xaam.

in

http://www.xaam.in/2015/05/caged-parrots-and-steel-framepolity.html

Caged parrots and the steel frame(Polity ,PubAd , Hindu

Editorial,Essay)
A principal charge levelled against civil servants, post-retirement, is that they
speak up too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. The fear of reprisal
lasts much longer even after one has hung up ones boots.
The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijals interesting account of his years
in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public
administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise A
Practitioners Diary, is better known in the media for some of its startling revelations about the 2G scam.
In the book, he gives eloquent expression to his pent-up anguish over his maltreatment, especially the alleged
unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a
variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the
media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the
countrys administrative history.
Minister-civil servant relationship
Notwithstanding tribulations and moments of despair and disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the
first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of
those who followed him. For about three decades till 1975 to be precise things were quite hunky dory.
Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while
discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors.
The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to
kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority
in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation,
and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed
earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the
highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police was resented, and unquestioned
obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism
and hubris.
I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and
honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in
as decorous manner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid and abetment of
enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus.
The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped
out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its
impact becomes measurable.
It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including
the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed.
Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijals book is disjointed and gives the
impression of having been assembled from different sources all his own in a hurry. Some allowance may
also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.
Working in government

One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair
and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on
a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government
depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up ones boots, given the mystic power
of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to
recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture
painted by them that should count.
Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government
of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety
and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and
daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes
of Mr. Baijal.
Leading from the front
The gravamen of the charge that Mr. Baijal makes is that two successive Telecom Ministers pushed an agenda
that negated all canons of propriety and governance. He was warned against quoting rules and procedure that
had stood the test of time. He was asked to back off or else harm would come by him swiftly. One of the two
worthies told him imperiously that he (the Minister) was in fact the Prime Minister as far as telecommunications
was concerned. We are fortunate that he did not designate himself the countrys Prime Minister! Mr. Baijal was
also told in no uncertain terms that he should sever all links with the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) even when the
latter demanded written notes from the Ministry on burning issues of the day, such as allocation of 2G spectrum.
So much for a constitutional government! Mr. Baijal laments that in all this he received no support from the PMO.
Actually, he was asked to sail along with the stand of the Minister concerned, and not to be overly bothered about
the correctness or ethics of such a stand. The issue at stake here was not the then Prime Ministers own integrity,
which remains untainted and unchallenged to this day. What was relevant here was his position as the primus
inter pares, and an ability and willingness to control his Ministers. If he chose to play safe, how could you expect a
puny Secretary to the Minister to do anything different? This is an eternally relevant question in public
administration.
One may dismiss all that Mr. Baijal says as being a case of one mans word against another. It is also true that
such references to threats and innuendos from the highest in the countrys Executive can never be proved in a
court of law. This is the supreme advantage that many of our rulers enjoy.Yet I am willing to give credence to the
senior officials account. In the absence of convincing material against the latter that even remotely suggests
dishonesty on his part, I am inclined to believe the average civil servant.
Test of conduct
Mudslinging against a civil servant who complains comes naturally to many in authority, and it is quite possible
that Mr. Baijal is a victim of a malicious campaign. However, what causes me immense pain is Mr. Baijals
accusation against the CBI. He says that the Bureau was programmed to dig up dirt against him at the behest of
those who were annoyed with his firm stand on 2G and related issues. There was a witch hunt against him also
for his doings as a Secretary in the newly formed Ministry for Disinvestment nearly a decade after he relinquished
charge. Perhaps most shocking is alleged direct advice by someone in the CBI that he could save himself if he
roped in a few in the private sector who enjoyed a great reputation for following business ethics. If this were true,
only the almighty can save the country from politician-driven impropriety on the part of an agency that the highest
court of the land depends so heavily on for ferreting out the truth in many a scandal.
Here again, truth is difficult to explore. The perception of a pliable agency sticks and it is this that should receive
attention from anyone in authority who stands for values in public life.
What is critical to the situation is how to ensure that the CBI is staffed by good people who will not swerve from
the path of virtue. Autonomy to the CBI now a clich is only one of the several issues dogging the
organisation. What is more important is that its leadership should be one that should be tested for personal, good

conduct and an ability to stand up to pressures from those who count in government at any point of time. By this
yardstick, some CBI chiefs may be said to have failed the test, and brought ignominy to the organisation. The
probe that the Supreme Court has ordered against a former Director is proof enough that all is not well with the
fabled outfit, one founded by a man of the highest rectitude and in whose memory the CBI holds an annual
lecture.
No clinical process of selection will ensure the installation of an honest and neutral CBI chief. The selection
committee that comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India has
a huge challenge on its hands. In my view, the tyranny of seniority should be given the short shrift. Character
ascertained through various sources should alone prevail. If this sounds too moralistic and ludicrous, let it be
so.
(Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI Director.)
Keywords: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India , TRAI, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G , Power &
Private Enterprise A Practitioners Diary