When politicians do some
introspection, they are planning to quit their party, or have got wind of being
thrown out, or they have decided that a little bit of self-whipping adds a
tragic edge to their persona, besides being trumpeted as “plain-speak”.
On Sunday, while addressing
bureaucrats on Civil Services Day, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid elaborated
on the subject of 'Civil Services: Fit for the Future?' It was a ridiculously-worded
subject, to begin with. Does it mean the services are unfit now, or that they
will take over the future?
Let us take his words:
"We can make a civil servant fit but the big question is that how do we get fit politicians? It's my opinion that the electoral system we have is actually inclined to find the worst people for politics. Good people stay away from politics.”
The electoral system does
not find politicians; it elects what is on offer. It is political parties that
recruit members and then, depending on sycophancy, nepotism and, in rare cases,
performance, they manage to get a ticket to political heaven.
As usual, the media started
discussing the straightforward Mr. Khurshid, who is not quite the perfect politician
himself. It turned out to be a smart move, then, for the FM. He was not critiquing
political parties that are the root cause of the problem; he used an amorphous
idea of politics with the good-bad moral masala to it. If good people are so
important, then why are the ones that are proven to be bad allowed to remain in
politics and hold important positions? We have criminals who are granted
tickets and even contest from behind bars.
Besides, how does one
define good people? Are they capable, are they honest, are they team players, are
they individualistic? All these questions apply to any profession. Politics is
not even seen as profession. You have businessmen, lawyers, doctors,
journalists, film stars, armymen being welcomed. One does not appear to need
any qualification other than to “serve the people”. Take a look at how
portfolios are handed out. Does the industries minister know a thing about industries?
Or, the civil aviation, education, environment ministers? These, as the others,
would benefit from some knowledge, if not specialisation. Instead, those who
are qualified end up in the Planning Commission or such mindless ‘bodies’.
I also have a problem with
this ‘good people’ optimism that is floating around. It is clearly an attempt
to get hold of the youth/citizens’ groups, assuming that because they are out
in the streets fighting for a cause, their heart is in the right place. Goodness,
apparently, is about such ‘heartfelt’ expressions.
Mr. Khurshid chose a non-political
platform, and would not dare name the bad politicians. His words were essentially to co-opt the bureaucrats:
"We stopped trusting each other. Both politicians and civil servants can make mistakes but now every mistake is seen as corruption. We need role models in civil servants and politicians for national renaissance.”
There! All those files and
scams are now nothing about “good people”, but how every mistake by bureaucrats
and politicians gets magnified as corruption. We do not need role models; we
need people who can do their job. We do not need a renaissance; we need to
clear the garbage.
There was a point when the
minister seemed to have become a priest:
He said the idea of 'committed bureaucracy' in some states with civil servants owing allegiance to a particular party was an unwelcome thing and advised bureaucrats to say no to signing files under political pressure. When asked by a secretary-level officer in the audience that he would pay the price since there would be ten other bureaucrats ready to take his place and sign the file, Khurshid said: "Those ten civil servants will not be remembered in history...only that one will be remembered."
For the information on the ‘good’
minister, bureaucrats have a history of being independently corrupt. Mantralaya,
and its equivalents in the states and the Centre, is the first stop for
businessmen and others who want to get their work done. The “chai-paani” (a
little bribe) phrase starts at the peon level and the “kaam ho jaayega” (the
work will be done) is the final nod from the boss. This is where files do the
good old in-out.
If it is a big ticket
passing of orders, it needs government approval. It does not matter to the bureaucrat who is
in power, but who will make him powerful enough or be ignorant enough to ignore
what happens. Mr. Khurshid wanted to make the civil servants feel empowered,
but putting the onus on a ‘committed bureaucracy’ is like asking a guy to carry
a condom in a whorehouse. It is only about saving one’s skin.
As regards history remembering
a bureaucrat, the minister might like to take the names of a few. He will find
that their achievements are about what they did for which leader. Perhaps, this
whole exercise was to prop up one bureaucrat who became a politician and
history will certainly remember – our dear Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.
PS: It is worth noting that
there is no Politicians Day.
© Farzana Versey
FV:" 'Civil Services: Fit for the Future?' It was a ridiculously-worded subject, to begin with. "
ReplyDeleteFV, With that cleverly worded title, the Minister is insinuating the Indian Civi Service is fit for the present, which is highly debatable if you ask me.
If the Civil Service actually worked in the present, this question would seem a lot more relevant, but at this point this question seems to be along the lines of "Will this car ever win the Grand Prix in the future with 4 missing wheels?"
-Al
FV, of course, you have already pointed out whether minister implies that the ICS is unfit now, but I think he is insinuating the opposite...ICS people are not known for their self-deprecation :-)
ReplyDelete-Al
FV,
ReplyDeleteIt is impractical to expect politicians to be walking experts on industry, agriculture, defence, technology, fishing, tribal affairs, railways, mining, civil engineering and so on. Politicians are elected by people to represent their interests. Most voters themselves know next to nothing about all these varied fields, beyond what concerns their immediate interests.
Corruption is endemic in Indian political system, not because the system is flawed but because Indian society, at its heart, has not been fair or equal. Inequality and bias are configured into it at the most basic level. Each and every citizen is at the receiving end at some time or the other.
It was always presumed that Indian society, built upon a compromised foundation of unadulterated self-interest, would find squaky-clean, faithful, moralistic, ideologically-oriented politicians a liability. In other words, Mahatma Gandhi would have been the last choice of voters for MP or MLA anywhere in India, as traditional wisdom goes.
However, recent events suggest that a certain nascant national conscience seems to be in sight, however naive and limited it may be. Hopefully, we will see leaders who believe in themselves and their ideas, regardless of the opposition they meet, getting elected on the basis of their courage of conviction alone.
I am, of course, not talking about any specific figure! :)
F&F:"Corruption is endemic in Indian political system, not because the system is flawed but because Indian society, at its heart, has not been fair or equal. Inequality and bias are configured into it at the most basic level. Each and every citizen is at the receiving end at some time or the other. "
ReplyDeleteBut isn't this true of other societies too that had biases against minorities but were still well governed at least for the dominant group? The predicament of african americans in the US in the centuries past seems to be an example of this.
Inequality and bias seems to be existent everywhere at varying levels, but India's problem seems to be too much government rules and regulations, most of which contradict each other, and not enough governance in the form of the basics of living for the public at large, like clean water, roads and electricity.
Governance seems to be independent of inequality/bias -- though I can see that not having a sense of ownership one's own surroundings (because of bias/inequality) can result in not caring about one's environs.
"It was always presumed that Indian society, built upon a compromised foundation of unadulterated self-interest, would find squaky-clean, faithful, moralistic, ideologically-oriented politicians a liability. "
Your point about bias/inequality seems to hold here because Indians mostly define "self-interest" in terms of one of their many identities (caste, religion, language etc.) rather than some national identity or governance issue-based voting decision.
Indian politics seems ugly enough that anyone with all the characteristics above would quickly find themselves cornered and squashed. It does not seem to be a coincidence that Indian politics is a cesspit of criminal behavior and unethical to the core, crossing all limits of human decency.
- Al
F&F:
ReplyDelete{It is impractical to expect politicians to be walking experts on industry... Politicians are elected by people to represent their interests. Most voters themselves know next to nothing about all these varied fields...}
The voter-citizen, precisely because s/he may not know and their interest is paramount ought to be represented in those portfolios by people who know. It is not the person we elect that is the issue, but the person the government puts in charge that is important.
{Corruption is endemic in Indian political system, not because the system is flawed but because Indian society, at its heart, has not been fair or equal}
But the corruption is not restricted to those who have not been treated fairly. Quite the contrary, it is big industry that makes use of the loopholes in this 'inequality'.
{However, recent events suggest that a certain nascant national conscience seems to be in sight, however naive and limited it may be...getting elected on the basis of their courage of conviction alone.}
I do not agree with the moral idea you mentioned earlier. It has got to do with pragmatic interest of what is best for the people. The "national conscience" has always been there in varied forms. The issue is not leaders with courage of "their convictions", but to stick it out for the convictions of the people.
{I am, of course, not talking about any specific figure! :)}
Same here!
Al:
ReplyDeleteThe civil services actually have it good. They can kowtow to the government and benefit, or act independently and benefit. The babu culture may have jazzed up its act, but it remains a fence-sitting entity.
I wonder if the IAS guys still command a huge dowry, never mind that it is illegal. Some years ago they topped the list (I suppose after "green card holders) in the 'desirable' stakes. Many safari suits were stitched to manage their style quotient :)
In the other comment you state:
{Governance seems to be independent of inequality/bias -- though I can see that not having a sense of ownership one's own surroundings (because of bias/inequality) can result in not caring about one's environs.}
Are you talking about the governed or those governing? Bias creeps in also while governing, where they do have a sense of ownership by virtue of their position.
Besides, although I agree that we need to be practical about how we are governed (as I mentioned in the above-mentioned response), we will have to deal with the 'who' too.
Electricity, roads etc - all necessities - are provided on the basis of hierarchy.
Btw, if you have not already, do watch 'English, August', a superb take on babudom. Or read the book. The film is more graphic!