Of course, if you happen to have enough money to grease greedy palms, or come with a sufficiently high-level shifaarish, the same machinery will accord you VIP treatment, often by bending the rules and flouting the laws — be it in a police thana, a court of law or the high-ceilinged ministerial offices in Lutyens’ Delhi.

The tragedy of India’s democracy is that no government and no political party has so far made a serious, sincere, sustained and comprehensive effort to reform our system of governance, in which the common man mostly figures in election manifestos but does not have any real place or voice. People’s participation is a nice-sounding phrase, but are people’s views really sought, let’s say on an annual basis, in a social audit of the functioning of government offices? Are our bureaucrats, who enjoy lifelong job security, accountable to the people in any way? Do senior officers work as change agents and result-oriented leaders, and are they in any way penalised if they don’t?

The fundamental question that ought to be debated in the context of the pay panel’s recommendations is this: Should our government employees look upon themselves merely as ‘karmacharis’, with nothing higher to motivate them than the size of their pay packets and periodic promotions, or as ‘karmayogis’, driven by a sense of service-orientation and feeling proud of being a part of the system of governance in the world’s largest democracy, one which still has gigantic unfinished tasks of development and nation-building? A karmayogi is one who attains self-growth and experiences the inner joy of contributing one’s little bit to a great national cause. In contrast are the karmacharis who routinely harass the hapless Musaddi Lals in our society, wound their dignity and self-pride as citizens, and themselves lead lives of little dignity and attainment. Whom does India need: karmacharis or karmayogis?

... contd.