Flexible ethical standards

By Inder Malhotra

Like a bucketful of water thrown on hot desert sands, the excitement over Mr. George Fernandes's disclosure - that the former chairman of the UTI, now under arrest on various charges, was recommended for this post by Ms. Jayalalithaa has evaporated fast. This is not surprising, given the fleeting attention span of the political class. But the surprise is that during the brief flurry, attention focused on utterly irrelevant matters.

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Jayalalithaa, once again Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, had categorically denied the allegation of the former Defence Minister who continues to be the convener of the National Democratic Alliance ruling in New Delhi. He had then retorted that the recommendation had been made to him personally and that he had noted down Mr. P. S. Subrahmanyam's name and conveyed it to the Prime Minister's Office.

What followed was entirely true to type. Opposition MPs and media pundits worked themselves to high dudgeon, forgetting that appointments to high office - political, bureaucratic, financial and sometimes even judicial - are usually a product of political patronage or lobbying by those whose voice has got to be heard. Sifarish is the name of the game; its literal translation, recommendation, is utterly inadequate to describe this peculiarly Indian phenomenon. There is a famous story, not at all apocryphal, about a dignitary who years ago had made it known to all concerned that he would entertain only those letters of recommendation that were ``signed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank.''

No one, literally no one, has said a word about the only real issue arising from the Fernandes-Jayalalithaa skirmish. It is that Mr. Fernandes and his cohorts have to explain their own rather flexible ethical standards. It was all right for them quietly to abide by Ms. Jayalalithaa's wishes when she was their partner in the NDA. Short of withdrawing the court cases against her, they had bent over backwards to placate her on that score, too. But now that she is practically at war with the BJP's Tamil Nadu ally, the DMK, any stick is good enough to beat her with. Other allies of the BJP in today's NDA ought to be watchful. For while no one doubts that they too have had their share of spoils, this could become a source of embarrassment in case present relationships change.

In the era when the Congress or the Congress(I) had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, it or its favoured power brokers could appoint whoever they liked to whichever job they liked whenever they liked. Things have only worsened since weak and quick-changing coalitions have started ruling the country.

Mr. Madhav Godbole, a former Union Home Secretary, has recorded in his book Unfinished Innings that he was removed from the post of Petroleum Secretary at the behest of a business tycoon with extraordinary clout with successive governments of all political hues. Mr. Chandra Shekhar made the legendary Mr. T. N. Seshan Chief Election Commissioner only because Rajiv Gandhi wanted a high enough post to be given to him. During the United Front interlude, the CPI(M) leader, Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet, had virtually become the appointing authority.

Despite the announced policy of no extensions to anybody, the Vajpayee Government has given a rather long extension to the Cabinet Secretary, Mr. T. R. Prasad. This civil servant, belonging to the Andhra Pradesh cadre had served, in the top post for only a short period. His qualifications for the job are also impeccable. Even so, it is well known that a nod from the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr. N. Chandrababu Naidu, had something to do with the Centre's decision. Mr. Naidu's enviable power is based on the critical number of MPs owing allegiance to him and his wise decision not to let his followers join the Vajpayee Government.

There are, however, other unprepossessing elements in the situation. In the first place, rather than accept the sensible suggestion that every Cabinet Secretary should have a fixed tenure, the Government has reserved to itself the discretion to give or not to give an extension to the Cabinet Secretary, thus making the system vulnerable to capriciousness. Secondly, the post of the Director of the CBI, premier investigative agency that is being saddled every day with more and more sensitive cases, is lying vacant. Despite a precise procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and a three-person panel before it, the Union Government is unable to make up its mind. An ``officiating Director'' is in temporary charge of the CBI, giving rise to the joke that in the Government of India everything is ``either temporarily permanent or permanently temporary''. And yet this hasn't prevented the powers that be from working over time to find a sinecure for the recently retired Banking Secretary. In this case, the almighty caste seems to be at work!

This is a purely illustrative, not at all exhaustive, account of the goings on within the politico-bureaucratic Leviathan. Anyone feeling depressed by it ought to count his blessings. For, there is a lot of amusement in New Delhi because some unsuspecting Nigerian MPs have arrived here to learn, of all things, parliamentary manners from their Indian opposite numbers.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Lacking in sagacity