THE Prime Minister has on numer ous occasions stressed good gover nance and accountability and that there should be more professionalism and transparency in matters affecting the bureaucracy. However, this appears to be no more than the usual rhetoric of politi cians – they never put their money where their mouth is!
In a stealthy move, the UPA government on June 15, 2004 revised the procedures for Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) appointments prescribed under the Government of India Transaction of Business Rules, 1961. Under this so-called simplified and streamlined procedure, only the approval of the Prime Minister is necessary before notifying or announcing an ACC appoint ment, as only ex-post facto approval of the Minister in charge, including that of the MOS, is required. Further, it is claimed that such notification can be done even before the approval of the Home Minister, as ex post facto approval alone is envisaged.
What is being described as “simplified and streamlined” procedure is, in fact, a very substantial change in the ACC proce dures which have been in practice since 1961. First, it gives the Prime Minister the sole prerogative of making ACC appoint ments without even consulting the Minister in charge. If that is the case, then why call it a Cabinet Committee when other members of the Committee merely rubber-stamp the decisions taken by the PMO? The Cabinet system of government implies collective responsibility where the Prime Minister is first among equals; we have here in practice an “Imperial Prime Ministership”!
What is being described as ‘simplified and
streamlined’ procedure is, in fact, a very
substantial change in the ACC procedures
Second, there does not appear to be any formal Gazette notification of this very substantial change in the ACC proce dures. This is again a case of lack of trans parency since it is a matter of concern that the change in the relevant Government of India Rules had not been made known to those affected by it, namely the vast bureaucracy of India.
All this is a disturbing and distressing development which will affect the fate of many senior bureaucrats in future. It is very clear that in spite of public utterances about professionalism and transparency, senior appointments in the government cannot be expected to be based on such objective criteria.
Perceptions that loyalty, regionalism, casteism and cronyism would be the benchmarks for senior appointments would continue exacerbating the climate of sycophancy so prevalent in the bureau cracy. Politicians would continue to chip at the bureaucracy, to the detriment of good governance.
Veena Sikri’s case is distressing because
she is being victimized for daring to use
the RTI and go to CAT for standing up
for her right to ask ‘why’
This would not have come to light but for the courageous persistence of one woman officer of the Indian Foreign Service. Veena Sikri, who is today the seniormost officer in the Foreign Service, has been fighting for her right to know why she was superseded for the post of Foreign Secretary. She first took her case to the Commission for Information under the RTI and later to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) where the Commission ruled in favour of the govern ment simply on the basis of the change in procedure for ACC appointments.
IWISH to make clear that I do not hold any brief for Sikri; my objective in highlighting the issue is that every senior bureaucrat is entitled to know why he or she is found suddenly unfit to hold a particular post when his/her overall record has generally been very good. In an age when even a child demands proper answers from parents, the government cannot stick to 19th-Century paternalism by stating that it is the government’s pre rogative to make any and every appoint ment. It must be able to say why A is bet ter than B and so on, if it really believes in transparency and professionalism.
Sikri’s case is distressing because she is being victimized for daring to use the RTI and go to CAT for standing up for her right to ask “why”. What is the point of flaunting the RTI Act as one of the achievements of the UPA government when, on the other hand, you victimize a person for having the temerity to use that instrument for the very reason it was promulgated? Similarly, why have CAT when you are going to victimize a person for taking recourse to it? There is no end to such pious hypocrisy!
It is also shocking that, while talking of gender equality, the government should try to humiliate the seniormost woman officer, who is also a senior officer other wise, in the Indian Foreign Service by giv ing her a Hobson’s choice – either she accept a junior assignment not commen surate with her seniority or stay on leave till retirement. It is not that senior posts are not available, otherwise why give extensions to people who are retired or about to retire!
Above all, a strong negative message is being sent out to the bureaucracy: “Don’t mess with us otherwise you will have to pay the penalty.” All those who are con cerned about good governance must baulk at this. A compliant bureaucracy which is not independent-minded is the antithesis of good governance in a demo cratic country.
Nothing changes and has little prospect of changing when you have petty-minded and vindictive persons pretending to be doing big things. Till then, all talk of pro fessionalism, accountability, objectivity and transparency is mere rhetoric.
