The arguments advanced in the article, “ >In furtherance of good governance ” (Oct.25), are flimsy and must be refuted. T.C.A. Srinivasavaradan, former Union Home Secretary and an expert on the Constitution, once said the “flexibility of the political system, the sagacity of the political leadership and its openness to information from all quarters” are the key to good governance. A bureaucrat’s ability to give independent advice to the political leadership is only one element in this complex process. But the Indian political system lost these qualities long ago. For example, the UPA government sought to address the problem of Maoist violence on the basis of advice by the IB, that it constituted the “greatest internal security threat” to the political system, and ignored contrary advice in the Planning Commission’s Expert Group report on “Development Challenges in Extremist-affected Areas” (2008) that reflected the collective wisdom of 18 subject-matter specialists. Unfortunately, the NDA does not appear to have any intention to revive or act on the report. In an article in the Economic and Political Weekly (Aug. 7, 2010), I argued, based on my experience in the Union Home Ministry, that Maoist violence, among other things, is a response to increasing atrocities against Dalits and Adivasis by the state and by the rural power structure, and that the developmental approach advocated by the Planning Commission should be adopted. It is interesting that the Chief Ministers’ conferences between 2006 and 2010 did not include Ministers dealing with the development of Dalits and Adivasis but mainly Chief Ministers and Home Ministers.
A certain kind of scholarship in the past created a false dichotomy between the honest bureaucrat and the dishonest politician, which does not exist. It is problematic to assume that the bureaucracy always gives independent, impartial and correct advice to the political leadership. “Structural interaction” between politicians, bureaucrats and vested interests in rural society has not only distorted the process of development but also led to massive corruption. The Vohra Committee report (1993) talked of the collusion between politicians, bureaucrats, and criminals which led to the criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime. The experience during the Emergency, the anti-Sikh carnage and the Gujarat riots indicated widespread collusion between politicians, bureaucrats and elements in civil society. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advice to bureaucrats in New Delhi to report directly to him seems to indicate he does not trust his own party politicians in charge of the Ministries.
K.S. Subramanian,
New Delhi
