The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary , is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam.
In the book, he gives eloquent expression to his pent-up anguish over his maltreatment, especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.
Minister-civil servant relationship Notwithstanding tribulations and moments of despair and disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors.
The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police was resented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris.
I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in as decorous manner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid and abetment of enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus.
The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable.
It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed.
Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.
Working in government One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count.
Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.
Leading from the front The gravamen of the charge that Mr. Baijal makes is that two successive Telecom Ministers pushed an agenda that negated all canons of propriety and governance. He was warned against quoting rules and procedure that had stood the test of time. He was asked to back off or else harm would come by him swiftly. One of the two worthies told him imperiously that he (the Minister) was in fact the “Prime Minister” as far as telecommunications was concerned. We are fortunate that he did not designate himself the country’s Prime Minister! Mr. Baijal was also told in no uncertain terms that he should sever all links with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) even when the latter demanded written notes from the Ministry on burning issues of the day, such as allocation of 2G spectrum. So much for a constitutional government! Mr. Baijal laments that in all this he received no support from the PMO. Actually, he was asked to sail along with the stand of the Minister concerned, and not to be overly bothered about the correctness or ethics of such a stand. The issue at stake here was not the then Prime Minister’s own integrity, which remains untainted and unchallenged to this day. What was relevant here was his position as the primus inter pares , and an ability and willingness to control his Ministers. If he chose to play safe, how could you expect a puny Secretary to the Minister to do anything different? This is an eternally relevant question in public administration.
One may dismiss all that Mr. Baijal says as being a case of one man’s word against another. It is also true that such references to threats and innuendos from the highest in the country’s Executive can never be proved in a court of law. This is the supreme advantage that many of our rulers enjoy.Yet I am willing to give credence to the senior official’s account. In the absence of convincing material against the latter that even remotely suggests dishonesty on his part, I am inclined to believe the average civil servant.
Test of conduct Mudslinging against a civil servant who complains comes naturally to many in authority, and it is quite possible that Mr. Baijal is a victim of a malicious campaign. However, what causes me immense pain is Mr. Baijal’s accusation against the CBI. He says that the Bureau was programmed to dig up dirt against him at the behest of those who were annoyed with his firm stand on 2G and related issues. There was a witch hunt against him also for his doings as a Secretary in the newly formed Ministry for Disinvestment nearly a decade after he relinquished charge. Perhaps most shocking is alleged direct advice by someone in the CBI that he could save himself if he roped in a few in the private sector who enjoyed a great reputation for following business ethics. If this were true, only the almighty can save the country from politician-driven impropriety on the part of an agency that the highest court of the land depends so heavily on for ferreting out the truth in many a scandal.
Here again, truth is difficult to explore. The perception of a pliable agency sticks and it is this that should receive attention from anyone in authority who stands for values in public life.
What is critical to the situation is how to ensure that the CBI is staffed by good people who will not swerve from the path of virtue. Autonomy to the CBI — now a cliché — is only one of the several issues dogging the organisation. What is more important is that its leadership should be one that should be tested for personal, good conduct and an ability to stand up to pressures from those who count in government at any point of time. By this yardstick, some CBI chiefs may be said to have failed the test, and brought ignominy to the organisation. The probe that the Supreme Court has ordered against a former Director is proof enough that all is not well with the fabled outfit, one founded by a man of the highest rectitude and in whose memory the CBI holds an annual lecture.
No clinical process of selection will ensure the installation of an honest and neutral CBI chief. The selection committee — that comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India — has a huge challenge on its hands. In my view, the tyranny of seniority should be given the short shrift. Character — ascertained through various sources — should alone prevail. If this sounds too moralistic and ludicrous, let it be so.
(Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI Director.)
