Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The ordinance promulgated by the government to bring into existence theoffice of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner has taken a lot of heat in thepast few days, some well-deserved, some not. It has already been argued inthese columns that the return of the so-called single-point directive, underwhich the CBI must seek the CVC8217;s permission before probing seniorofficials, is a good thing. This is so because the bureaucracy, not themodel of initiative and bold decisiveness at the best of times, could becometotally paralysed if the sword of frivolous CBI investigations should hangover its head at all times. Another reason was that the CBI, another wing ofgovernment, was scarcely entitled on its own to investigate whom it chose.
Would that similar praise was warranted for the government8217;s move to limitthe field of selection of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to civil servantsand policemen. The protestations of urban development minister RamJethmalani on this count are legitimate and deserve attention. Indeed, hisobjections must be answered forthrightly if the government8217;s action is tocarry any conviction with the people and not be seen as a subversion of theSupreme Court8217;s order rather than its implementation. On the face of it,limiting recruitment for the CVC to civil servants and police officersamounts to manipulation of the government by the bureaucracy to suit its ownpurposes. At worst it is a misguided attempt by government to try to keeppeople out of it who have not served under it and are totally autonomousfrom it. This is not to suggest that all civil servants will remain pliantin the CVC. One only needs to recall one name from among civil servants tomake the point that civil servants can show the fiercest independence fromthe governments they once served: T.N. Seshan8217;s. Still, the fact remainsthat leaving the field wider would have increased the potential for someonereally outstanding to be named for the job. That will not now happen. Why?Does the government have something to fear from an outsider to the system?Just as people generally represent their own class interests, it seems fairto assume that the sympathies of a civil servant would lie broadly withthose of his own ilk except in exceptional cases. This suspicion needs to beput at rest either through change in the stipulations or an adequateexplanation of why this was considered necessary.
If not, it would do well to pay heed to the debate which has ensued. Thereappears to be a conflict of interest here which has been ignored. The onusof proving that it does not exist is on the government since it has chosenin such a suspicious manner to narrow the field.
Top
