Governance in India is such that bureaucrats are selected on the basis of their willingness to carry out the biddings of their political masters. And if you stand up for your principles, it can cost you your job
Former Home Secretary lC Goyal was recently transferred, but he was compensated with the position of Chairman of the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation. Though Mr Goyal sought voluntary retirement, which was agreed to, but the Government rewarded him by giving a post-retirement job for five years, which was then lapped up by him, and so far, he has not declined the transfer.
My own experience of a Government job is suggestive of the fact that this is not something new. We have inherited the present system of governance from the British Raj, whose sole objective was to rule our country.
Mercifully, when the Constitution of India was framed, there were only three independent bodies — the Election Commission, the judiciary and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. Except for the Supreme Court, all other members of the two bodies are retired bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are selected on the basis of their willingness to carry out the biddings of their political masters, with a few odd exceptions.
One of the reasons for Mr Goyal’s transfer, as reported in the media, was a report by a committee headed by a Joint Secretary, into the alleged allegations by the Director of Estates of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is this allegation, along with differences with Additional Secretary Anant Kumar Singh that led to the transfer of Mr Goyal.
Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, on June 11 said, “Argumentative statements and counter-statements between the Additional Secretary and the Home Secretary must be avoided. With competence for decision-making well-defined, I would surely expect all to abide by the norms…”
However, it was reported in the media that Mr Goyal did not agree on several matters, including Mr Rajnath Singh’s decision to order a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry against Delhi five-star hotel le Meridien over alleged irregularities regarding its lease.
In fact, the recommendations of the inquiry were forwarded to the CBI on August 31, the day when Mr Goyal was transferred. Mr Goyal never agreed with Mr Rajnath Singh’s order. For any bureaucrat to assume a position higher than a Minister, is only to test the patience of the Minister, as long as the Minister gives orders in writing.
I had faced a similar situation, but with a difference. When I was the Director of the CBI, the then Government was not willing to give any order in written, just to save former Bihar Chief Minister lalu Prasad, who was accused in the fodder scam.
The following extract from this writer’s book, Inside CBI, will reveal the fact that standing up for your principles can cost you your job and rewards for the bureaucrats, whose loyalty is his job and post-retirement sinecure.
I had no doubt that the then Prime Minister wanted to save lalu Prasad, which was later conveyed to me through the Principal Secretary designate. The plea that was put forward said that there would be bloodshed and avoidable loss of life if lalu Prasad were to be arrested.
I said that I was committed to carrying out Government orders, but if the case was monitored by the High Court or the Supreme Court, I had a higher duty towards the law and the court. If the then Government gave its views about the law and order situation in writing, I would have certainly given it the highest consideration. The CBI is a responsible organisation and there is no room for any physical harm either to the CBI officers or anyone else.
The matter ended on June 18, 1997. The then Prime Minister appeared to be very unhappy when I asked for a Government letter, stating the consequences of arresting a serving Chief Minister.
Meanwhile, there was no communication from the Government. So, I was firm with my stand. I had to leave for the Interpol Executive and Finance Sub-Committee’s meeting on June 21, 1997, and I wanted to finalise the matter before leaving for lyons in France.
Meanwhile, I received a stiff message from my Joint Director, an IG-level officer, asking if we were to carry out the High Court orders, which wanted to ensure that all be treated equally and there be no discrimination so that the officers do not waste time on something which may turn out to be futile.
So, I promptly informed the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister about our stand, as the Government had not sent us any written order. I felt that this was the least I could do, so that the Prime Minister did not feel that he was kept in dark about the non-compliance of his oral instructions.
Oral instruction is nothing but the wish of an individual. There is a big difference between the wishes of a Prime Minister and the wishes of an individual. There is no personal feeling in Government work. It is something that is required to be done and has to be done. If a Prime Minister has to say something officially, it has to be an through and official communication.
After all, there exists an official relationship between a bureaucrat and a Minister. However intimate they may be, the CBI would rather carry out the directions of the High Court than the oral wishes of a Prime Minister.
My duty was not to save any individual, but to perform the task that was entrusted to me by the court. When I finally met the Prime Minister, I told him that his wishes could not be complied with, because the Home Ministry had not sent an official assessment about the widespread disturbance in Bihar in case lalu Prasad was arrested by the CBI.
The Prime Minister said, “But this assessment has been lying with me since 11 am.” I said, “But somebody has to officially pass it on to me”. He said, “You cannot control the Joint Director”. I said, “Sir, he is only carrying out the direction of the Patna High Court. I cannot and will not tell him not to do his duty as enjoined by the High Court. The Supreme Court has enjoined upon me while allowing a writ petition on fodder scam case that it is the Director who should be accountable for an honest, fair and impartial investigation. So in a way, the High Court is carrying out the duties assigned to it by the Supreme Court.”
The Prime Minister got angry and said, “I am the Prime Minister.” I said, “Yes sir, I know that, but you are not even supposed to know what is passing between me and the Supreme Court and the High Court, for the case is being monitored by the constitutional courts.”
I did not even take a moment to decide that my duty lay with the laws, the country and the Courts. I had not reached the top position to keep an individual happy. Perhaps, it was for first time that a Prime Minister of the country had to tell a bureaucrat that he was the Prime Minister, to throw his weight about to bail out an accused. Possibly, it was for the first time, that a bureaucrat demanded in written, what the Government wanted.