For years, civil servants have run the country. Their proclivity to control the narrative by default even after retirement is an equally disturbing trend for democracy
File image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. PTI
When we were in school, and that was a long time ago, come summer vacations parents would ask us to write letters to elders of the extended family living in other parts of the country. That was a way of keeping familial ties alive in the days before Facebook and WhatsApp. Old habits die hard. So, this is the season of letter writing for many of that generation who grew up in the 60s or before. Except that, instead of missives to kith and kin nowadays they prefer to put their signatures on ‘open letters’ presumably drafted by enterprising youngsters.
The latter trend is also understandable. Because, if exercised on certain issues, they could shoot off Letters to the Editor. But with the rapid decline of print not many read newspapers. So, open letters are the next best option after dreary op-eds. Open letters on the other hand get amplified by the congenial ecosystem with its ripples often touching foreign shores. The latest in the series of such letters one has seen at regular intervals over the last eight years since the Modi government came to power is one carrying the signatures of over a hundred former civil servants, under a rather curious banner of “Constitutional Conduct Groupe”.
The document calls for the prime minister’s intervention on “hate violence against [India’s] minority communities, particularly Muslims”. In their opinion it is “subordination of the fundamental principles of our constitution and of the rule of law to the forces of majoritarianism”. According to these eminent personalities the state is “fully complicit” in this process and the “frenzy of hate filled destruction” that the country is witnessing is not just targeting minorities, but the constitution itself. These are strong words indeed.
The problem isn’t about the letter per se. Citizens are entitled to voice their concerns through in any form or medium of their choice. An issue, however, arises about their sanctimonious posture and appropriating a moral high ground simply on the basis of former designations. Even due deference to their professional accomplishment and the high offices they held once upon a time, civil servants have no special entitlement to preach nor, as officers of the country’s executive, were they envisaged as conscience keepers of the nation — a role assigned to the judiciary and constitutional institutions. Questions they can always raise — but as ordinary citizens of the country and not by flaunting old calling cards.
The risk of polishing vintage war medals in public is that an equal or larger number of former colleagues from their own services can bring out their own trophies for display and there is no reason to believe that the collection of the latter group will be any less impressive than those of the former. The inevitable fallout of this, as has happened in the past, would be arguments about the political affiliations and ideological leanings of each set. There’s the rub.
Almost without exception, the list of signatories of the letter has thrived in their professional careers under the previous establishment. Indeed, quite a few of them are known to be still close to the former power centres and advise them. Many of them one knows personally make no secret of their desire to see a regime change. That by itself does not disqualify them from taking up just causes but does not necessarily raise their credibility quotient either. Nor should one ascribe “sour grapes” mindset on personalities of such eminence. But, it certainly does not put them a notch above those who have a different point of view. However, if sections of the media prefer to pick up their voices over others and give it wide circulation, it would only confirm suspicions of deep-rooted bias and may even spawn conspiracy theories.
***
Also Read
Ex-Bureaucrats’ letter attempt to create ‘distrust’ in the country, says BJP
***
The doubts do not stop there. The least one would expect from experienced administrators is a modicum of objectivity. Instead what one reads is like a political handout – albeit couched in flamboyant prose. It takes a lot for veterans to label members of their own services as “a prejudiced, communal executive” providing “a facilitating environment for mischievous lumpen groups to operate without fear”.
The retired civil servants have freely enlarged their domain of expertise to take on matters that would normally be the subject of a constitutional bench at the Supreme Court. They have come to the summary conclusion that “the administration of law, instead of being an instrument for maintaining peace and harmony, has become the means by which the minorities can be kept in a state of perpetual fear”. Their constitutional right to “practise their own faith, follow their own customs, dress code and personal laws and exercise their own food choices, is threatened…. by twisting the law itself, to circumscribe their freedom of choice, to strike fear in the community, deprive them of their livelihoods and make it evident to them that they have to accept their status as inferior citizens who have to subordinate themselves to majoritarian political power and majoritarian social and cultural norms”. These sweeping judgements are passed without a shred of evidence and reasoned discussion to infer “designs to establish a Hindu Rashtra”.
The confidence with which the former mandarins make certain insinuations are awe-inspiring. They write, “While we are not aware if the current spurt in a communal frenzy is coordinated and directed by the political leadership, it is evident that the administration… provides a facilitating environment”. They further suggest that “the actual commission of violence may be outsourced to fringe groups, there is little doubt as to how the ground for their operations is made fertile”.
One recalls lengthy articles by iconic police officers after alleged church attacks which have conveniently forgotten without even an apology.
What is also remarkable is the “selectivity” of their observations. While they are categorical in stating that hate violence against minority communities, especially against Muslims, has escalated “all states in which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in power”, instances of non-BJP ruled states seem to have missed their eyes.
It is also bemusing to see the name of a former Lt Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung, IAS (Retd), among the authors. Wonder what he would have to say about unauthorised construction in many parts of the capital. Similarly, one is intrigued about the views of another gentleman on political violence in a state where he was the Home Secretary not too long ago.
But, selective memory and selective logic are key attributes for career civil servants.
The retired babus accuse others of “outsourcing” and following a “master-script” and “toolkit”, their own letter reads like it was “ghost-written” by some activists. That makes a “civilian” like this columnist wonder that it is actually not the other way round when activists have outsourced the letter to some sympathisers, as per a new “toolkit” they may have developed.
The Indian bureaucracy is a legacy of British rule. For years, civil servants have run the country. Their proclivity to control the narrative by default even after retirement is an equally disturbing trend for democracy.
The author is a current affairs commentator, marketer, blogger and leadership coach, who tweets at @SandipGhose. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.