After deeper reading of the article, “Time to blow the whistle” (Dec.12), two related issues deserve serious consideration: how does it happen that some corrupt officers in the civil services reach high positions of authority and build unholy alliances with the unscrupulous to bend the law? Two, what explains the phenomenon that the most serious charges of corruption are often raised only against officers at the senior-most level?
A closer look will show that these arise out of the inherent weaknesses in the process of selection and promotion of officers and the nature of their functions at various levels. Briefly put, rules of promotion prescribe a complex selection process based on annual confidential remarks awarded to the officer by the immediate superior, reviewed by the next higher level officer and usually accepted by the Chief Minister/ Minister-in-charge in the States before the officer becomes eligible for deputation to Central government service. At the district level, assessment of the officer’s performance may be expected to reflect perceptions of the public and the media to a certain extent and to act as a restraint against arbitrary judgment but the assessing authority’s personal likes and dislikes prevail in the hierarchical culture. The junior officer tends to act with considerable circumspection to adhere to rules. At the same time he strives to please the superior as well because of his concerns for the ACR. However, those who fail in this delicate balancing act either suffer silently or may seek a local politician’s help to save their ACR from ruin.
Thus starts the game of quid pro quo. The bonds get stronger as the officer moves to the Secretariat or in Government corporations where he often works directly under a Minister and safely away from public scrutiny. Mutual ties developed under such circumstances can lead to two consequences: favours and promotion of interests. This is how most scandals linking bureaucrat-businessman-politician take shape.
Abraham Kurien,
Thamarassery, Kozhikode
