@prashanthamine
Mumbai: It is not about Mumbai police officer Sachin Vaze joining the Shiv Sena in 2008, or another cop Pradeep Sharma even contesting on a Sena ticket in 2019 from Nalasopara assembly constituency, or Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Vishwas Nagare-Patil calling on Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar in September 2020, or Maharashtra Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte too calling on the NCP chief recently on March 1, 2021.
Besides these there have been several more such cases of bureaucrats quitting service to take plunge into active politics. The list is very long – retired bureaucrat Shriniwas Patil, former IPS Satyapal Singh, ex-General V K Singh, ex-IFS Hardeep Singh Puri to name a few.
All this only goes to show one thing that the concept of Neutrality in Civil Services is long dead. Probably according to some experts on public administration, it died way back in 1965 itself. Neither has the concept of “Accountability to the People” meant any accountability to the people. Instead, it is now a euphemism for being “Accountable to the Political Executive”.
By mid-1965 the lofty ideals of development administration and development in general became increasingly frustrating to achieve. Induced modernisation had failed to eradicate problems of under-development, poverty, hunger and disease as not much tangible progress could be made in terms of development. Not that economic liberalisation has been able to end urban and rural poverty.
The two wars of 1962 and 1965, and the two years of consecutive famines of 1966-67 had caused severe economic strain and only worsened the poverty, hunger and gave rise to craving for easy money. During this time in her first stint as the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi the political climate in the country began to change and in many states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana and Punjab began to have non-Congress governments.
Also Read: Leadership crisis afflicts all across the board in these turbulent times
According to many experts on public administration, Indira Gandhi knew very well that in order to break the shackles imposed by the Syndicate politics in the Congress, she needed to have complete control over the bureaucracy. This insecurity as she refused to be a puppet in the hands of the Syndicate ultimately gave rise to the notion of “committed bureaucracy”.
However, the concept was quickly misunderstood as being “committed politically”. Frequent changes in the state governments were the order of the day. In such circumstances it was imperative to have your men or men who were amiable towards your viewpoint in the administration. Article 356 and the office of the Governor became much more maligned than ever before.
It was then the unwritten maxim that why the Congress could bounce back to power was that even when not in power it could get its work done simply because it had men and women in the administration who easily obliged as they themselves were indebted for their plum postings.
Neutrality in civil services in the United Kingdom too took a back seat in the post-Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) era with frequent changes in the government. The mood of the era and a definitive commentary on the relationship between the bureaucracy and the politician in power was aptly captured by the much-acclaimed television series of the BBC, the “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” between 1980-82.
The notion then was that ministers are not permanent, bureaucrats are. This battle of supremacy was in a way witnessed in Maharashtra as well with the ruling political class taking strong objection to the state administrative headquarters being referred to as “Sachivalaya” (the seat of the secretary) and had it changed to “Mantralaya” (the seat of the minister).
It is often said that a seasoned bureaucrat may take a novice of a minister for a walk down the proverbial garden path. Or else the seasoned politician riding the proverbial tiger of an administration. A mutually respectable relationship between the two can often lead to wonderful results that can only be beneficial to the people at large.
In times of any regime change it is often said and is expected of the bureaucracy that they go through the election manifestos of the political party coming to power. In the USA, the new President is free to bring in his own administrative team.
While most ministers and prime ministers have preferred to have their own preferred bureaucrats in their team, ones who understand what they want and execute or implement their plans and policies. This often comes at a cost, especially if the bureaucrat acquires a certain political halo often forgetting that the minister may or may not be in power again.
Just as the bureaucrat may take a novice minister for the proverbial walk down the garden path, the seasoned politician may also unceremoniously dump the bureaucrat if he or she finds the bureaucrat of becoming a liability for his political future.
There have been super-cops like Julio Ribeiro, or Y C Pawar or Arvind Inamdar or career bureaucrats like Madhav Godbole or career diplomats like Syed Akbaruddin who have earned name and fame for their impartial conduct while in service. They were then backed by the politicians in power for the actions and decisions they took as their actions were in larger public interest.
There have been several encounter-specialist cops who in the past have fallen out of favour of those in power, often finding themselves cooling their heels in the administrative wilderness, before being either rehabilitated or unceremoniously being dumped again.
In such circumstances it is a double-edged sword for both the bureaucrat and the politician. The consequences of their malafide or actions are often detrimental to their own future. The “Lakshman Rekha” is the same for both, it only depends on who decides to cross it bearing in mind the full consequences of their decisions and actions.
