Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The spotlight, immediately after incidents such as those that occurred in Mumbai, Varanasi, Jaipur, Bangalore and now Ahmedabad, is on our leaders. The brave face, the sympathy, the novice blaming directly, the sophisticated insinuating are all to be expected. The real issue, the effectiveness of the administrative response, gets swept under the carpet. When it succeeds in averting a disaster it is not reported or ignored. When it fails, it hides behind the spotlight.nbsp;
The horrific incidents in different cities persisted and were nauseatingly repetitive and yet were not stopped. Elsewhere, fast security reactions are seen. The Israelis, for example, responded to a plane hijack in another country with astonishing speed. The Japanese claim that, within half an hour of a high-intensity incident centred in a metropolis, they would have contacted almost everybody even if conventional communications broke down. But in our case it goes on for two hours: one blast, three blasts, six, eight and so on. Only a day later bombs are defused. Then there is mud-slinging and innuendo, and the failure of administration forgotten.
The real issue is the management of the civil service. Here, political leaders say all the right things and do the opposite, without a whimper from the media. The relationship between the political leadership and the civil service is a complex and difficult issue in a parliamentary democracy for the elected leader is responsible for outcomes. Many years ago, Krishna Menon laid out in a report to Parliament the principle of an 8220;arms-length relationship8221; between the two. It was fully accepted and so never implemented. The idea is that the political leader lays down the objectives and lets the civil servant do the job. Nobody seriously expects that to happen. As a minister, I was the butt of derision arguing that, under normal circumstances, tender files should not come to a minister8217;s office since tenders have to be dealt with in a very straightforward manner. Also, appointments should be made with expert advice since the most venal of pressures exist even at the highest levels. The prime minister advocated creating a rule that if a civil servant is transferred in haste the minister should place on record the public interest requiring it. But, on the same day, a state which was then under president8217;s rule transferred two of the best collectors. Fortunately for us, the government has persisted and we are told, for example, that many states have set up independent bodies for promotions and transfers, say for the police. Where such systems are not set up, they must be. Where they are, they must be made more effective.nbsp;
These have to become public issues. For people at large, these have now literally become issues of life and death. Ministers and chief ministers think it is their right to appoint their favourites for personal reasons or ideological closeness. At one level, ideology in society is about ideals. At another, it is the first refuge of a scoundrel. This business has to stop and has to be made the issue of the day.
Some systemic changes for security have been asked for, are needed and will come. But those who corrupt the system have to be dealt with severely, politically and by the courts. The bureaucracy is obliged to follow and implement larger political ideals, but it has to be under the rule of law and its first duty is to the victims of tyranny, of force and the ravages of exploitation. We have to build firewalls to protect the guardians who do their duty. Who will guard the guards, as the Latin proverb asks? We recruit and train the best. When young, they are idealistic and on the go. Those who would corrupt them and abuse the best must face that ultimate ignominy: the contempt of the people of India.
The writer, a former Union minister, is chairman, Institute of Rural Management, Anand expressexpressindia.com
