null The continuing events in Gujarat have sharply brought into focus the failure of the law and order machinery. The implications of the surrender of the administrative apparatus to political dictation and abdication of its constitutional functions have to be taken as a warning of future dangers.

Recruitment to the higher civil services at the national level, mercifully, is still unpolluted by political intervention and the best in the country still complete for and get recruited into the administrative and police services on merit. Yet, despite five decades of planned development, about one third of India lives in abject poverty. In the world’s largest democracy, the citizen is left to his own devices, R.K. Laxman being his only patron.

And now, we are seeing evidence from Gujarat of a scant respect for human life. Who is to blame: the bureaucrats or the politicians? Or is this what we, the people of India deserve to get?

The democratic constitution guarantees freedom and liberty to all citizens, in a secular framework. We, as a nation, appear to be generally satisfied with the provisions of our Constitution. In fact, the present government had sponsored a high level group for proposing reforms to our constitution; after much labour, very little that is remarkable has been produced by them. So, the Constitution or the laws cannot be blamed for the state of affairs.

A bureaucrat who shows an independent mind is quickly brought into line through weapons like frequent transfers. It’s said that Uttar Pradesh’s main industry is ‘‘transfer and posting’’ — it yields new cash crops twice every year! The independence and ability to perform by bureaucrats have been progressively eroded over the years. The pressure on a bureaucrat to toe the official political line is ever present. An official who shows an independent and impartial appreciation of issues before him is quickly brought into line through application of great pressure. Frequent and untimely transfers are a major weapon to be used against non-pliant officials. In Uttar Pradesh, it used to be said that the main industry in the state is ‘‘transfer and posting’’ — it yields new cash crops twice every year!

The then secretary of the Revenue Department, when I asked him about his relationship with the minister, told me jokingly, ‘‘We have a good division of work. The minister deals with the important work of postings and transfer of Tehsildars; and I deal with the rest of the work, including revenue policy’’.

In many parts of rural India, cases cannot be registered in police stations and FIRs lodged without the concurrence of the local political boss. When I returned to Lucknow in 1990 after spending 10 years away on assignments, I went to the office of the Personnel Secretary to ascertain my next assignment. My memory was of a hallowed, large and lonely room, where the few visitors who came entered with trepidation.

Imagine my surprise when I found about 200 local politicians from various districts surrounding the secretary, practically on a gherao mode, demanding the instant transfer of one official or the other. I later discovered that this was a daily scene. Clearly, UP had progressed significantly in administrative matters during the decade I was away!

A bright young officer posted in a district and who is independent in discharging his duties soon learns to his cost that he can be asked to move at short notice to another district. With two or three such transfers every year, one can imagine the impact on the family — looking for a new house, settling down, new schooling for children, disruption in medical treatment for parents. At some stage, the wife steamily asks him, ‘‘Do you think you are Mahatma Gandhi? Why don’t you learn to look the other way?’’

Over time, young bright officials are pummelled into submission and learn to follow the politicians’ diktat, and soon get to know which side the bread is buttered. It makes life much easier, and as it turns out his liquidity also sharply increases! From being a government servant, many evolve to becoming the minister’s servant.

It requires great strength of character to retain one’s identity, independence and self-respect. Against those who do not know how to get on with the politicians, many weapons are available including physical threats, as well as levelling false allegations or commencement of an inquiry which will keep the officer on the defensive. Over time, many become corrupt, most become apathetic; and a large number not only respond to political needs, they actively anticipate the politician’s needs and collaborate with him — such are the enterprising ones who can increasingly aspire to positions of responsibility!

There have always been black sheep among the bureaucracy at all times — the corrupt or politicised elements. But what is of concern is that the proportion of such elements is sharply on the increase in recent times. Whereas at one time, we could point out the odd undesirable officer, the time may not be far off when we may be hard put to identify an honest, able officer.

What’s wrong with the system? Why is the civil servant important? The answers lie in the nature of our politics. The business of politics is to gather votes. In India, politics has been a business and probably the largest industry. Whereas the purpose of politics in a democracy is to serve the needs of the citizens, politics as practiced in India has degenerated into a system for creation of wealth for the practitioners. To become an MLA or an MP or a CM, is not anymore a step for serving the citizen, but has become an end in itself.

We need to segregate implementation issues from policy to improve official performance. We need to set up Civil Service Boards to deal with promotions, transfers and postings and ensure minimum tenure in a post Caste politics and communal politics have become legitimate playgrounds for politicians. The administrative machinery has become an instrument for furthering personal and political objectives; not to implement official policies. So, it is not surprising that things are not getting done — and indeed astonishing that there still remain honest, able, public spirited and independent civil servants who continue to believe that they have a duty to perform within the constitution.

Political pressure on the civil servant, be it at the field or secretariat levels, is not new. The concept of a ‘‘committed bureaucracy’’ gained ground in the 70’s and has over time gathered pace and momentum. With increasing virulence, the desired ‘‘commitment’’ is not to official policies and programmes, but to the individuals of the political executive of the day. This phenomenon has spread to all the states more or less uniformly over time. With volatile politics and unstable chief ministers in power, along with party functionaries clamouring for instant satisfaction, the pressure on officials to respond to demands of a partisan nature has been ever increasing.

I have witnessed from close quarters how each time the chief minister of the day returns from a district visit, he brings with him a sheaf of requests to get various local orders issued; a large proportion consisting of demands for transfer of various officials in the district. At the Centre, this is done more subtly, with ministers insisting on having secretaries or joint secretaries of their choice, who will obey their directions without demur, and not be an inconvenient obstructionist in pursuing a personal lucrative agenda. There is a direct correlation between implementation of official policies and delinking it from interventionist politics.

It is time we took a serious look at segregating implementation issues (the domain of bureaucrats) from policy (the domain of the legislative). This is essential to improve official performance, for the sake of the common man and to bring to fruition the constitutional guarantees. Public interest demands that the independence of the civil services should be consciously fostered.

Some of the steps that need to be urgently considered include constitution of Civil Service Boards for dealing with promotions, transfers and postings; time bound processing of vigilance cases — currently these are allowed to drag on for years; and minimum tenure in a post — if an official is to be shifted prematurely, it should not be casually or arbitrarily done, but after due consideration and with reasons to be recorded and communicated to the official.

Reforms are urgently needed to redefine ‘‘public interest’’ in this regard; to leave the management of the Civil Services to themselves and not to the political executive of the day.