ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Dissidence in the ranks

Once is happenstance," Goldfinger warned James Bond, "Twice is coincidence. The third time, it's enemy action."

Assuming that aphorism is true, a section of the bureaucracy is at war with the Atal Bihari Vajpayee ministry. There was that never to be forgotten mess over the hike in petroleum prices when civil servants took advantage of a junior minister's inexperience. I thought everyone had learned from the experience. But in the last four weeks bureaucratic errors have been coming unusually fast.

The first blooper came in the action taken report on the Jain Commission findings on Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi featured prominently in the ATR when presented to Parliament. This, predictably, caused a ruckus as the DMK clashed with the Congress and the AIADMK.

It was unnecessary. Justice Jain himself declared that Karunanidhi wasn't involved in the conspiracy to assassinate the former prime minister. The inclusion of the DMK chief's name was explained away as a "typographic error".

Mistake number two appeared in the ordinance on the appointment of a chief vigilance commissioner. The Law Commission had been asked for its views on his selection. (This hitherto obscure post achieved new stature after the Supreme Court gave it a finger in the Enforcement Directorate and CBI pies.) The Law Commission specifically noted that non-bureaucrats were eligible.

But by he time Rashtrapati Bhawan issued the ordinance the post was the exclusive preserve of the civil service. Yet the idea of having a chief vigilance commissioner was to have an independent watchdog over the bureaucracy.

The third error -- confirmation of enemy action according to the Goldfinger formulation -- didn't bother with any elaborate masks. It was a brazen lie and to the Supreme Court at that.

Their Lordships were considering a public interest litigation on the transfer from the Enforcement Directorate of M K Bezbaruah whose untimely departure on August 13, 1998 provoked outrage. The government said its action was perfectly legal.

What is legal isn't necessarily ethical. In this case, however, even the 'law' cited by the government's attorneys was questionable. The proof submitted to the Supreme Court consisted of the court's own ruling. Unfortunately, a crucial portion had been omitted altogether which served to distort the very spirit of that judgment.

To recap briefly, in September 1997 the Inder Kumar Gujral regime submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court on the terms of reference of an independent review committee consisting of B G Deshmukh, N N Vohra, and S V Giri. They were required to recommend measures to insulate the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI from political pressure. (This came after Gujral declared a crusade on "witch-hunting").

The Supreme Court's ruling of December 1997 incorporated some of the committee's views. It was this that was misquoted in September 1998. By no coincidence, the missing passage dealt with the transfer of officers.

But the discrepancy was spotted. To cut a long and sorry tale short, it ended up with the government apologising to their Lordships and reinstating Bezbaruah to his old job at the Enforcement Directorate. When questioned, the concerned civil servants said their copy of the court order lacked the necessary passage!

By a supreme irony, the Supreme Court was hearing the Indian Bank case -- involving losses of hundreds of millions and questionable loans to Congress and Tamil Manila Congress members -- on the very day of this drama. Ordinarily, Dr Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram would have found themselves on a sticky wicket. Yet the bureaucratic 'misunderstanding' ensured that it was the Vajpayee ministry which found itself in the dock.

An angry prime minister has asked the attorney-general to find out who tried to bamboozle the Supreme Court. But the probe should go beyond that limited aspect and seek the persons who prompted Bezbaruah's transfer in the first place.

There is a principle of Indian philosophy that goes: "Neti, neti!" That is, we may not know who, but we do know who it wasn't. It turns out that senior members of the establishment were in the dark about the move to transfer Bezbaruah.

The Union home minister didn't know. The attorney-general, the government's chief legal advisor, wasn't consulted. The cabinet secretary, the head of the bureaucracy, was out of the loop.

So who went behind their backs to convince the prime minister -- who is also the cabinet minister responsible for the department of personnel -- that Bezbaruah's transfer was in order? This third major error in the space of as many weeks indicates that the civil service must be taught the virtues of accountability.

How Readers responded to T V R Shenoy's recent columns

T V R Shenoy