Cadre row: Put aside political differences
This kind of conflict will remain unmitigated, unless both sides show greater maturity and put aside their political differences. The unfortunate truth is that neither side has shown itself to be a paragon of virtue in handling personnel matters
A few happenings point to rising differences between the Union and state governments over the administration of All India Services (AIS). This is a matter for concern as our dynamic polity relies on senior bureaucrats, chosen on merit and coming from different social classes, for implementing welfare and economic development projects. A well-motivated and hardworking bureaucracy makes a huge difference to a large emerging nation like ours.
Various commentators who have either not studied history at the dawn of Independence or followed the Constituent Assembly debates on the subject have failed to grasp the essence of a delicate administrative set-up embodied in the Constitution. What was contemplated by this arrangement was the joint responsibility shared by the Union and state governments. There was no unequal power relationship. It was a cooperative system where the Centre recruited bright young men and women and placed them at the disposal of state governments, whose needs were burgeoning after Independence. There is a simultaneous pledge by states to loan the services of a few officers to the Centre to meet the latter’s requirements from time to time.
One cannot forget the commendable role played by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then home minister who resisted the misconceived attempts by some powerful politicians to influence the government to wind up the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police Service (IPS). But for the Sardar, we wouldn’t have the present-day IAS and IPS.
Unfortunately, for quite some time, we have been witness to the phenomenon of officers sticking to the states after centralised training and avoiding going to the Union government to serve even a short spell.
Despite a few hiccups, the arrangement worked reasonably well until a decade ago. One reason for this stability was the fact that the party in power at the Centre and in many states was the same or were political allies. The situation has changed drastically and the gravity of the conflict cannot be looked upon as a mere difference of views over the placement or deputation of a few officials. In most cases the underlying factor was a jockeying for power or demonstration of muscle, using civil servants as pawns. Caught in the crossfire, a few officers were made to breach established protocol. This is not good for bureaucratic neutrality. It is also difficult to ignore the fact that sometimes requests from the Centre were made with a view to punish some officers who had dared to offend the Centre.
The amendments proposed recently, no doubt, seek to enhance Delhi’s authority to command states to give a minimum number of officers to the former. This is unexceptionable. There is a quota (deputation reserve) for deputation of officers prescribed in the cadre strength agreed upon by the Centre and states. There is also what is known as an Offer List that each state sends annually to the Centre that names officers available from the state for the Centre. In practice, however, neither the Deputation Reserve nor the Offer List is honoured strictly.
The most recent dispute veers around whether the Centre can compel a state government to place a particular officer at the disposal of the former. The amendment put forward by the Government of India (GoI) prescribes a period of time by which the state should make up its mind on a particular officer whom GOI wants. If a state dilly-dallies, the Centre can unilaterally order the release of such an officer without the consent of the state government concerned. States see this as bullying tactics by the Centre.
This kind of conflict will remain unmitigated, unless both sides show greater maturity and put aside their political differences. The unfortunate truth is that neither side has shown itself to be a paragon of virtue in handling personnel matters.
Some civil servants who are political favourites are given comfortable postings or are extended kid glove treatment when they ought to be punished for their misdemeanours.
Some others who are persona non grata with the powers that be are unfairly treated and punished for even minor transgressions. There are instances wherein the Centre’s requests for particular officers have smacked of vindictiveness. Let us hope that the controversy and debates will generate new and positive attitudes and lead to greater wisdom and level headedness in the relationship between the Centre and states.
RK Raghavan is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and a former high commissioner of India to Cyprus
The views expressed are personal
