspective that we take should extend beyond the life period of an elected government. I think we must take account of these issues as we proceed. I thank you.