Now that we are well into 2004, the time is ripe for introspection — to look at the state of India. The murder of Satyendra Dubey, an upright engineer with roots in rural Bihar, is one issue that should arouse India deeply. The BJP will, of course, treat this incident as a minor irritant; the recent assembly elections and the forthcoming General Elections are far more important issues from its point of view. The views of parliamentarians, legislators and bureaucrats — they each have their own axe to grind — are also unlikely to consider the murder of the upright engineer as an important event. After all, he was merely an engineer.

Apparently bureaucrats and politicians have begun to believe that all problems will go away provided they make the right noises and respond intelligently. In their cynicism, individuals — however capable — are unimportant — unless, of course, they hold “positions”. The murder of say an SDO or a police sub-inspector becomes an important event but not the death of an engineer who was merely doing development work. This cynical attitude is obvious from the reactions of the political leaders or bureaucrats involved. Witness the reaction of the Bihar chief secretary, for example, when castigated by the High Courts in Patna for not performing his duties.

To say that the bureaucracy in general is insensitive will not be incorrect. The politician and the bureaucrat believe that they are indispensable and rule because of high intellectual capability. Nothing can be further from the truth and to act upon this attitude so that it results in the murder of an individual whose life was probably worth more to society than that of all the politicians and bureaucrats put together is a matter of national shame. What we need is a committed bureaucracy — committed not to the political leadership but to the people whom they are supposed to serve and who are their paymasters.

Mention of a few subtle points may stimulate the minds of thinkers. Consider the engineers from IIT (Satyendra Dubey was one). A large proportion of them quit the country once they pass out and work abroad. Many people question the legitimacy of spending public money on institutions such as the IITs and ask why those who have been educated largely at public expense should be allowed to use their talents abroad. Satyendra Dubey’s murder provides part of the answer to this conundrum. The other part deals with the “psychic” income that any such engineer is entitled to. This may be illustrated with a simple example.

Satyendra Dubey — if he had not been murdered — would probably have risen to the rank of, say, a chief engineer by retirement time and would have probably taken instructions from some young bureaucrat — say 40 years old — who probably became a bureaucrat because he could not qualify for admissions to IIT or some premier medical college or institute of management. This is where the concept of psychic income comes in. Professor P.V. Indiresan, former director of IIT Chennai, has made this point.