परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम्‌ (Deliver the Pious and Annihilate the Miscreants)

The title of this article, from the timeless Srimadbhagwadgeeta, sums up the basic reason for the existence of a State. The criminal justice system, and its effectiveness, can be said to be one parameter on which one can separate vital states from failed ones. The apex court has recently reiterated a landmark judgement, whereby the police chiefs of the state shall be appointed only by the say so of the UPSC. This has brought the issue of police reforms to the forefront once again. However, police reforms cannot be seen in isolation from the reform of the criminal justice system as a whole.

As Administrators, it falls on our lot to listen to public grievances. The most numerous of these grievances relate to land and property, and disputes related to the same. Quite close, on its heels, come the grievance related to police. Almost all of these relate to Investigation. These issues cover the whole canvas – from non registration of Report, to wrong (and mala fide) registration of a false complaint, slow investigation, needless (maybe even wrongful) arrests, or a lack of arrest where arrest was needed to uphold the law. All these subjects lie in the chapters concerning the police investigation (except for arrest, which constitutes a separate part), and, legally, police is totally free to conduct the same quite independently of any external supervision – executive, or even judicial (there are apex court’s ruling to the effect, although, maybe, with their own Court monitored SITs, the rulings become moot, at least for the higher judiciary). That is an immense power, and it has to be tempered with commensurate responsibility.

One of my bosses, now retired, used to call the police the Pratham Nyaayadheesh (the first judge). This is true, as it is the first (and quite often only) part of the criminal justice system the majority of the population comes in contact with. Since a cognizable criminal case, unlike a civil suit, in almost all instances, must be initiated by the State (Police in this case), and not a private party, hence, getting the police to initiate a case, after convincing them to do so, and then getting them to find the perpetrator chargeable, (after what is surely an exercise in appreciation of evidence, though we simply call it an investigation) is very much an exercise of a private law suit. Whenever someone is a victim/ witness/ aggrieved of/by a cognizable offence, he must report the same to the Police. The police have to reduce it to writing, send information to the Judiciary, and proceed to investigate the matter. As per Court rulings, this is the minimum that has to be done, if an information is reported. However, the framers of the CrPC were wise enough to note that the same may be refused by the officer at the police station, and hence it has provided for relief at the level of the Superintendent of the Police, and at the level of the Judiciary too, who may look into the cases of refusal, and direct the concerned to do their duty.

However, even with the above mentioned safeguards, the following questions remain unanswered-

1.       What if someone provides a wrong information? The police is duty bound to register a report. Now, report is not just a ‘report’. It sets off into the motion a court file, with a “Crime Number”, and an (unfortunate and implicated, in this case) “accused”. The penalty for providing wrong information is very light under 182 IPC, or moderate, under IPC 211. That is when the aggrieved party moves a complaint to that nature, for the prosecution or the courts are generally reluctant to pursue such matters on their own. Before that, the reputation, mental peace, and sometimes even the liberty of the falsely accused person are under great peril.

2.       Then again, even if the case is registered, what is there to ensure that the investigation is being carried out correctly? One may argue that the trial ensures that any wrong evidence or inference is struck off by the court. However, there is nothing to tell us if any evidence was not overlooked deliberately - or ‘pitted’ (to use the American slang). Investigation is a substantive exercise in itself, and the end of the investigation case diary cannot, by itself, recreate what went right or wrong during the whole course. Legally, no one can supervise the police during the investigation itself, or even direct them to investigate in a certain way.

The correct answers to both the questions shall be as follows. Firstly, there are very feeble (and even more feebly used) provisions to restrain the registration of a wrong Police Report. Hence, there are adequate opportunities to get a wrong FIR registered, to harass a bonafide person in this jurisdiction. The trouble is, the Police are duty-bound to register these reports, if the letter of the law must be gone by.  Secondly, there is a system of checking of case diaries within the police hierarchy, and the superior officers sometimes do take out time to supervise the same. However, this process is totally causa sui, and (legally) does not depend on, or answer to the issues raised by a person aggrieved by the said investigation. There is also a provision of a Protest Petition which can be filed by the aggrieved complainant with the Magistrate, in case he disagrees with the finding of the police. However, it is not a mechanism of continuous monitoring, but rather an end of the process intervention.

That 5-6 sentence paragraph wreaks a total havoc on the actual justice delivery system. When a Station Officer has decided not to register a report (for reasons we shall go into later), and the complainant insists on waving the Supreme Court Orders (or the CrPC) in his face, he may acquiesce. However, nothing prevents him from registering a false report, initiated by (or by a proxy of) the real perpetrator who is made an accused in the first FIR! In fact, the SO may suddenly get very conscious of his duty to register every complaint, when such a report comes his way. Then, the first FIR can proceed at its own pace, while on the second report, investigation would run like an express train. Talks of arrest would be made. Or even if both the FIRs are treated equally, it is the inherent nature of our criminal justice system that the equal situation is not equitable. For a (for example) middle class professor, the stigma of being an “accused” is a big punishment in itself; for a strongman turned politician, it is a badge of honour, as was evidenced a few months back by a gentleman bragging about the number of criminal cases against him, before threatening to burn down a police station! For a retired government servant,the fee of an off-the-shelf defence lawyer is a considerable drain on savings. On the other hand, for someone who has amassed a considerable loot, marquee lawyers are on the retainer. Hence, whenever a “common man” is falsely implicated an “cross FIR”, his instincts tell him to patch it up with his tormentor. The SO is most willing to organize this, and become the Antim Nyayadheesh instead of just the Pratham!

The above paragraph may sound disrespectful of police officers, and may sound as if the author considers all police to be venal. That is not so. In my limited time as an Executive Magistrate, the majority of the officers, even at Sub Inspector levels, were, by nature, honest, and sincere. However, the political system which we inhabit, forces the hand of a lot many honest persons. Again, then, why I am speaking about police alone – isn’t the political system same for all departments? Yes, it is. We have adequate examples of petty interference – which beneficiary gets the free solar light, and which one doesn’t. Or for that matter, who gets the free toilet, the free housing, the ration card, every little benefit that the welfare state gives out. On a more serious notes, there are Presiding officers of Revenue Courts, who decide land cases as per political diktats. However, when it comes to police, the scope of abuse is at  a totally different level. For one, the thing at stake is not a toilet, or one room house, or even a parcel of land, but the liberty and in cases, life, of the citizenry. Not the “life” in post PUCL expanded definition, but in the very crux of it. For seconds, the nexus between the political system and crime is very much out in the open. The sheer number of dishonorables becoming Honorables is alarming – although, yet again, the Supreme Court has given us some relief in that matter. Still, the system cannot prevent the proxies of these debarred criminals from contesting and even winning the elections. A firm grasp over the police ensures an easy sailing for those in power (and also for those who are not in power, for the right price of course). The importance of control over the Police can be seen in the desperation shown by politicians who are not in control of the police at the moment!

The latest Supreme Court order delivers us from this difficulty, but in a very feeble way. The mere appointment of a DGP by consultation with the UPSC won’t cut much. If the removal from the post is not restrained the same way, it can make previously politically non compromised incumbent into a pliant chief! Then again, District chiefs are not secured from political whims, nor are the thousands of Inspectors and Sub Inspectors, who are (or can be made into) the Station Officers. The original judgement has instructions addressing these lacunae, to some extent.  This author had, in a previous article, proposed the system of a board for administration of all Civil Servants, which is not subordinate to any  government, but to the UPSC, just the way the Election Commission, through the state CEO office, takes over the administrative jurisdiction during the elections. The logic of the Supreme Court judgement can be extended to this natural conclusion.

However, merely removing the political cage would not help, until the two questions raised in the beginning are addressed. Without them, the system would not be secured from the depredations of the non political actors, or worse, plain lethargy on the part of the investigating authority. Let us revisit the question once again. Say a malafide complainant has come to register an FIR against an innocent accused. Legally, at that instant, the Station Officer has no choice but to register an FIR, if "the information makes out the commission of a cognizable offence", regardless of the veracity of the information itself. Even if the SO is willing to let the law be, the malafide complainant has the whole media gallery to force the SO’s hand. Then, an innocent person gets his name in the crime record, and must run from pillar to post to profess his innocence. He is troubled for no fault of his own. Then again, if we remove this compulsion of registering the report, there can be crimes which go unaccounted, simply because the police wont be troubled. The wordings of the Section 157 of CrPC presents us with quite a conundrum –

"157. Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry.

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; Provided that-

(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;

(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.”

It does seem to envisage that there are reports which need not be investigated, and makes procedural provisions for the same under 157(1)(b). However, in the part of 157(1) preceding the proviso, making a report to the Magistrate comes before the investigation begins. Thus, as per the letter of the law, a criminal case is to be instituted in the court, even before the IO has applied his mind to the basics. Even if on application of his mind, IO finds the report frivolous, he has the option of not investigating, but, as per the language, the requirement of intimating the magistrate is not done away with. If a syntactically and semantically correct information of a cognizable offence is received by a Police Station, it must result in a criminal case as per the letter of the law, notwithstanding the factual truth of the said information. Hence, the solution to this twisted knot lies in creating a legal meta-state between the information and registration of a “criminal case”. It should be mandatory to take in all information – how so ever frivolous it may be. It should be mandatory to look into it prima facie, and to convert it into a criminal case only after a speaking order by the Investigator. In fact, it is what practically does happen today. However, in absence of existing Statutes to the effect, and in face of Judicial Orders against it, this system stays in the shadow, where it is prone to much abuse. False accusations have stayed in human society since ancient times – it has its own specific Commandment out of Ten – Thou shall not bear false witness! However, neither biblical commands, nor legal hurdles have been able to deter false hood. With the prescribed solution, one can avoid the sad spectacle of unverified falsehoods causing good people trouble.

This brings us to the verification, which is a solution to the second problem. Legally, the IO takes no instructions. Not at all. Not even from his superiors – they may only change the IO, if they feel the IO is wrong or lacking in his investigation. Even judicial interventions occur when the investigation report is finally tabled on the dais, not during the process itself. However, as we know, the process of investigation culminates in the generation of either a Chargesheet, or a Final Report, based on what the IO finds, and what he deduces from the same. Minus the power to punish, it is an almost judicial work – appreciating evidence and forming an opinion. However, unlike the Court proceedings, which both sides and their counsels aid the judge in forming his opinion, here, legally, the IO is alone. He may question those he suspects. However, won’t the complainant be in a good position to give the IO pointers as to what matters he should look into, especially in “non-mystery” cases? Similarly, won’t the accused be better placed to point out to evidence that exonerates him? Since there is no legal system of taking both sides contentions on the record, it is up to the whim and fancy of the IO over what evidence to include and what to overlook. We are ever vigilant about the threat of false and fabricated evidence loading an investigation and trial, but we are unnaturally blasé about the possibility (and occurrence) of selective inclusion of evidence. Hence, a system needs to be in place, where the contentions of all the parties involved can be placed on the record, for the benefit of the investigation. We can hardly expect to set up court rooms for all the IO in the country. What is feasible is an online portal, where the parties can put up their assertions, and evidence in support of the same. There is no dearth of such portals in the government system. Almost all states have grievance redressal portals, wherein, among other things, police investigation related issues are admitted with alacrity, and are then disposed off at the face value of whatever the police department responds with. Occasionally a conscientious IO (or his conscientious superior) might take a cue from these petitions and amend their process. However, in majority of the cases, these inputs don’t make an iota of a difference on the investigation – because of two reasons – a. There is no legal need to do so, b. Most petitions are full of assertions for which there isn’t, and there can’t be any supporting evidence. Somethings on the line of “Sab mile hue hain. Koi sunwaai nahin ho rahi hai” (Everyone is in cahoots with others, and no one is hearing me out), instead of hard facts, like, for example, a screenshot of an abusive message which the IO has overlooked. In order to ensure better guided investigation in contentious cases, as well as to better channel the angst against the system which is generated in these grievance portals, we need to make the twain meet. In fact, a better way would be create a specific online file for every complaint, in which the complainant, as well as the accused may put in all the evidence in their favour, as well as the assertions that go with them. They will go a good way into ensuring that the IO does justice with his case. More importantly, it shall present the superiors of the IO (as well as the courts) with a clear picture of the errors and omissions made by the IO, in case he chooses to ignore any of the evidence.

 Post Script & A Detour

After speaking purely from a service-neutral point of view above, I must get to some issues of own tribe now. While there are some voices of dismay from within the ranks of the Service about the Supreme Court judgement, I think the same is a case of misapprehension. There is a feeling that “we” may lose control of the police. I do not think so. Legally, in investigation, police is independent. Whatever “control” we profess to exercise administratively is extra legal. That, plus, of course, friendships forged with our Police Service colleagues in the Himalayan Treks at the Academy, or at evening get-togethers in one-shop-town postings, also help. For Law and Order issues, the powers of the Executive Magistrates are enshrined as sacrosanct in the same CrPC from which the police derive their powers. A politically unburdened police would strengthen the institution of EM, for it would be easier for the police to carry out the court orders. In fact, the next logical step, which this author has suggested earlier, would be political unburdening of the EMs. High Courts currently exercise only judicial control over them right now. It needs to be extended to the administrative end too – coterminous with that of the Executive government. That would be a big step in salvaging the much depreciated office of the District Magistrate! The Supreme Court judgement in question is a result of long and tireless efforts of a retired Police Service officer. However, the counterparts in Administrative Service appear much clueless about it. Based on political expediency, some of our illustrious seniors have supported the idea of allowing non careerist personnel to man senior positions in the government. Some others may have supported it to sound in-step with the media sentiments. However, the sentiments flowing in the media are often very simplistic, and mutually contradictory. For media has also supported the said SC verdict on DGP appointments. So, on one hand, we must believe that the government must not be free to unilaterally choose its police chief, out of an eligible pool of just about half a dozen Apex Scale IPS officers, as it can lead to “politically convenient” appointments. On the other hand, it is deemed advisable to open the arena to potentially thousands of “corporate sector luminaries” (millions, if we include petty kaarykartas) when an appointment to senior official positions of the government is concerned; for that, somehow, would be a politically neutral process! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The service should also move itself to free itself, and its jurisdiction, from extra legal political constraints. It has been called the Steel Frame in the older days – in a largely static system of government. However, in this era of welfare state, the Service is not only frame, but also the engine and the drive shaft of the State. As any engineer worth his salt can tell, structural flexibility of theoretically rigid members of a machine can only lead to inefficiency, inefficacy unpredictability, and failure. The efforts of the Police Service, and the judgement of the Honorable Court, are steps in the right direction. One thing is clear from this whole episode – meaningful administrative reforms (as opposed to “reforms” for the gallery) can never be brought about by a political process, as the politicians as a class sustain the biggest loss in the deal. It has to be through the Courts, and it has to take sustained efforts.  What is to be strived for is a politically independent Civil Services Board, under the UPSC, (with some Judiciary component), which deals with administration of the Administrators. In case of the police officers, the PIL was moved by a distinguished retired Police Officer; can we dream to expect something similar from our luminaries? Unconstrained from owning failures of half baked demagogic ideas, and free to aid and advise fearlessly, the way the Founding Fathers of the Republic had imagined, we would have a much better record to show. If nothing else, we would be spared of ugly political sparring over who “controls” us!

The Wanderers - A Leg Up for the Generalists

[This article was written in 2015, but it could not be published then. It is being posted now, as it needs to be referenced in a future article.]

Most of my esteemed colleagues have come to a passionate defence of the Service. In my opinion, it is not the Service which is in the need of defence, but the very idea of the State in this nation.

Firstly, do we need generalist government functionaries? I am not talking about a career generalist service. I am talking about  managerial posts in the government. Most persons would agree with me on this. Somebody needs to be 'the Man' in any organization, big or small. The coordinator, the boss. In most theory of organizations, some sort of a coordinator is configured, and hence most persons would agree with me on this point. However, to see generalist civil servants as merely the coordinators is to underestimate the need for their services. For the government is unlike the other economic organizations. Economic organizations choose what work to take. In fact it is one of the three fundamental questions facing a microeconomic firm - What to produce? ( For the sake of completeness, the other questions are how to produce, and for whom?) In case of government, the first question and the third question are already solved, or rather, constrained. Economic organizations may choose not to render a service, if deemed non profitable. The government may not; infact it has to step in for every problem which economic organizations refuse to handle. Thus, the mandate of the government is residuary. Residuary means whatever has not been classified. The E & OEs. The sundries. While over the years the list of classified functions of the government has been expanding over the years - the truth remains - whatever is nobody else's job, is the government's. Hence, in addition to the much celebrated coordination role, the generalist government functionary works as a specialist for the residuary, the unexpected.

Now that we have agreed that there is a need for generalist functionaries, we come to the question - with whom to man these. Many detractors of the Service say that "now the politicians have become qualified enough for the ministers to render the generalist work themselves, and the civil servants must render just technical assistance". This statement is quite wrong, for the politicians have not become smart 'now'; anyone under this delusion need only look at the stature of the esteemed members of the Constituent Assembly, which, ironically, had voted for the inclusion of the Service in the Constitution itself. Politicians have always been smart; it is just that the facet they must show in public has to appeal to what may be euphemistically called 'a broad band of the intelligence bell curve.' It is not the intellectual capability of our political masters that prevents them from manning the generalist posts. It is rather the nature of the State we inherited - in which the continuity of the Government is defined through the Permanent Executive. While the moral onus of governance lies on the elected representatives, the legal onus lies squarely on the civil servant. Thus, when the Higher Courts need to order the State Governments, they order the Chief Secretary, and not the Chief Minister. For indeed there can be occasions when there is no Chief Minister, or any minister for that matter, for prolonged periods. Similarly, there are municipalities being run by Municipal Commissioners in absense of Mayors, Blocks being run by BDOs in absence of Pramukhs. The continuity of the government is vested in its nameless faceless functionaries, not in its luminaries. However, that is just half the reason why the political executive cannot be expected to do the work of the generalist functionary. A rather important Constitutional reason is the fact that none of the three tiers of governance - Union, State or Local, is legally subordinate to any other. However, any big event requires concerted effort of functionaries of all the tiers - with the Union, State, Rural Local Body and Urban Local Body being headed by different political parties! How to ensure coordination between these possibly adversary political bodies? In India, this jugglery is handled by the Collector. In British Empire days, the Collector was described as 'the turtle on whose back the elephant of the Indian Empire stands'. If anything, the elephant of the Republic is heavier. 

Once the need of generalist posts and functionaries is acknowledged, the question moves to the need of a generalist cadre. What is the other option? Indian Railways provide a model of manning the general administration posts on a round robin basis, by civil servants of specialized cadres. The posts of Divisional and Zonal managers are given to the persons of each of the 9 organized services, based on cadre strength. While the system has endured, for quite some time now, it has given to the organization the bane of departmentalism. Ever observed a group of ants pulling a piece of bread to their lair? While the ants might look as if they are cooperating, if one does an experiment and cuts that piece of bread in two, one is surprised to see that both the pieces move in different directions! More pieces would result in even more directions ( it is a scientific observation), which leads to the realization of a fact - each ant is merely pulling for itself, the illusion of coordinated motion is simply in the direction of the residual resultant force. As an insider to the IR, the author has seen the way departmental struggles paralyze daily work. Everyone is an equal, a master of his own domain, having immense nuisance value over it, and using it to play out petty rivalries. And there are just 9 or 10 departments who need to coordinate in Railways. Outside, there are more than 50 such departments, and one may only imagine the combination of rivalries and the resultant logjam, were an impartial outsider not present to moderate. More importantly, IR gives a good lesson in how the Finance Department routinely scuttles efforts of DRMs and GMs. The author has not yet seen a case of CTO overruling his Collector. Yes, he may advise, often correctly. However, this outright undermining of authority is yet to be seen. This depends on something known in Hindi as 'Iqbal'. Though it has been waning, and quite fast, across departments, yet the generalist cadres at both levels of federation still retain it to some extent. Other departments still listen to them, above their pretty squabbles. May be because they do not have a department of their own, so to say. (This is not strictly true, as most of them handle the land revenue departments of the states in their initial years - however, that is for a very short period - and the feeling of kindred spirit is conspicuous by its absense).

A related issue which has found some currency recently is about the posts of Secretaries to the Government being denied to the specialized services. There is an argument that the ministries of the government dealing with a particular domain needs to be manned by specialists of that department. Unfortunately, the nomenclature is to be blamed here. In the Union Government, what are essentially ministries are labelled as 'departments', and what are essentially the posts of 'Secretary to the Government, Ministry of So-n-so' has been represented as So-n-so Secretary, leading to much heartburn. Departments are Line functions, Ministries are essentially Staff functions, aiding and advising the President or the Governor. Departments need to be manned by specialists, and need to have a departmental vision. Ministries are not departmental; at least they are not supposed to be. They are the policy making bodies, which need to see the interest of the government and the nation as a whole. A specialist Home Secretary may advise policies that may really boost up the morale of the forces, but will be oblivious to its impact on all the other facets of the society. A specialist Revenue Secretary shall also suffer from a similar blinkered view. A generalist officer, who has seen it all, and is a student of the Law of Unintended consequences, is hence the natural choice to take the final call. He may take the advice of the department for whom the policies are being framed. However, he may need to make policies which are to the detriment of that department, if the greater good warrants it - for the situation of the ants pulling in all directions cannot be allowed. Departmental affiliations would not allow such a dispassionate exercise. However, the bleak truth stands true - the departments are for the government and the people, and not vice versa.

So now, in the end, that we have agreed that a round robin handling of the general administration posts is not the way to go. The question remains, with whom to vest this authority? Fate had deemed that after their victory in the Battle of Buxar, the British secured the Dewani of Bengal from the Mughal emperor. This arrangement, by 1780s, led to the creation of the Collector ( the first occupier of the said post was Harry Verelst, of District Burdwan). Since the Collector was the highest official of the Company (and later the Government) in the District, he got vested with the charge of law and order (which originally included the control over the military) and all other departments, as and when they were born. It may be assumed that had the British won the rights to keep the Army of the Mughals instead, the top official might have been the Garrison Commander; and had they won the right to lay the Railways, it might have been vested in the Chief Engineer. Is this assumption true? Before answering the what-if, we must face the what-is. What is true is that for decades now, the general administration has been with the 'land revenue' department, both at the Centre and at the State. For this very reason, the higher ranked candidates in the Civil Services Examinations, both at the Centre as well as at the State, have opted to join these services. Admittedly, the inter se rankings of all the qualifiers is merely a luck based snapshot of essentially a stochastic phenomenon. There is no doubt to that. All the persons qualifying for the main written examination have the potential to top the list on their day. However, once the sorting is done, these 'momentary toppers' undergo a learning curve which is unparalleled in the world. Within a year or two, they shed any baggage of their 'parent department', if they had had any at all. They deal with whatever the world throws at them; and each day brings a unique experience. They are hardly trained for half of what every new day brings, and yet, they learn on their feet and deal with it, sometimes very well, sometimes not too well. Thus, they become the captains of the uncharted waters - the masters of the residuary - residuary - the very reason for the existence of a generalist functionary. The original rank might well have been a lucky break; but this body of experience is an unassailable and unmatchable advantage. So, even without answering the what-if, the what-is is, by any logical stand, here to stay. Then, let us play with the what-if. Could any other Service have gained this primacy? Even today, few Departments have the reach like the land revenue department - at the most grassroot level. Sample this - the Central Revenue Departments, which, quite truly, collect the most of the government income these days, ask of their tax base to file their own returns, and pay in their own dues. The original, now quite mothballed, Revenue department, hardly collects anything (in my subdivision with a population of around 20 lakh, the total land revenue is Rs. 5 Lakh!). Yet, the revenue staff still prepare the tax returns of all the landholders (the zamabandi), and even collects those measly dues. However, in exercise of the whole system designed to collect them, this department, and hence, the associated services, come into contact with the majority of humanity that makes up this nation. The records are used to verify antecedents, income, eligibility, and pretty much anything else. Once my Tehsildar was asked to sign a certificate to the effect that the daughter of one couple was indeed their true born daughter! The certificate was required from 'the Tehsildar or Superior Authority'. Such is the faith of 'whom so ever it may concern' on the in depth reach made by the 'revenue' department into almost all facets of the life of the majority of Indians, that it is not a mere accident that it, and 'its officers' are into general administration. So, answering the what-if, it seems, in all probability, that had the District Officer been primarily designated for some other function, he would have evolved into the Collector, gradually.

So, is the Service doing justice to its rightly evolved mandate? Only partially. As has been clarified, the members of the service have a taste for the uncharted. However, we do seem to have left the "already charted" to God. An IAS officer should be a master of general administration - that includes budget, personnel and service rules, disciplinary rules and Law. One would notice that all of the above are well defined academic subjects, that need to be learned the traditional way. However, under the influence of the modern 'management degree shops', the Academy has imbibed a pedagogy that lacks clarity of purpose. The general idea seems to be that the probationers shall learn the real deal in their State Cadres, so lets sing and dance away a year! (Or ride it away!) Howsoever brilliant an officer may be in dealing with the unknowns, if he shows obvious ignorance of what a UDC should know, he cuts a sorry figure for the whole fraternity. And hence, a reform is needed from within. As long as the Service rejuvenates itself to the levels of rigour it was founded upon, it is the nature's will that it shall remain at the pinnacle

On Trolls and Trumps

So this Sunday night, I was awake a lot longer than I am supposed to do before a dreaded Monday morning. I caught an episode of MTV Troll Police. It had old MTV hand Ranvijay, and a host of props, both electronic and human, that stood in for the process of tracing out a troll; in this case, a garden variety, unemployed and unemployable, bhaarateey sankriti with a dash of modernism-when-suits-me, Hindi heartland dwelling troll who had been harassing the actor Tapsee Pannu online, in badly spelled monologue, making up with parochial virtuosity for what was lacked in grammar. The most interesting part was where the team was playing with this guy; who was pretending, in the hindsight, only to himself, to be a progressive modernist, while everyone, including the audience, knew what he really was - a true reflection of a majority of the digitally empowered Indian youth. The chase was too tacky with all that computer imagery of "tracking", and the denouement was too hurried, and by far not what the show claimed - that is inducing a change in the "hearts and minds" of the troll. I guess, if it was not the, suddenly very real, possibility of getting prosecuted for sexual comments on a female, then surely it was the angry mustachioed visage of a six footer Ranvijay standing a foot away, which portended an equally unpalatable possibility of getting the sh*t kicked out of oneself on camera, which subdued the troll! Ah, the innocent late 90s, when trolls could be subdued by the flick of a wand, and "Wingardium Leviosa"! Anyway, the show was good, but it would be interesting to see what it offers when the novelty of it wears off.

However, if you are really looking for a "hearts and minds" story about a troll being transformed, you can follow this piece about Sarah Silvermann. Ohh, I am a huge fan of hers, since I saw her in 'School of Rock' or 'School for Scoundrels'. I can't recall which one I watched first. For someone who speaks sarcasm as her mother-tongue, what she did with her troll was a surprise comparable to the tigress that spared that neonate fawn on the viral Youtube video. Seriously, she responded to pure abuse with kind words, and pin pointed the "root cause", and even arranged pro bono Medicare for the destitute troll, converting him in the process and making the internet go a collective awwww! If I was a fan before reading that, now I positively worship her. For, not belittling the very good show the MTV people have put up, her feat was inestimably greater - for she actually brought an internal change, without the threat of draconian gender laws, or that of a menacing hulk!

Trolling is a part of the mass social media today. The feeling of impunity because of being a part of a ready made crowd commenting online, coupled with the anonymity that the web offers (more than anonymity, it is the lack of physical access between the participants) lowers the inhibitions people have against saying out aloud their worst thoughts. Plus, it is a part of the socially tolerated, if not accepted, online behaviour. A study of a contrast between various online fora is illustrative. A couple of years back, Quora used to be an exclusive preserve of the well read and articulate intellectual crowd. Present day, it has gained a sizeable chunk of whose educational and social-intellectual profile does not really match up to the standards. Still, Quora remains free from trolling. Yes, the troll-view point finds mention, and even up votes, but the language employed remains civil and courteous. Not so on facebook, or twitter. It is some how socially acceptable to abuse on facebook and not on Quora, just the way people would spit on and deface the DTC buses, but leave the Delhi Metro clean!

Trolling in itself is not an isolated phenomenon. It is a part of the deepening democratic tendency and empowerment of the masses, which has led to things like the election of the incumbent US President, the exit of Britain from the European Union - also known as Brexit, and, closer home, the hardlining of the political discourse. All these things are rather unpalatable to the 'intellectual brigade', but ironically, they are the products of things most valued by the brigade - democracy and human free will. Apparently, freedom of choice includes the choice to self destruct. While true intellectuals may wring their hands and despair, like the character Bruce, in Bruce Almighty, and say that free will cannot be controlled, and certain Indian intellectuals may opine that it is infact being controlled through electronic mechanisms(!), the fact remains that such anti intellectual and anti establishment trends are on the rise. If we had a measure of quantifying the subjective feeling of "shrillness" of the trolling we see, and we plotted it against time, it would directly correlate with the frequency and intensity of such events. In fact, we might be seeing the first worldwide revolution which is truly mass sourced. Think of it. Till now, in almost every revolution that happened, it was truly the cerebral clique taking advantage of the sheep crowd. The great religions and the political systems (usually  monarchies) supported by them were obviously in this mould. The Magna Carta, which is treated as the first step towards the rule of law, was basically a compromise between a monarch and his disgruntled aristocrats. Equally so, in the English Civil War, which first uprooted the monarchy and installed the Protectorate, the opposition wasn't the true commoner, but locally strong representatives with the requisite heft. The American Revolutionaries were big Estates Holders (and Slave holders!), and those who brought the Bourbons down in the French Revolution perpetuated a dictatorship of their own, no less tyrannical as far as the man at the bottom is concerned. The people's paradise promised by the Bolshevists remained a paradise for party cadres at most. Closer home, the whole leadership of the National Movement was basically the elite, although it was purveyed as grassroot inspired, a bluff which Churchill called very well in his 'seditious middle temple lawyer now posing as a half naked fakir' description!  In fact, till the recent boom in Web 2.0, with its social media portals and its army of trolls, even democracy was largely about the masses choosing within the pool of available establishment figures. The unspoken consensus was – you choose one of us to rule over you. It took some time to change that – different periods of time in different democracies – but in the end, it was quite synchronized. The realization dawned that they did not need someone from the establishment to run their affairs, and they were well within their rights to do so themselves. There was a transition period, where either the establishment people masqueraded as commoners to retain power, or demagogues from within the ranks were co-opted into the establishment. However, the social media revolution ensured that this charade does not continue for long – it was no longer possible to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. A major part of this was achieved by the resonance of the trolls. The social media served as a gigantic echo chamber cum tuning fork – and precluded any further proliferation of those who had a hidden agenda. Of course, demagogues may still emerge in this chaos, but they are just transient blips, and the mobs are not in their control, as in they cannot make the mob do their will. Unless their 'will' keeps coinciding with what the mob was already intent on doing. We shall no longer be witness to true leaders, like this scene from Invictus.The era of the truly popular has truly arrived.

Just because something is popular does not mean that it is good or beneficial. As has been previously argued on this very blog, popularization or pandering has led to dumbing down – not just of the political debate and public discourse, but also of the popular art such as music or cinema. This is what has made Discovery Channel turn to flash and bang shows or plain slap stick, and the History Channel turn to Aliens and Pawn Stars! Not only is it cool to be stupid, it is now even something that can be (and is) celebrated! What can be its implication? No one can predict, but it cannot be anything good, for sure. Throughout human history, as we have seen it above, smart, if not well meaning, people have led the rest of us. It was by the ear for the most part, and by “hearts and minds” for the small ‘democratic’ end. However, now there is no true leader, and no true path. The path is shaped by the momentary fluctuations that give some vague direction to the stagnated public discourse. Any conscious effort to channelize it; any loud voice of sanity is immediately shouted down by the trolls. Churchill had been prophetic in saying that the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with an average voter! 

Is there a way out of this? Well, for the well being of our future generations, I pray that we have a way. Even if there were a way, how do we make ourselves heard above the din of the trolls? Surely, the troll police way, even though it appears seductive on TV, is not a very effective way. Isolating a troll, extricating him from his natural habitat, and badgering him out of being a troll is not a cure. Devoid of his internet mask and his place in the crowd, he does not remain a troll, but a simple simpering idiot. It cannot be a practical solution when the majority of the population has turned into trolls. Is the Sarah Silvermann way of ‘killing with kindness’, the way to go then? There seems to be some hope there. At least the troll who has been converted harbours no resentment in such cases. It may also (if we may be extra optimistic), trigger a chain reaction. However, there is only so much of pro bono livelihood to go along in this world - a significant limiting factor when the ranks of the trolls are generally filled with citizens with some or the other deprivation.  However, before making any attempt in that direction, there is a need for introspection by those who claim to be out for curing the world of trolls. I would again like to point out to the works of Manu Joseph, where some efforts have been made to bring out the innate hypocrisy on the side of the ‘non-trolls’. There is a need to climb out of the ivory towers of liberalism, and engage, however slow and tiring the progress may be. There is the need to understand, that, from his own view point, the troll may be logically right. There is a need to find what additions to his world view would change his logical equations for the better, and then we must strive to add the same, very patiently. For that, we need empathy, and not the smug sense of entitlement which is being peddled as the liberal point of view. The physicians truly need to heal themselves first.

Book(s) Review - Works of Manu Joseph - A Worldview sans Blinkers

As I finally put down my copy of "Miss Laila - Armed and Dangerous" in the wee hours of a cold December night, I felt a very strong urge to put a quote from the book on my wall. By the time dawn broke, I was thinking that the author justified a whole article, and not a mere quote.

I first took notice of him when I came upon an article, being circulated on the Batch Whatsapp. It was bad-mouthing the IAS. There was nothing new about that. In the perception of the officers, those who whine about, and against, the Service, are those unfortunate lot who drew the shorter sticks in the gamble that CSE ultimately is. Yeah, we are smug philosophers that way. Yet, there was something about the article that hurt - a tinge of wit which could not be put down with a brush of superiority. The brightest kid of the batch told us that the author was a "brilliant guy". We took his judgement at face value, and hated him (the author) all the more.

Since then, various newspaper editorials began to show some of his articles. HT started placing a regular column of his works. Mercifully, he wasn't going about the Service now, and, removed from the personal assault on one's daily bread, one could start to appreciate the eponymous "brilliance". The articles were short, and insightful. They were based on honest accounts of social realities. They dangled, before the readership, truths, which we were either trying to ignore; or worse, had successfully ignored and suppressed to unconscious. All of the articles ended with an introduction of the writer, who, among other things, was known as the author of 'The Illicit Happiness of Other People'.

There is something attractively mischievous about that title itself, isn't it? In this age when finding a PDF of any work is too easy, this book proved quite elusive. So, for the first time, one discovered the ease of buying a book directly from one's Kindle. There was no looking back since then. Once "Illicit Happiness" was done with, we went ahead and got "Miss Laila". Poor internet connection, and an effort to read something non fiction, like Roger Penrose (a failed effort, of course - a brilliant scientist he may be, but either he has no idea about popular science writing, or he has too inflated an idea about popular intelligence!), delayed my start on the first novel - "Serious Men"; a lacunae that has since been made up for, at the first possibility, and now I am half way into it.

Whenever we write book reviews, we must write something about the author's style. The author writes in third person, but from a very intimate third person perspective, as if the narrator were a guardian angel, privy to the deepest thoughts and desires of the characters. Of course, the social commentary of his articles does play a big part even in the novels. The revelatory devices that adorn the articles are also present; even if a character appears to have been first presented as a stereotype, his denouement seldom remains so. However, the most endearing part of each of his novels is the gripping plotline. All the three novels are different 'genres' that way. 'Illicit Happiness' is about the idiosyncrasies of a dysfunctional family, where three characters have secrets, whose exposure drives the plot, to the biggest anti climax in the written word! 'Miss Laila', of course, is a (very very very) thinly veiled account of the (in?)famous Ishrat Jahaan 'encounter'. There is nothing much to hide there, but still it is quite fast paced, with a few diversions that bring in the social commentary, including merciless digs at the 'liberal industry'. 'Serious Men', am only partially through though. What makes the plots interesting that the author is able to convey very domain specific ideas, without over burdening us with facts. 'Illicit Happiness' brings us to the world of psychiatrists, and their subjects. In 'Miss Laila', we see the world of intelligence officers and sting operations up close. In 'Serious Men', I am in the thick of office politics I guess our professors at Engineering Colleges must have had!

The language of the author is his USP - it is irreverent, and deliberately shocking. Only he could have described a building to be 'pus coloured', and introduced characters with their body odors! There are so many quotable lines, that I feel compelled to put down a few. Sample these - "The problem with reverence in this country is that some people convert it into folk dance." "Do the lonely deserve sympathy? Some surely, but most people are lonely because they, too, have rejected people; they have rejected lovers and friends who wished to be with them but were not good enough." "They can see the feudal system, where the strong use the weak to attack the stronger." "There are faces that only an Indian can make. Like that baffled face when he is shocked by the most logical outcome of his actions. He crosses the road like a cow, and he is startled by a truck. A vehicle on the road? How? He walks across the railway track, and he finds a train hurtling towards him. A train on a railway track? He is stunned."(All from Miss Laila) "My love, I feel terrible without you. It is like being with you." "Because to fool a person, it appears, you have to first fool yourself." (All from Illicit Happiness) "That men, in reality, did not have friends in other men. That the fellowship of men, despite its joyous banter, old memories of exaggerated mischief and the altruism of sharing pornography, was actually a farcical fellowship. Because what a man really wanted was to be bigger than his friends." “The fate of every love story, he knew very well, is in the rot of togetherness, or in the misery of separation. Lovers often choose the first with the same illusory wisdom that makes people choose to die later than now.” “Yes, Yes. Indians were the oldest civilization on Earth, the greatest, the best. And only Indians had culture. Others were all dumb nomads and whores.” (All from Serious Men) "Celebrities are often too close to power to take the side of ordinary folks. It is as though good life holds them hostages in a paradise." "Economics would have been such a beautiful idea if only it weren’t so complicated by the long term." (from various articles)

A regular complaint against any writing which intends to convey a social message in this country, is that it tends to be downright boring. The author clearly, is not of that mould. He makes efforts to engage his readers, so that the 'message' goes in like hot knife through butter, and not like a sledgehammer. It is a conscious effort, as the author says, in 'The Moral Obligation of India's Media' -"But what do the authors want editors to do? Push stories that their audiences have persistently refused to read or watch? Isn’t it wiser to be a temple, insidiously leading the faithful through the ruse of entertainment into its sacred heart? Some of our finest novelists do this, too. In the transaction between storyteller and reader, the hook of the plot is what the writer offers to win the right to say things, serious things. To that end, being entertaining is a form of humility. Academics might find it useful."

It is hard not to ascribe political colours to any piece of writing these days. There is a famous joke in circulation-

A - So, what do you do for a living?

B - I am a journalist.

A - Oh. So, for which political party?

In these times of clear loyalties of the media, mainstream as well as social, the author comes across a a breeze of fresh air. Politically, his views lie in the area where, I am sure, much of the silent majority of India, which is getting tired of the shrillness in the political debate, lays it allegiance. As far as the political discourse is concerned, this vast middle ground is left unserved right now. Everything is 'my way or the highway' in the public discourse. If the political climate is being vitiated; then the cure being offered is no better than the disease itself. This very fact is why the author's writing shines like a fog lamp through this whole murky cloud of partisan opinions. It shows that there is a place for logical opinions, and there is no need for us all to be servile ideological minions of either of the camps. The author does in real life what his protagonists do in the plots. Sample this brilliant piece from 'Miss Laila', which was the quote I mentioned I wanted to adorn my Facebook wall with - "The victims of her pranks are not merely liberals, but heroes of the left, heroes who are light as feather. In the battle between presumed good and presumed evil, good is hiring poorly. Does Ms Iyer see the plain fact? Evil is an equal-opportunity society where the darkest rise. Liberal heroes, on the other hand, are made in a very different sort of place, a place where the gentry suffocate honest competition. Here the midgets rise. What chance do they have against naturally selected arch-villains?"

Taking the middle path does not imply in any way that the author is given to fence sitting. As a reviewer of Miss Laila has written, she felt worried for the author once she started reading the book. Writing something like this, even by a person of the most establishment borne class, would surely be invitation for a lot of trouble. On the other hand, here is this guy, with an obviously Christian name, who writes as if he is daring the mob to go after him. The reader is hereby informed that this article has not quoted any of scandalous parts; the obvious references the author has made to very real (and very powerful) persons. What explains his sang-froid? Is he confident that his writing would go above the heads of the masses of "offence takers". Or, does he believe (and one does pray that his such belief is true), that, like his character The Patriarch in 'Miss Laila', there are some wise heads, who see the need for sanity to prevail. We just don't know. One can only hope that this prophet of the post truth age goes from strength to strength, and we may, someday, see him do what Ms Akhila Iyer does to "P. Sathya, whose malady of interest is rural affairs"!

If I have been not able to stoke your curiosity yet, may be you need to go through these one off articles to make your mind up. What about that original article that bad mouthed the IAS? It seems I cannot find it on Google. Maybe it was not him, but someone else nursing his wounds. Maybe as a fresh entrant to the Service I had been too touchy and taken a harmless article in the wrong sense. Or maybe the IAS is more powerful than what it appears to be, even to us, and made the article 'disappear'. My bad. Happy reading!

On EVMs - and Post Truth Elections

Rarely does the opportunity (and the urge) to posit one's views occur so frequently. However, the recent controversy over Electronic Voting Machines got me thinking. In 2015, I had the opportunity for getting counting conducted with the traditional ballot papers. It took 28 hrs. 28 hrs of wakeful alertness, dealing with impromptu protests, genuine mistakes, malicious 'mistakes', and generous recounts. Still, by the end of the day, we had 3 different roadblocks, by candidates (losers, obviously) demanding another recount. Contrast it with recent EVM counting, which was over in most places within 7 hours.

The Honorable Election Commission has gone on a high tech highway in the new millenium. With due respect, most of these 'hi tech' initiatives have made life difficult for the officers conducting the election. (With the staff that we have to rely on!) The EVM is a huge exception to this rule. It has been the biggest blessing to all Returning Officers. It has ended the scope for invalid votes, ending the opportunity for biased returning officers ruling as per their leaning - one main point of contention between candidates. It gives consolidated results - which ends the scope for unscrupulous counting staff making bundles of 45 ballot papers (or 55) and counting it as 50. Which ends the scope for loser candidates lengthening their 'stay in the fight', by demanding recount after recount, using their 'supporters' to mount pressure on the administration. By removing the idea that the count of votes can change on different recounts (as it frequently does happen in ballot paper counting, due to a combination of human error as well as human mala fide), it removes any doubt as to the finality of the loss of the losers, thus depriving any smidgen of legitimacy to their attempts to 'protest' for a recount.

For those not involved in the Election process, here is a quick summary of the EVM supply chain. Usually, most places do not have the requisite number of EVMs to begin with. Some 6 months before the elections, EVMs are usually transported from some other place where they were in use recently. This location is randomly chosen by the Commission. Then, some time before the elections, each of these machines (its two components - Ballot Unit as well as Control Unit) is checked, in front of the representatives of all the political parties. Mock poll is conducted on them - which means that a number of votes are randomly polled on these machines, in front of these political representatives, and then the results thereof is shown. Any machine which shows any mismatch between the polling and the counting has to be weeded out. (I am yet to see a single such case.) Then, after the nomination process, when the list of contesting candidates (the ballot paper) is finalized, the Returning Officer gets the EVMs prepared for polling. At this stage too, all political representatives (and even the independent candidates) are invited to witness. Again, a mock poll is conducted, with similar conditions as before. Finally, on the day of the poll, before the actual poll starts, a mock poll is carried out in front of the agents of all the candidates, at each and every booth! So there is no scope for 'loading' an EVM in favour of some candidate. Again, an EVM is not connected to any network, so it cannot be 'hacked' online. If one says that someone is manipulating the EVMs post poll, after breaking myriads of seals, then one can only say that the humble ballot box is even less secure, for after breaching all the seals, manipulating a computer chip would still be tougher as compared to, say, simply replacing the polled ballot papers inside a box!

If seen within the recent period, the political objections against EVMs would seem partisan. However, today's winners were equally graceless losers in their times (I won't take names, and I shall leave the googling to you. I can give a hint - the movie, Rajneeti, released in 2010, had a scene inspired from those allegations.) Hence, it is, in a long run, a bipartisan assault against a Constitutional (and largely Administrative) body. 

So, why is this issue more urgent now, as compared to 8 years ago. Well, we now live, officially, in a post-truth world. Here, the facts can be twisted and presented ( or plain lies substituted for the truth) on the 24x7 media, which also likes a good controversy to run its mill. Without proving anything in a court of law, the detractors can vitiate public opinion and trust, the bedrock of electoral democracy. The Election Commission (and all the State Commissions) are manned majorly by ex Civil Servants. Any attempt, by Civil Servants, to counter the malicious lies in the public arena, against politicians, would come out very feeble, for this is the politicians' playground - the press, the TV, the radio. Today one was witness to an Honorable SEC defending the 'safeguards' of an EVM, amidst vociferous (but illogical) detraction by politicians. It was like watching baby seals getting clubbed! The efforts of the Honorable Commission need to be in an arena where facts and logic still matter - the Court of Law. They should demand an injunction against irresponsible comments against the EVMs, unless backed by proof, which the Court would satisfy itself over. In essence, a judicial gag order - the kind one of our political luminaries had got when he was videographed in some compromised positions. If the same is not done at the earliest, the cacophony would smear the whole electoral process with doubt, and thus shave off legitimacy. Not only for this time, but for times to come. Who knows it might pressurise the powers that be into bringing back the ballot paper, with its associated mess. Then, deprived of the painfully obvious judgement of the EVM, the elections will again be mired in a thousand fold louder cacophony - throwing up no clear victors or vanquished. It will be, truly, a post-truth election!