The partisans

The issue is somewhat different. The famous steel frame of the Indian civil services has always been superb at serving its political masters with that great quality of malleability. To be perfectly fair to the bureaucracy,this malleability is built into its very foundation and is not something which was contracted externally at any point in time. The steel frame,modelled on its counterpart in Britain,was always meant to implement the decisions made by the political class,and not take independent decisions.

The political process has,of course,cultivated a system of patronage which has rewarded favourite civil servants with plum postings during their career,and even took care of life after retirement,either in various constitutional bodies like the EC or in plush Raj Bhavans. Nothing wrong with that,its been happening since 1947.

But why,you might ask,the great furore now,and not at other earlier instances of perceived partisanship and patronage? Could it be because the EC,unlike other institutions of the state,has been a shining example of neutrality and manned by persons who have always been viewed as completely unpartisan by all sections of the polity? Not really. T.N. Seshan,the man who first flaunted the CECs independence,flirted with politics after his stint as CEC. M.S. Gill joined active politics after his stint as CEC. J.M. Lyngdoh was viewed by Narendra Modi and the rightwing as biased. Much before Seshan brought the EC into the public domain,a retiring CEC was appointed as governor. Now,its perfectly reasonable to assume that all these gentlemen were very fair when they were CECs,but it is also important to be seen to be neutral something which hasnt always happened and something which is rankling many in the current controversy.

Of course,for the longest time,as long as the Congress was the only party in serious contention for power,such problems of perception were minimal. The real difference between now and earlier is the change in the polity there is for the first time a genuine bipolar some may say multipolar competition for power at the Centre. Remember that its only as recently as 2004 that the first non-Congress government completed a full five years in power. The NDA,without doubt,had accumulated its fair share of favourite bureaucrats in that time,a privilege which was hitherto only the domain of the Congress. No doubt some regional parties which now dominate in their own states,and have been in power for lengthy periods,will have their own favourite bureaucrats. And there will inevitably be a clash,and distrust,between the favourite bureaucrats of two or three ideologically different and often bitterly opposed political formations/ governments. Thats really why this row is bigger than earlier. And such rows will continue long after Messrs Gopalaswami and Chawla retire,over other individuals in perhaps other bodies,as the political system will get more,not less contentious.

That said,in areas of government,where there is a broad similarity in the direction of policy across the political spectrum,such rows will be less common. Consider foreign policy. The NDA and the UPA governments have followed similar contours in foreign policy a broadly pro-US line with a consistent attempt to make peace with Pakistan. And note how some of the main bureaucratic actors have been the same Shyam Saran was first identified to be foreign secretary superseding many officers by the NDA government,and the UPA concurred with that view. Similarly,Shiv Shankar Menon was handpicked by PM Vajpayee to go as envoy to Pakistan and was then appointed foreign secretary by the UPA. There has been similar continuity in the domain of economic policy where the broad consensus is in favour of economic reform. Key economic bureaucrats have thus rolled over seamlessly from one regime to another Vijay Kelkar and Rakesh Mohan come prominently to mind. Even in the commerce ministry,there has been a continuity of personnel as both the NDA and UPA governments have taken similar positions.

So,the problem for the bureaucracy is that those who serve in contentious policy areas say,home,police,intelligence,defence,PMO will be seen to be partisan,even if they are simply doing their job without a necessary political belief in a particular policy of serving the incumbent government. Some may,of course,be overtly partisan; but thats par for the course. If they hedge their bets with a particular government,they have a better chance of getting plusher post-retirement jobs should that government continue,but they also run the risk of being completely excluded if a different government takes office. Those who develop specialisations,like say in trade negotiations or finance,will be valued by any government. So there is still room for everyone. And is it such a bad thing if some senior bureaucrats align themselves with different parties? Earlier everyone had to be with the Congress to get ahead and there would have been room for only so many now there is more room,especially for those not inclined to the Congress to share the spoils.

That still leaves the matter of constitutional bodies like the EC,which are expected to be non-partisan. Now,as long as incumbent governments appoint people to these positions,there will be a problem,either of actual partisanship or a perception of partisanship. So,why not actually make the appointments partisan? Let election commissioners be appointed at the suggestion of political parties let each national party or any party which gets over 10 per cent of the national vote appoint an election commissioner of its choice. Democratic systems,remember,work not on neutrality but on checks and balances. A group of directly opposed partisans may make for a better system of checks and balances than a group of malleable bureaucrats that nobody trusts.

dhiraj.nayyarexpressindia.com