Would that similar praise was warranted for the government's move to limit the field of selection of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to civil servants and policemen. The protestations of urban development minister Ram Jethmalani on this count are legitimate and deserve attention.Indeed, his objections must be answered forthrightly if the government's action is to carry any conviction with the people and not be seen as a subversion of the Supreme Court's order rather than its implementation. On the face of it, limiting recruitment for the CVC to civil servants and police officers amounts to manipulation of the government by the bureaucracy to suit its own purposes. At worst it is a misguided attempt by government to try to keep people out of it who have not served under it and are totally autonomous from it. This is not to suggest that all civil servants will remain pliant in the CVC. One only needs to recall one name from among civil servants to make the point that civil servants can show the fiercest independence from the governments they once served: T.N. Seshan's. Still, the fact remains that leaving the field wider would have increased the potential for someone really outstanding to be named for the job. That will not now happen. Why? Does the government have something to fearfrom an outsider to the system? Just as people generally represent their own class interests, it seems fair to assume that the sympathies of a civil servant would lie broadly with those of his own ilk except in exceptional cases. This suspicion needs to be put at rest either through change in the stipulations or an adequate explanation of why this was considered necessary.

Confining the field to bureaucrats and policemen may or may not have happened by design. In either case, it will be seen as a coup by the bureaucracy, something that hardly flatters the political acumen of government. Especially after this one was made to look foolish by the self-same bureaucracy at the time of the Budget earlier this year, it might appear that it would be anxious to cut it down to size. For that reason alone this should not have been allowed to happen. The whole thing looks even more peculiar because there is no apparent reason why it had to be done. If there is such a reason, the government ought to come forth with it.

If not, it would do well to pay heed to the debate which has ensued. There appears to be a conflict of interest here which has been ignored. The onus of proving that it does not exist is on the government since it has chosen in such a suspicious manner to narrow the field.