Open Forum
New Delhi, 4 March 2013
Cleansing Public Life
CIVIL SERVICE AS OPPOSITION?
By Dharmendra Nath, Retd IAS
In his address to Parliament,
President Pranab Mukherjee recently reiterated the Government’s resolve towards
“greater transparency …and accountability in governance.” Towards that end
amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act “to punish the guilty and
protect the honest public servants” are under consideration. Sadly, the woods
have been missed for the trees. The role of the Civil Services needs to be
looked at in its entirety.
Recall Hon’ble Jim Hacker, portrayed
as Minister and then Prime Minister in the once popular and very perspicacious
BBC TV serial Yes, Minister & its
sequel Yes, Prime Minister said in
one of the episodes “Opposition aren’t really the opposition. They are just
called the Opposition. But, in fact, they are government in exile. The Civil
Service are the Opposition in residence.” What he means is that basically the
Government and the Opposition are on the same side. In our country the Kejriwal
exposes fully bring out the truth of the statement. Government and the
Opposition, each is just as good or bad on the touchstone of probity. If there
is a Vadra, there is a Gadkari too. Then where is the Opposition?
The Civil Service is or ought to be
the Opposition. It used to be largely true with us once. Not so any more. With
the introduction of the concept of a committed civil service and its large
scale politicisation and a general all-round denigration of services all that
has changed. Services today are hardly ever able to stand up against arbitrary
exercise of political power
Civil Service are meant to carry out
political decisions of the Government, but not without putting forward their
viewpoint if the situation so demands. For the Civil Service, it is like
walking on a razor’s edge, a very delicate exercise calling into play all its
hidden reserves. A destructive interpretation can make the government a
fighting arena. A constructive understanding of the same, however, creates
unmatched possibilities of cleansing the public life.
The role of the Civil Service in
this tricky situation is thus in constant need of a realistic definition
between the extremes of servile subordination and arrogant professional stance.
This is an area for the Civil Service institutes to keep visiting and
revisiting in the context of the times. In their docility the Services chose to
be silent during the Emergency. How was that brought about?
As it is, political executive is
watched over only very remotely by the judiciary despite the provisions of
public interest litigation and suo-moto cognizance. Mostly, somebody has to
move the courts. Legislature is free to question the government, but again it
is from outside. Civil service, on the other hand, is placed in a very enviable
position in this respect. It has inside knowledge of matters. It is fully
involved with the decision making and execution processes of the government. It
works on the same files as the political executive and is fully aware in real
time of the progress of matters under consideration. It can interrupt its
masters with their hand in the cookie jar. James Hacker was aware of this
inconvenient truth. That is why Civil Service was to him Opposition in
residence.
Does anyone really care for our
Civil Service? Let us leave out lower functionaries of revenue, police, forest
and transport departments and their daily petty extractions. They are not a
part of the public policy forming set. What about the higher Civil Service?
Does it speak up?
Admittedly, Civil Service does not
comprise all saints. Nor does the society. It is all a matter of checks and
balances and our willingness to use them. If we choose to use it, the Civil
Service is an available safeguard to ensure due exercise of Executive power.
In India, we have devised ingenious
ways of silencing the Civil Service and making it docile. One, floating the
concept of a committed Civil Service. Two, constant harping on the mercenary
aspect of the Service. Three, repeated admonitions to show respect to the
elected representatives.
The idea of a committed Civil
Service is of the same vintage as the accompanying political slogan Garibi Hatao (Remove poverty). Both are
equally vague as to what is implied. Committed is a high sounding word. Committed,
yes but to what? To the Constitution, to the ruling boss or to one’s own
conscience? The slogan never went that far. In the meantime it has become a
convenient tool to sift out a portion of the civil service.
That Services are mercenary whereas
political masters are true public servants is an idea constantly dinned into
the public mind in an effort to assert the supremacy of political power. This
in effect denigrates the Civil Service. It tends to create in the public mind a
distrust of the Services. This is totally counterproductive as we are thereby
indirectly depriving ourselves of the full services of those whom we have paid
for them.
Rendering service for money is not
to be scoffed at. In fact, giving a fair return for money should be considered
very honourable. It is much better than perpetrating frauds behind the façade
of honorary service. In this matter we can do no better than recall the lines
of A E Housman written for the paid soldiers of World War One who laid down
their lives for their country: ‘What God abandoned they defended, And saved
the sum of things for pay.’
There is a lot of riding rough shod
over the Services in the name of showing proper respect to the elected
representatives. By all means due respect must be shown to this class but it
should not become a convenient tool for them to browbeat the Services. Elected
representatives many times use it as an arm twisting device. Let us not forget
that rule of law is as much a part of democracy as its representative
character.
Moreover, our Government’s handling
of the Civil Service itself is far from satisfactory. Its system of empanelment
and posting is calculated to create a docile subservient service. Continuous
know-towing to the bosses, which it involves, has nearly broken down the back
of the Civil Service. There is no frame, steel, bamboo or anything. If you have
a straight spine you will not get empanelled, and if empanelled you will not
get a posting in GOI. The system is looking for reflexive obedience.
Many out of those selected by
government are subsequently investigated for criminal conduct and other
irregularities. It may be revealing to investigate such cases and see what
could have been done to avoid their selection. As it is, for most of the Civil
Service, Government’s personnel policy operates as a glass ceiling and ensures
that one moves up beyond a point only if one has a favourable voice.
The move to make the CAG’s office a
multimember office should be viewed against this backdrop. Election Commission
became a multimember body in similar circumstances. Political opposition is
unlikely to pose any real problem to such a move. This time, though, it will require
a Constitutional amendment. Who in power or hoping to be in power wants a
strong CAG?
All in all, we need to firmly
clarify the role of the Civil Service and its operational freedom in our scheme
of things. To revert to the language of the opening paragraph, we need a
clearer understanding of its constructive role as the Opposition in residence.
---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|