Rise of the Common Man

*Saumitra Mohan

With the mainstream national political parties losing to a greenhorn Aam Admi Party (AAP), a political coup d’état has been witnessed in the just-concluded Delhi Assembly elections. AAP has actually overshot its own expectations by bagging as many as 67 seats in a 70 member Assembly. Many established, mainstream parties were decimated in the process. It was a fictional David vs. Goliath battle where the former always wins the day owing to latter’s arrogance. The truth, however, remains that a few months back few political pundits were willing to believe that AAP would ever win even a respectable number of seats after Arvind Kejriwal resigned as Delhi’s Chief Minister last year, not to speak of being in a position to form the government for the second time in a row.

Everyone felt that AAP should have consolidated on its gains before quitting prematurely or before plunging in parliamentary politics all over the country without also consolidating its organizational base. But it is here that the mainstream parties were missing the wood for the tree. They refused to see the writing on the wall when AAP won 28 seats during the last Assembly elections in Delhi and they continued doing so thereafter. While everyone had his calculations, AAP had its own. Learning from its mistakes, it slowly but steadily picked up the thread to do a grueling ground-work to achieve the jaw-dropping feat while others allegedly took the voters for granted. 

                The Indian political landscape has been slowly changing with a conscious and a much mature Indian voter refusing to eat out of hackneyed political palms. The voter has always responded to the needs of the time and returned a government which it found most suitable to represent its interests. The time of the one-party dominant system (also called the Congress system by the ilks of Rajni Kothari and Atul Kohli) was long replaced by the multi-party coalition politics in the late eighties, reflecting the plural character of the Indian society. This system continued for quite some time till the voter got real disgusted. The coalition governments were often found deficient in delivering on the various developmental goals. Hence, the reversal to the single-party system in the search for good governance.

                The thumping victory handed to AAP by Delhi voters irrespective of caste, language, region and religion gives a lot of hope for the future of our democracy as the latter has been found on discount in recent times. While we have had a democratically elected government at all levels, the ‘demos’ and its interests were often sacrificed at the altar of political constraints which was nothing but a euphemism for selfish political conveniences. A democratic India was actually undemocratic at all the levels beyond its governments at the Centre, states or local bodies because once elected, most of the parties or formations in power would usually not care two-hoots for the interests of the people. The mainstream political parties have been alleged to treat the voters with utter contempt. The lip service paid to the people’s welfare seldom got translated to actual public service. And where it has been, voters have also returned them back to power.

                The common voters have been fed up with the populist politics to cater to a particular vote bank thereby throwing the larger interests to the winds. The politics of divide and rule no longer finds favour with the new-age electorate or neo-Indians. The neo-Indians are thoroughly fed up with the cantankerous divisive and disruptive politics of the day. The voter has been equally pissed with the monarchical, dynastical and feudal manner in which some political parties have been running their business. In fact, it has been one of the biggest criticisms of post-independence Indian party system that it has never been in sync with the political system of the country. While our political system is democratic, most of the political parties running the democratically-elected government are allegedly undemocratic with no system of regular intra-party elections to the various party positions.

                The various party positions in most parties are allegedly filled by the so-called ‘High Command’ or ‘Party Supremo’ through a decision-making mechanism which has always been opaque. And more often than not, these positions have allegedly gone to the kins or trusted courtiers, who have evinced the ability different from those required for running a system of governance. In fact, a criminal record, a penchant for vandalism and such other negative qualities are often considered the desideratum before you could think of entering Indian politics. And this was why, the common man was slowly moving away from participatory politics, not to speak of a saner person deciding to contest or ever making it to the portals of parliament on his own given the massive play of money and muscle-power.

                Even though the monarchy ended long back, the same made its come-back through democratic politics where some families and dynasties evolved their ‘democratic fiefdoms’. Just because they happened to be close to the dominant political family, things were easier for the scions of these families. The common man never knew how to make it to the rarefied precincts of politics even if one wanted to do so. The common man lives with an impression that either you have to be in the ‘good books’ of the dynasts or feudal lords or you should be having oodles of moolah before deserving a political party ticket to contest. Of all the electoral reforms effected by the Election Commission of India or by the subsequent Supreme Court judgments, the reforms in the Indian party system has been long overdue.

                Be it the parties or the candidates, the mainstream dramatis personae have often forgotten the voters once they have won the elections, with the voters left high and dry. Once elected, these leaders allegedly do a ‘Houdini’, being nowhere in sight. The voters keep running from pillar to post to get even her rightful work done and feels crestfallen when confronted with the irksome bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

                It is here that AAP made a refreshing difference. They were seen to be visibly working among the people. Most of AAP workers are young educated voters who don’t threaten voters into voting, but try to convince them through workable solutions to their problems. AAP was seen to speak the lingo of the common man and its 49-days political sojourn in its first avatar gave a glimpse of the shape of things to come. Hence, the massive landslide victory for it. Having said that, the electoral victory was the easier part of the political game; AAP’s real test will start when its takes the reins of power to deliver on a slew of poll promises it made in the run-up to the elections. It remains to be seen how AAP delivers on the huge popular expectations. Whether it slowly adopts the modus operandi of the mainstream parties or trails a new blaze also remains to be seen. Its success or failure will really decide the fate of the AAP brand of politics.

                What happens in future, only time will say? But one thing can be said very safely that AAP has changed the entire discourse of Indian politics, giving the classical Indian politician a run for his money? The mainstream political parties, almost all of them, need to do a serious soul searching to remain in the game otherwise it won’t be far when they or their politics shall soon become obsolete. ‘Shape up or ship out’ is the message on the wall which they can ignore only at their peril. Whatever be the case, that voter is the king, has been vindicated once again. You can no longer take the proverbial common man for granted.

*The views are personal and not those of the Government.

                

Ensuring Fixed Tenure for Bureaucrats

Saumitra Mohan

For a system of government to function well, it is imperative that the bureaucracy is ensured operational autonomy to work impartially and effectively to realize the various objectives as are required in the public interest. Such autonomy could only be ensured if they are cushioned against any undue influences. However, this is not what usually happens in this country as reflected in myriad instances. And the most regular weapon used to bring an upright bureaucrat around is the so-called ‘undesirable’ postings and transfers.

 An honest and non-pliable officer being hounded out through his career by way of frequent transfers is not something new. We have all been witness to such news which has become quite mundane by now. Civil servants like Ashok Khemka and Sanjeev Chaturvedi immediately come to our mind. The Damocles’ Sword of transfer has often been used as a potent and effective weapon by the political class against our famed steel frame which slowly but surely is alleged to be succumbing to relentless chipping at its foundations.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement on 31^st October 2013, issued directives to the Central and state governments to ensure that all civil servants be given a ‘minimum assured tenure’ at a particular posting before they are transferred, so they can work effectively. It also ruled that a Civil Services Board (CSB), comprising senior bureaucrats, be formed at the Centre, in each state and Union Territory to advise the government on matters such as postings, transfers and disciplinary action. The SC also directed the Centre and state governments to pass an order within three months on giving fixed tenure to civil servants i.e. by January 31, 2014.

The verdict, which is on the line of Apex Court’s earlier order on police reforms for giving fixed tenure to senior police officers in the Prakash Singh case, is likely to go a long way in ensuring functional freedom to the Indian bureaucracy. The judgement came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by 83 retired bureaucrats led by the former Union Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam drawing the attention of Apex Court towards multiple malaises afflicting Indian civil service including irregular and improper transfers of the bureaucrats. The PIL, inter alia, criticised the extant system of transfers, postings, promotions, disciplinary action and other personnel matters pertaining to the members of various civil services in India finding them ad hoc and opaque. The said PIL and many other recommendations of the earlier Administrative Reforms Commissions (ARCs) have always espoused and championed the need for some definitive measures bring about some system reforms for ensuring functional autonomy for India’s premier civil service.

            “Transfers are often used as instruments of reward and punishment, with officials being frequently transferred on the whims and caprices as well as the personal needs of local politicians and other vested interests. Officers, especially those in the All India Services, serving in state governments, have no stability or security of tenure,” the PIL said. The PIL had also advocated that the civil servants at all levels be given a minimum three-year fixed tenure in each post to encourage operational freedom within the precincts of rules and laws. It proposed that any premature transfer should be specifically authorised by a ‘Civil Service Board/Commission’ in special situations to be specified in writing.

            It was felt that guaranteeing a ‘minimum assured tenure’ in postings would effectively deter the political class from using transfers as a threatening weapon against the babus (read bureaucrats). Attributing the deterioration in bureaucratic functioning to political interference, the Apex Court hoped that “fixing tenure of bureaucrats will promote professionalism, efficiency and good governance.”

            It is against this background that a Notification was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) on January 30^th, 2014 in compliance of the October 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court. As per this Notification, cadre officers of All India Services (AIS) will now generally hold their posts for, at least, two years unless promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside the state or on training beyond two months. The said Notification shall hopefully come as a relief for the civil servants in, at least, those states where transfers are quite frequent.

The relevant rules framed in this regard say that “the Centre or the state government may transfer a cadre officer before the minimum specified period on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board”. However, the Competent Authority may reject the CSB recommendation but will, in that case, have to record its reasons therefor. In the matter of transfers, the state CSB is to consider the reports of the administrative department along with any other inputs and is also supposed to obtain the views of the officer proposed to be transferred.

The notified rules require the state CSB to submit a quarterly report in such form as it deems fit to the Central government, clearly stating the details of officers recommended for transfer before the minimum specified tenure while also recording the reasons for the same. The CSB in each state is to be headed by the Chief Secretary and would, inter alia, include senior most Additional Chief Secretary or Chairman, Board of Revenue or Finance Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and Principal/Secretary of the Personnel Department while considering the transfers of the IAS officers. For transfers of the IPS officers, the CSB shall comprise members of IAS Board plus Home Secretary and DGP; and for recommending the transfers of the IFS (Indian Forest Service) officers, the CSB is to include members of IAS Board plus Forest Secretary and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF).

            In pursuance to the DOPT Notification, many state governments have already constituted their CSBs, while many are still to follow suit. All said and done, critics argue that many civil servants would baulk at complaining against a premature transfer because of the potential victimisation in future. Again, it is not very clear as to what would happen if the terms of the said DOPT Notification is not complied with or violated. The concept of the ‘competent authority’ with power to reject the CSB recommendation itself is not clearly delineated.

Besides, it is felt that the Central interference in such internal state matters might be few and far between. The castigation of a state government for violating the guidelines laid down in the said Notification may very well hinge upon the mutual understanding between the two governments. The Centre, in most likelihood, will gloss over the state deviation for apprehension of upsetting the mutual political understanding between the two tiers of governments.

            Notwithstanding negativity of doubting Thomases, a positive beginning has definitely been made. One only hopes that with a conscientized civil society and a vibrant Fourth Estate, the governance in India shall become more organized, orderly, transparent and effective as and when such initiatives get slowly imbibed by our system.

*The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the government.

Indigenising Our Defence Procurement

*Saumitra Mohan

          With the motto of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’, the new federal Government has definitely raised popular expectations among the people. The Government has accordingly been taking myriad initiatives to realise this chimerical will-o-the-wisp. Such initiatives inter alia include scrapping obsolete and anomalous laws and rules, strengthening federal structure, targeting corruption and corrupt practices, ensuring more accountability and transparency to make the system more efficient, effective and delivery-oriented.

The recent replacement of the Planning Commission by the NITI (National Institute for Transforming India) Aayong is also an expression of the same. The Government in Delhi has also started paying attention to many critical issues which have been hanging fire for very long time for want of a clear thinking. As an extension thereof, the new Government has finally realised and cognised the problem of deadlocked defence purchases which have been pigeonholed because of absence of a transparent policy.

          Pragmatism informed by the appreciation of national interests has given way to a garbled policy of compromising national security in favour of playing safe to avoid the accusations of ‘kickbacks’ in defence purchases. One really fails to understand as to why it took so long to comprehend the emergent need for replenishing our defence hardware, more so when the same has serious implications for national security.

The best that could have been done under the circumstances by the then decision-makers was to evolve a consensual policy in consultation with all the stakeholders to shop for the required military equipment and hardware. A transparent defence purchase policy predicated on a well-thought out guideline would have long done the needful in this regard. It is good that the new dispensation in Delhi has finally seen through the problem to effect the necessary changes to keep our war machine fighting fit as the same was slowly becoming rusted for want of due care and nurturing it needed. After all, they rightly say, ‘if you want peace, it is better to prepare for war’.

          As per the decision taken by the Government, the operations of ‘representatives’, another term for agents or brokers, will now be officially recognised and allowed in defence purchases, something which could have been done long back. The fact remains that these ‘brokers’ have always been there and working behind the scene to facilitate defence deals for the governments across the world. However, the same has often complicated defence acquisitions over the years to the chagrin and detriment of the armed forces in this country. Such priggish thinking has at times tarred every ‘agent’ with the same brush, vilifying each of them as a crook of the first order who must be shunned at any cost.

Indian political history has been witness to the downfalls of politicos and governments (remember the resignation of the redoubtable Krishna Menon or V P Singh’s movement against the Bofors kickbacks and the subsequent fall of Rajiv Gandhi government). The multi-billion dollar defence purchases became really difficult for any government thereafter because of the eyeballs and accusations they invited. The defence purchases continued languishing in the wilderness for want of timely decision to the extent that our arsenals were said to have become dangerously depleted. At least, that is the impression which got currency among the people with no attempt to disabuse the same.

The state of affairs got only worse as the list of black-listed defence suppliers grew longer with every inquiry instituted to probe into such accusations. There came a time when it became really difficult to find a single established producer with credentials from whom military hardware could be procured. While the great powers including our classical opponents were effecting a ‘revolution in military affairs’ (RMA), we were finding it really tough to retain and replenish even our regular arsenal as required for conventional wars.

Reportedly, George Fernandes, the former Defence Minister, attempted to put in place a system of ‘registered agents’, but the initiative did not go very far for want of clarity and response from the stakeholders. Against this background, it would be really premature to give a verdict on the success of the newly-drafted Modi-Parrikar formula, but the silver lining is the framing of a well-delineated policy backed by a clear thinking on the issue which has eventually accepted that defence agents are important facilitators in defence procurement.

Presence of ‘agents’ or ‘brokers’ is a hard reality across the world. Few defence deals could move without their doing the necessary facilitation which is deemed to be a very mechanical and specialised task though the method of their payment still remains ambiguous and woolly in this country. The terms like ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ have become dirty expressions in defence lexicon, something which is integral to business and commerce in a laissez-faire economy in a globalized world.

After all, what problem should be there with commissions in a commercial deal to purchase defence hardware if the same is buttressed by a well-laid out transparent policy. After all, commissions are nothing for ‘remuneration’ paid for the services provided and promote a healthy competition which could actually work to our advantage in securing the best available deal. Have not we allowed brokerage or commissions in many other sectors of our economy and day-to-day life? If yes, why should we have any objection with the same when it comes to defence procurements?

One feels that the revulsions against the ‘agents’ in an Indian context comes from their reputation for being the conduits through which underhand payments are channelled. It is felt by the observers that much of the remedial action on this score has generally been misdirected all these years. Had we insisted on making the facts and phenomenon of ‘commission’ above board and transparent by the defence suppliers, the situation would not have become so complicated.

So, as long as the defence deals and the cognate ‘commission’ are transparent and known to all the stakeholders, there should be no problem. The authorised, registered, commissioned, or empanelled ‘representatives’, ‘agents’ or ‘brokers’, whatever we may call them, can rightfully claim their ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ as offered by the suppliers as per declared pre-laid and pre-declared norms. The problem arises only when the alleged ‘sweetener’ is offered to an office holder (read a Minister or a bureaucrat) for their legal or illegal facilitation of the process, thereby vitiating the process.

          Be it noted that while kickbacks in major deals have become ‘hot’ political issues, corruption is deeply entrenched in all the purchase processes down the line – be it footwear, foodstuffs or clothing. A perusal of the government or independent probes into corrupt deals will confirm the same. Hence, if the Centre really intends to effect a clean-up, the entire architecture of defence purchase needs to change across the spectrum. And, the same should be extended to other sectors of government operations as well. The ‘Make in India’ campaign should also goad the government to nudge the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) out of slumber to make a firm commitment to indigenise our defence procurement as far as possible and practicable to reduce the need for foreign acquisitions.

*The views expressed here are personal and not that of the Government.

           

Indo-Bangla Swap Deal: A Long-awaited Move

Saumitra Mohan

‘You can change history, but you can’t change geography’, India’s former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpai had famously said. But this basic common sense has often eluded the movers and shakers of International politics thereby resulting in constant sanguinary internecine struggle for power. The insane and inane one-upmanship among the nations have engendered such power games which have eventuated in ‘mutually assured destruction (MAD)’, a phrase often used in the context of the Cold War.  

Hence, it is always advisable to have a peaceful border otherwise developmental interests of a nation generally get compromised. Anthropogenic as they are, borders between states are often arbitrarily drawn. And the borders that divided India and Pakistan on the map were no different as they did not represent a cartographer’s precision. The international boundary between the two new states was drawn hastily when the British left India. As a result, thousands of people were left high and dry; stranded in enclaves as citizens of one country but living in territories encircled by that of the other. Local folklore has it that these enclaves on either side of the border are actually remnants of high-stake barters in chess games between the erstwhile Maharajas of Cochbehar and Rangpur in pre-colonial, undivided Bengal.

The people in 111 Indian enclaves (17,160 acres) in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi ones (7,110 acres) in India have been living in these pockets without any rights as lawful citizens of either country. However, after Bangladesh’s emergence as an independent nation in 1971, both India and Bangladesh signed an agreement in 1974 to settle the boundary dispute between them.  Again in September 2011, the two countries reached an understanding to implement the 1974 ‘land boundary agreement’. However, due to domestic political constraints, India failed to have the agreement ratified by a constitutional amendment in her Parliament. And this procrastination to ratify the agreement had an India-friendly Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed on the mat in her country. The latter was panned thoroughly by Bangladesh opposition parties for soft-pedalling the issue.

The present Central government is cautiously treading to carry forward the initiative taken by the previous regime of Manmohan Singh. The extant government should waste no time in introducing the relevant Bill in Parliament to push through the required constitutional amendment. The good thing is that neither country loses much territory as a result of the exchange but the accruing diplomatic capital shall be considerable for both the countries. The agreement affords a big opportunity for India to consolidate its ties with Bangladesh.

The proposed agreement builds on ‘behind-the-scene’ toil of the 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs chaired by MP Shashi Tharoor which recommended the deal in ‘overall national interest’. The Committee has rightly urged the government to emergently present the Bill in Parliament to permanently settle the tickling Indo-Bangla boundary dispute. As a result thereof, New Delhi shall be exchanging the enclaves as well as other small plots of land that are in ‘adverse possession’ of either country. There would not only be an exchange of enclaves between the two countries, but there shall also be a settlement of the territories held in adverse possession by both the countries. While India legally receives 2,777 acres of land in ‘adverse possession’, i.e. territory already under de facto Indian control but legally owned by Bangladesh, Bangladesh will, in turn, receive 2,267 acres of territory in its adverse possession but lawfully belonging to India.

The long-delayed settlement, as and when it comes around, has been tipped to be an example of good diplomacy by the two countries. As a mature democracy, India must not allow petty politics to interfere with such diplomatic moves which consolidates its position as a regional power in South Asia. All political parties must come together to ensure the ratification of the ‘swap deal’ as it not only settles a contentious border but also opens a window for settlement of intractable border disputes with China. Peaceful borders with her neighbours will enable India to focus on its strengths to eventually emerge as one of the ‘super powers’ to reckon with in international politics.

All said and done, India should also strive to evolve a broad-based policy mechanism whereby such issues of national importance are not held hostage to domestic politics as noticed in this case. The very fact that the deal was pigeon-holed at the last moment during the second UPA regime reflects poorly on the background work done by the occupants of the South Block. Due diligent effort should be made to factor all domestic concerns and take aboard all the stakeholders before moving ahead with any such diplomatic initiative so as not to lose face in the Comity of Nations. A nation speaking in one voice is always a nation that gains in international sweepstakes and occupies a place of pride in the international pecking order.

The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and don’t reflect that of the government.

. 

Indo-Bangla LBA: Transferring the Enclave Population

Saumitra Mohan

With the longstanding land boundary agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh on the verge of being clinched, the exchange or transfer of population as residing in the enclaves (or ‘chhintmahals’ as called in the local parlance) to be exchanged between the two countries is yet another problem they need to resolve. The question of giving options to the inhabitants residing in these enclaves needs to be addressed sooner than later to have a holistic resolution of this long-pending issue between these two South Asian neighbours. Incidentally, both India and Bangladesh conducted a joint census between 14-17 July, 2011 to determine the total population in these enclaves and found their number to be around 51,549. Of them, 37,334 persons were in Indian enclaves within Bangladesh while 14,215 people were residing in Bangladesh enclaves within India.

Historically speaking, the international boundary between India and Bangladesh was drawn hurriedly when the British left India. As a result thereof, thousands of people were left stranded in a number of unsettled enclaves as citizens of one country but living in territories surrounded by that of the other. The people in 111 Indian enclaves (17,160.63 acres) in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi ones (7,110.02 acres) in India have been living in these pockets without any rights as lawful citizens of either country.

The proposed agreement builds on ‘behind-the-scene’ toil of the 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs (SCEA) chaired by MP Shashi Tharoor which recommended the deal in ‘overall national interest’. The Committee has rightly urged the government to emergently present the Bill in Parliament to permanently settle the tickling Indo-Bangla boundary dispute. As a result thereof, New Delhi shall be exchanging the enclaves as well as other small plots of land that are in ‘adverse possession’ of either country. There would not only be an exchange of enclaves between the two countries, but there shall also be a settlement of the territories held in adverse possession by both the countries. While India legally receives 2,777 acres of land in ‘adverse possession’, i.e. territory already under de facto Indian control but legally owned by Bangladesh, Bangladesh will, in turn, receive 2,267 acres of territory in its adverse possession but lawfully belonging to India.

It is learnt that the SCEA has proposed in its report to the House of People (read Lok Sabha) that the inhabitants, living in Bangladeshi enclaves in India, should be granted Indian citizenship under Section 7 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (as applicable to population residing in territories incorporated into India) as these enclaves are to be transferred to India as part of the proposed Indo-Bangladesh land swap deal to be inked soon.

            “A modest demographic change in both the countries is expected to take place after this agreement comes into force. Not only would some Indian citizens return to the mainland from the previously held enclaves, but a number of currently Bangladeshi nationals would be given Indian citizenship after the area is ceded to India,” the report says. After all, it is only logical that the Indian citizens living in Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh are given a choice to retain their Indian citizenship after these territories are legally handed over to Bangladesh.

Similarly, it is also advisable that the Bangladeshi citizens living in enclaves to be handed over by Bangladesh to India are also given an option to opt for Indian citizenship. If the same does not happen, the life of these people shall continue to be as troubled as it was earlier. It would also constitute a gross anomaly as being Bangladeshi citizens, they cannot continue to live in territories owned by India unless they are resettled in legally-owned Bangladeshi territories to be identified for the purpose or they are given a choice to switch their citizenship without there being any need to change their place of residence i.e. current Bangladeshi enclaves encircled by Indian territories.

As the proposed territorial and population exchanges shall have serious implications for the country’s security and integrity, one feels that government should exercise all options available to put in place a suitable mechanism and modality to check for the bonafides and credentials of the Bangladeshi nationals who shall be conferred Indian citizenship after legal incorporation of the enclaves where they have so far been residing as citizens of Bangladesh because these territories legally belonged to the latter.

The SCEA, therefore, rightly observed that the cognate security aspects should be thoroughly examined before the proposed population exchange is effected. It also recommended suitable augmentation and upgradation of the law and order machinery in the affected areas in consultation with India’s eastern provincial government of West Bengal. 

It may be noted that because of the fact that these Bangladeshi enclaves are deep within Indian Territory without any fencing or means to physically demarcate them, the Bangladeshi citizens in these enclaves have been practically free to mix with the rest of the Indian populace. In fact, there is practically no choice available to these people as they are physically encircled on all sides by Indian territories; so that they have to mix and mingle with the people living in Indian lands geographically contiguous to theirs. Such a scenario makes it very difficult for the Indian law enforcement authorities to effectively carry out their duties in these enclaves as technically they are not Indian territories notwithstanding the fact that many of these enclaves have become the hot-beds of criminal activities. It is this anomalous situation that the proposed LBA and its attendant Protocol seek to address as and when they are ratified and implemented by the two countries.

The Union Home Secretary, while replying to the SCEA on the security dimensions of the proposed bilateral deal is reported to have said on 29 October 2014 that ‘...as far as the Indian population living in Bangladesh is concerned, they are our citizens and they have every right to come back...But when they come back, we intend to take the biometric details of all of them and carry out the entire exercise to ensure that we know who all are coming. Then in close cooperation and consultation with the government of West Bengal, they will be taken to places where they are proposed to be settled’.

In a reply to the SCEA regarding safety of the Indian nationals staying back in the Indian enclaves to be transferred to Bangladesh, the Ministry of External Affairs is reported to have affirmed an understanding with Bangladesh on this score. It said, “...Indeed such an understanding is the basis of the 2011 Protocol and the fundamental premise on which exchange of enclaves would take place. As per the LBA, citizens of Indian enclaves in Bangladesh are given the right of staying where they are as nationals of the State to which the areas are transferred. If they choose to exercise this right, they would voluntarily acquire Bangladeshi citizenship and all rights of Bangladeshi citizens would accrue to them”. Same right shall be reciprocally granted to the inhabitants of Bangladeshi enclaves in India to stay back and acquire the Indian citizenship as also suggested above.

The Indo-Bangladesh LBA is a low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked at the asking of the two countries. One only hopes that resolution of this issue hanging fire for a long time would pave the way for further strengthening and consolidation of a very functional bilateral relation between the two countries. As a mature democracy, India must not allow petty politics to interfere with such diplomatic moves which consolidates its position as a regional power in South Asia. All political parties must come together to ensure the ratification of the ‘swap deal’ as it not only settles a contentious border but also ensures peaceful borders with her neighbours which enables India to focus on its strengths to eventually emerge as one of the ‘super powers’ to reckon with in international politics.

*The views expressed are personal and don’t reflect those of the Government.

            Lateral Entry into Civil Service: A Timely Move

Saumitra Mohan

The federal democratic system in India since our independence has been governed by the elected Executive popularly known as the Council of Minister headed by the Prime Minister as primus inter pares. This elected Executive changes every quinquennium depending which political party gets first past the post at the hustings. The winner is bestowed the responsibility to run the country as per the arrangements specified in the Constitution of India. However, to ensure systemic continuity there remains in place an impersonal, permanent Executive aka the complex hierarchical bureaucratic structure, the famed steel-frame of India.

            Notwithstanding the eventful vicissitudes of fortune as Indian democracy has experienced over the years, if the country has seen peaceful transitions from one government to another, the credit, inter alia, has to go to India’s often-maligned steel-frame, howsoever rusted it is alleged to be. This stereotypical Weberian institution, predicated on rational and predictable rules, has duly and ably ensured the sustenance of the often doddering and toddling baby steps of Indian democracy. And Indian bureaucracy usually has its recruits selected through one of the toughest recruitment examinations in the world as conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The Indian civil service remains pretty ensconced in the system to provide the critical support and facilitation to the elected Executive in governing the country.

However, lately this hoary leviathan (read bureaucracy) has been under fire. Trenchant vitriolic attacks have been mounted by the critics for its conservatism and status-quoist approach to the various protean governance issues as facing our polity. It has been argued that Indian civil service has been failing and flailing in its duty to transmogrify itself to suit the developmental demands of this young nation. The civil service, which has so far rendered yeoman service to the country through its thick and thin, suddenly appears a villain of the piece in the face of these criticisms.

One needs to appreciate that Indian bureaucracy or any bureaucracy for that matter is genetically programmed to be status-quoist as wilful chopping and changing with a governance system invites undesirable instability which could be simply dangerous for a complex, plural democracy like India with multilayered societal diversities. We can’t afford to ignore the examples from Latin America, Africa, East and South East Asia where such experiments have often resulted in balkanization and failure of the governance system in those countries.

            Given the multiple constraints in a complex, plural society like ours, Indian civil service has definitely delivered though observers feel that it has started showing signs of fatigue and does requires a face-lifting to customize it to suit the changing times. And it is with this in view that the extant Central government is toying with sundry ideas to effect the desired reforms in our civil service to bring it in synchrony with time. One such reform, which reportedly is on the anvil, is lateral entry into the Indian civil service. The Centre is believed to be actively working to institutionalise lateral entry from academia and the private sector into some senior government positions.

This is posited to be a long overdue reform with far-reaching implications. The critics feel that to change the way bureaucracy works, it has become imperative to move from a closed to a more open system for recruiting Indian’s future administrators. The bureaucratic glasnost is believed to be one of the prerequisites for enhancing quality of the quotidian governance in our country. In the past also, there have been suggestions by the government-constituted Expert Groups to institutionalise lateral entry into various critical positions requiring esoteric and specialized knowledge. But, such suggestions have often been pigeon-holed and not followed up in right earnest. However, with its commitment to good governance, the present federal government has been exploring various ways to enhance efficiency and effectiveness for better delivery of sundry public services and benefits. Ergo, in all likelihood, on this occasion, the government may see this important reform through to its logical end.

Lateral entry, though, has always existed in the chequered history of independent India’s civil services. Nandan Nilekeni, the former Infosys official was drafted to oversee the ‘Aadhaar’ scheme which has the potential to transform India’s social welfare sector, is an illustrious recent example. Another illustrious example is Raghuram Rajan, the present Governor of Reserve Bank of India, a position usually occupied by career bureaucrats. The practice, however, has been ad hoc in nature and marked by dilettantism. Given the strong umbilical linkage between governance and prosperity amid growing complexities in the society, Western countries like UK, USA, Australia, Holland and Belgium have already thrown open specific government positions to qualified personnel from all walks. It has been found to be a better way to attract apposite talents for the job.

A judicious combination of domain knowledge and relevant expertise is a critical requirement in governance. It is felt by many that these attributes are often not present in a cadre of generalists. Moreover, the increasing penchant for politically correct recruitment through reserved quotas also restricts scope for merit in critical areas requiring definite skills and competences. The second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) also envisaged a shift from a career-based approach to a post-based approach for the top tier of government jobs. ARC felt that civil servants ought to compete with domain experts from outside the regular civil service for senior positions.

An important dimension of this reform is to enable genuine competition by setting up an independent authority to supervise the proposed recruitment process. Without an independent authority with well-laid out norms, there is a chance that lateral entry may turn out to be an excuse for a back-door entry of the ‘spoils-system’ to recruit politically-aligned persons which will further subvert the system thereby defeating the whole purpose behind the move.

The proposed lateral process of recruitment is also believed to be a move to prise open the alleged stranglehold the IAS lobby has on key appointments. While the move is definitely welcome, it should be ensured that the same does not become a change for the sake of change. After all, a system which has delivered over the years can’t be jettisoned overnight. The baby should definitely not be thrown with the bathwater. One has to be very watchful while bringing in such far-reaching systemic changes. After all, Nandan Nilekeni has also been gasping for breath in the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI) with the ‘Aadhaar’ initiative going nowhere.

Such changes will only be skin-deep if other factors remain unaddressed including insulating the civil service from political interference. Besides, while allowing lateral entry, the members of Indian civil service should also be allowed to move out, do a stint in the private sector and come back to rejoin the civil service as per a pre-laid out protocol. Private sector enterprises also need to benefit from the rich and varied experiences that civil servants have. For sure, a change of this nature will not be easy as there is bound to be stiff resistance from within the babudom (read Indian civil service). The government, however, ought to push ahead with this paradigm shift in Indian governance as the national interest is always greater than the interest of a few though the proposal does need a more broad-based discussion with all the relevant stakeholders.

*The views expressed here are personal views of the author and don’t reflect those of the government.

Oral Orders Are Anathema to Good Governance

Saumitra Mohan

One of the major criticisms of the liberal democracy in India which still deters major players from investing into this country is its alleged bureaucratic sloth which has so far kept India’s developmental potential hobbled. Notwithstanding all the efforts to make the Indian bureaucracy change its ways, it is alleged to remain recalcitrant and refuses to respond to the demands of time. Indian bureaucracy has also been alleged to have always been tied to the coat-tails of the political class in power and have usually acted as the Cerberus of the partisan interests of the reigning party.

            The Indian political class has also effectively and carefully nurtured a symbiotic relationship with the Indian bureaucracy. Hence, the fondness for a subservient and pliable civil service has never waned though every party in power has always paid a lip service to the necessity of an impartial and transparent bureaucracy. But the fact remains that Indian bureaucracy’s craving to free itself from the shackles of political bondage could be no more than the desire of those who hold the reins namely the ruling establishment.

            Good governance in a democracy is possible only if it has a professional bureaucracy to carry out the vision of the elected executive. But as the elected executive holds the reins of control over service conditions of the civil servants, the latter has been alleged to be more than willing to oblige the former to ensure desired transfers or postings for themselves. As a result thereof, the institution of bureaucracy has effectively been emaciated over the years. And when the system including the political class has looked forward to strong responses from a withered civil service, the latter has often disappointed.

            For the major part of its existence, Indian civil service has always reflected the traits and character of its political masters who have generally preferred to get their work done without being caught for a wrong move or being held accountable for the decisions taken. As they say, successes have their fathers identified but failures have always been orphans. The phenomenon of issuing verbal instructions to the civil servants emerged from this cosy relationship between the political class and the civil service. And with the slew of decisions going wrong and emerging as major scams in the media, the civil servants have been baulking lately to take the stick on behalf of their political patrons.

            All this seems likely to change if an Office Memorandum (OM) issued recently by the Central government is to be believed. This OM urges the bureaucrats to ignore oral instructions of the political masters. This will go a long way in bringing about an overall accountability in the upper echelons of the government unless it remains one of the several such pious nostrums from the rostrums.

            This move is said to be a compliance of the celebrated Supreme Court judgement as delivered on October 31, 2013. The judgement came in response to a petition filed by 83 retired bureaucrats and eminent persons who thought of inviting the attention of the Apex Court towards some of the ills afflicting Indian bureaucracy for aeons. The petitioners included former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam, former Indian Ambassador to the US Abid Hussain, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Election Commissioner T S Krishna Murthy, former Delhi Commissioner of Police Ved Prakash Marwah, and former CBI Directors Joginder Singh and D R Kaarthikeyan.  

In its judgement in the TSR Subramaniam and others Vs State of India case, the Supreme Court said, “The civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals etc and they must also be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by the administrative superiors, political executive, business and other vested interests”.

            “Recording of instructions and directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure (sic) accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity,” said Justice Radhakrishnan, who authored the 47-page judgement. The court also saw merit in recording oral instructions for strengthening citizens’ entitlement as enshrined in the Right to Information Act (RTI). “By acting on oral directions, not recording the same, the right guaranteed to the citizens under the RTI Act, could be defeated. The practice of giving oral directions/instructions by administrative superiors, political executives etc would defeat the object and purpose of RTI Act and would give room for favouritism and corruption,” the judgement said.

            The written directions are of critical importance as mere oral commands defeat the purpose of transparency, giving rise to favouritism and corruption in the system. The need for issuing written orders would, hopefully, deter politicos from issuing illegal or flawed directions.

            Attributing bureaucratic deterioration to political interference, the Court observed felt that civil servants should not act on verbal orders from the political executives and any action by them must be based on written communications from the superiors. If the superiors’ instructions are not in writing, the concerned bureaucrat, acting on such oral orders, must put the same down in writing on file to record the source of action and also to show that the decision was not his/hers. This would save him/her from the risk of getting hounded and victimized for it if things go wrong in future.

The Government-constituted Hota Committee (2004) and Santhanam Committee (1962) on administrative reforms had also highlighted the necessity of recording instructions by public servants. Be it kindly noted that Rule 3(3)(iii) of the All India Service Rules clearly says that superiors’ orders should ordinarily be in writing. In exceptional circumstances, it says, action can be taken on the basis of oral directions, but the superior officer must later confirm the order in writing. But such provisions have usually been complied in breach. The bureaucrats of a South Indian state were recently up in arms against the reluctance of the Ministers to put down their oral orders in writing which led to an unwholesome procrastination over many critical decisions, thereby hobbling the functioning of the government machinery.

            The fact remains that many of the important decisions in the government at all the levels keep hanging fire for the simple reason of lack of courage to own up the same in case of things going haywire. But the stakeholders including bureaucrats and elected representatives holding public offices have to understand and appreciate that any decision or action taken impartially and transparently as per pre-laid out norms and rules would not invite the kind of public opprobrium or criticisms as taken in an opaque manner.

Oral instructions, once they become the norm than the exception, are really anathema to the tenets of good governance. One only hopes that the recent guideline regarding oral instructions would be followed and complied in all seriousness thereby giving a cushion to the civil servants as required to ensure good governance in the country. This will help in healthy evolution of the system of governance which shall be responsive, transparent and service delivery-oriented. The same is also required in keeping with present Central government’s commitment to the precept of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’, thereby further annealing the foundations of our fledgling democracy.

*The views expressed here are author’s personal views and don’t reflect those of the Government.