|
EDITORIAL One of the many evil legacies of the British Raj is the prerogative of the Government to shuffle its servants around as and when its whim decides. The British were a foreign people who had a rule to maintain over the Indians. From the very inception of the Empire, Indians had been skeptical of the Englishmen's designs. They opposed the imperial agents for reasons that had not always been motivated by the nationalist ideas.....more From the same British legacy comes the power of the Government to shunt, shift and shuttle the poor servant as the rulers may fancy. To the British -interest of administration the democratic Government has added the interest of public and has, thus, actually extended sanction that was available to the imperial agents. The rulebook for 'Govt servants' became............more |
Bush
can force Pakistan By J N Raina Dr Roopa Vajpeyi By S. V. Vaidyanathan |
|||||||||||
EDITORIAL One of the many evil legacies of the British Raj is the prerogative of the Government to shuffle its servants around as and when its whim decides. The British were a foreign people who had a rule to maintain over the Indians. From the very inception of the Empire, Indians had been skeptical of the Englishmen's designs. They opposed the imperial agents for reasons that had not always been motivated by the nationalist ideas. Most of the times it was personal considerations of the rulers and many a time the dethroned kings and queens were raging at their own dispossession. Some were fiercely nationalist who hated the sight of the foreign usurpers. The British had to secure themselves against all of them. They had to win the support of the people, but sought to enforce it with the fear of the Empire and their own military superiority over the natives. Army was the major instrument here. For the civilian part the British recruited people whom they could use for the purposes of extending the Empires sway and rule. These were the 'Government servants from the menial workers engaged on almost daily basis to the high-ranking bureaucracy. They served the Government carried out the orders of the rulers and sided with the Government against the people of India when needed. For a hundred years of their two-centuries of rule the British did not recruit Indians to the positions of power in the Government. After the mutiny of 1857 the Indians could not be ignored. They started recruiting Indians but the Indians were always suspect in their eyes, at least till the 'loyalty' to the Government had been established. Since they could not declare this as an open policy, it remained an unwritten understanding that was confidentially shared among the blue-blooded ones or with the most 'loyal' servants of the Raj. Since the ability of the servant-officer to further the imperial interest could not be stated openly as the criterion for assessment of the efficiency, it was introduced and applied in a sly way. They called it the interest of administration. An officer who was found inconvenient was shuttled around in the interest of administration. All understood what that interest was; it was furtherance of the Empire. The imperative to have complying officers at the key posts most compelling in the twentieth century when the freedom movement became intense. That was the immediate legacy the Governments of free India inherited at the time of independence. They received a power they did not need. A prerogative that had no contemporary relevance; it was actually opposed to the objectives of a free peoples Government where all Indians, whether they were the 'Government' or the 'Government servants', were equal participants. But the new rulers never gave up the prerogative. They possibly thought it useful in ushering in new patterns of economy and administration. Probably, they never thought about how sinister it could get over the years. The more critical view holds that they found the slave-master relationship of the British paradigm of Government-servant very satisfying and useful for their own personal ends. Whatever, the new Governments not only continued with the imperial style of governance but assumed the same powers and prerogatives that the British had exercised. Though the euphemism of the 'public servant', was applied, the public servant remained 'Government servants' who had to be loyal to the government of the day. To this end the government servants are still barred from standing for elections while the minister who controls the whole Government machinery -and, as the past fifty years have shown, controls it unfairly with fear and favor' - can without any questions contest all the elections he/she wants. The Government servant is not to hold, much less air any view; he/she is to serve loyally and that is all. From the same British legacy comes the power of the Government to shunt, shift and shuttle the poor servant as the rulers may fancy. To the British -interest of administration the democratic Government has added the interest of public and has, thus, actually extended sanction that was available to the imperial agents. The rulebook for 'Govt servants' became even more extensive after independence; in fact, the 'loyalty' clause was further tightened with the concept of committed bureaucracy mooted by Indira Gandhi. After twenty years the concept has not clearly been discarded by any of the succeeding Governments. Indeed, there is a pressing need to change the whole Government-servant relationship. The servants and the 'Government' are equal partners in the governance as well as the interests of the free India. Besides. there are any number of rules to deal with any delinquency of duty on the part of the poor servant. And, there is a body of clearly laid down rules which detail minutely how the government servant is to function and within what limits. If any thing, the experience of the past half a century has shown that it is the rulers who have tend to act unfairly, and with bias, not the Government servants. Indeed, one of the high abuses of the power by the ruling party and persons is through manipulating the body of the Government servants, by placing the complying ones in places of importance, browbeating the others with the sword of transfers and enticing the rest with plums and postings. Above all, there is no earthly reason why the party in power should have the arbitrary right to place and post Government servant. If the functionary is inefficient, in competent, he/she must be shunted out of employ, not shunted around. And If all are efficient and competent, as they must be if they are retained in service. they can be posted at any approximate place without the Government making arbitrary transfers in the interest of the public and/or administration. People cite cases by hundreds where it is the honest and upright officers who are transferred by the Government in, the so-called, public interest and not the corrupt and inefficient ones. And ask why? Why , are the servants who refuse to serve illegal masters and cater to the public instead, not in the interest of the administration? There is a more fundamental question. Isnt it undemocratic to plant Government servants suitable for carrying out the policies of this or that partys Government? Indeed, there is a solid case for taking the transfers of all Government servants out of the hands of the ruling political parties and handing it over to an unbiased tribunal which can make transfers on a random basis, impartially, on merit without any favor whatever. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||