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[This article was written in 2015, but it could not be published then.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!

Disservice to the Service

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.” This quote is attributed to Margaret Thatcher, the first woman PM of the UK. She definitely has the credentials to say that. She was quite powerful. Plus, she was a lady too.

We shall return to the Iron Lady in some while. First, we need to look over a list of some powerful persons. Here is a list of Judges of the Bombay High Court. Observe the initials “I.C.S.” at the end of most of the entries, ending slowly somewhere around the entry for “Mr. V. B. Raju, M.A., Diploma in Economics (Madras), I.C.S”, somewhere around 1959. Then, this is a similar list for the Allahabad High Court.  Read the initials at the end of the entries at numbers 5, 8, 11, 22, 24, 25, 33, 44, 54, 91, 96, 102. In fact, 102 became the Chief Justice too. Finally, here is a bio of a former Judge from the website of the Supreme Court of India, which reads as (partial quote) – “Ramaswami Vaidynathier, Msc. Bar-at-law – Born, 30th October, 1904, Educated in Presidency College, Madras. Universities of Allahabad and Oxford and Inner Temple, London. Joined the I.C.S on 9th October, 1929. Asstt. Magistrate and Collector in Bihar from 9th December, 1929 to 29th June, 1933; Secretary to the Orissa Committee under the Government of India; Reforms Officer from 30th June, 1933 to 15th November, 1933; Joint Magistrate in Bihar from 21st November , 1933 to 24th February, 1936; Chief Justice of the Patna High Court from 30th April, 1956. Appointed Judge of the Supreme Court from  4th January, 1965.” 

 

In that magnum opus on the Civil Service, “The Men Who Ruled India”, Phillip Mason describes the avenues of promotion available to the officers of the erstwhile Indian (formerly Imperial) Civil Service. Starting at a post variously described as Assistant Collector / Joint Magistrate / Assistant Commissioner, followed by a short stint at the Government, and then the coveted post Collector & Magistrate, the officer had a choice. He could continue in the basic “Revenue” department, and go on to be Collector, followed by the post of a Divisional Commissioner, and then the Board of Revenue and its Chair (Theoretically the senior-most Civil Servant of the Cadre). He could switch to the Secretariat and go on various mutations of “Secretary to the Government”, ending at Chief Secretary. He could join the Political Service and serve as Resident in the princely states or represent the British India abroad. Finally, he could opt for the Judicial branch, and rise through the Sessions Court to the High Courts of the Presidencies, and even become a Chief Justice.

When did it all end? With the Independence, and the amalgamation of the States within the Union, there was no need for Residents, and the newly born Foreign Service took the diplomatic assignments. Various Departments (like the Board and its equivalent) were systematically subordinated to the Secretariat through the various “Business Rules” and later enactments. However, the biggest body blow given to the Service came from elsewhere. The Indian Administrative Service was born in 1946, taking over as a successor of the "heaven born" ICS. However, it seems not to have been a neat succession. The CMs' (or, as they were kmown then, Premiers') conference of 1946 resolved to take the Judgeship off the plate of their soon to be subordinates, and the subsequent Constituent Assembly debates on the matter went quite unanimously as far as these political wishes were concerned. The Constitution of India, enacted in 1949, contains the qualifications for becoming a Judge in the Supreme Court in Article 124(3) – “A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.”  Similarly, for the High Courts,  Article 217(2) states that -  “A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and (a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or (b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.”  Notice the preference given to Advocates at all the stages. This can be attributed to the fact that adjudication is largely a legal field (and the fact that the Constituent Assembly, and the Freedom movement itself, had a preponderance of participants from the legal background!) However, the Higher Courts are not merely adjudicators. They have the onerous responsibility of overseeing the governance structure itself. Increasingly, this work has seen a significant rise in importance over the adjudication role (if the headlines judgements, and the rise of court cases pendency are seen). Hence, the role of administrators here is conspicuous by its absence. Constitutionally, there still is a leeway. Notice the language of 217(2)(a) – ‘has held a judicial office’. Who can hold such a judicial office, as per the Constitution? Article 233 states that – “233. Appointment of district judges (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State (2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.” Again, there is an entry for advocates or pleaders, but a person already in the service of the Union or State are not Constitutionally barred from getting in. Still, the trail of Lordships from the Civil Services seen above dries out somewhere around the late 1950s. 

Why have I detailed out all this Constitutional arcana? This is because, of late, there has been a lot of heartburn among the brethren of this Service, about the ‘decline in the power and prestige’ of the Service. As scholars (which all of us became when we prepared for the Services), we must understand that in a mature democracy, power vests in institutions, and not in individuals. Even among institutions, most are confined to their very specific mandates. They must be  subordinated to the wishes of the ‘customers’ who use their services. It is a thoroughly Indian phenomenon where servicing acustomer is a rather menial task in itself (and the same has been detailed out in this earlier post.) However, one institution, which shall always retain its Majesty and Honour, is the Court. It is so in the oldest of the democracies – the UK and the USA. Even in that dramatic scene in the movie ‘Mughal-e-Azam’, when the prisoner Prince Salim is brought before his father (and the Emperor of India) Akbar, the great monarch refers to himself as ‘Ye Adalat’ (this Court). He is supposed to the all powerful monarch, and yet the majesty of the Court exceeds his own! However, as a service, we have failed to recognize this. (And if we have succeeded in that, then we have failed, even more spectacularly, in acting upon it.) The drafting committee of the Constitution had a number of ICS officers. Yet, they (we?) could not prevent the drafting of Article 50 in this particular manner – “The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.” Which culminated in the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which created a new class of Magistrates, the judicial magistrates, and reduced the powerful District Magistrate and Subdivisional Magistrate to the category of “Executive Magistrate”. No doubt, the tradition of vesting the executive and judicial power in a single person was wrong, if not for any other reason then for Natural Justice itself, as the prosecution is usually an executive prerogative, and the District Magistrate did (and still does) exercise control over it, and thus he used to be a judge ‘in his own cause’. However, separation of services itself has no justification in that doctrine. A contemporary IAS officer may write a two page noting on how a project of his Department is very well justified, and then, if transferred to the Finance Department, can write an equally powerful two page noting on how the project is infeasible! There was no reason why the same officer, as a District Judicial Magistrate, would have concurred with the District Executive Magistrate (unless of course, he held both the posts, as he did prior to 1973.) In fact, the term Executive Magistrate has confounded me a lot, although I have served almost 3 years as one (and look forward to some more years in a similar seat – powers willing). Theoretically, Executive Magistrate is not qualified as “Executive” Magistrate – he still (theoretically) is ‘the’ Magistrate (notice how the terms DM and SDM do not have an ‘executive’ qualifier, as opposed to CJM and SDJM) – minus the power to hand out judicial punishments. He is the residuary authority. He has to maintain the rule of law and governance structure (as the word Magistrate has its origins in the word “Master”.) Devoid of his judicial powers, however, he must, legally speaking, do so while the persons, against whom he must guard the rule of law, know that he can do little more than complain to the judicial magistrate, in case they thwart his attempt to maintain the rule. (Of course, Sections 107 to 122 of the CrPC can still be managed to become the Legislator, the Judge and the Jailor in one go – tricks of the trade.) In practice, however, the term Executive Magistrate has seen decline in its prestige. Regular EMs hardly get to do much court work. Then there is this heavy reliance of ‘magistrate deployment’ – nominating an army of officers of various departmental services as Special Executive Magistrates, for very menial sort of work. At any festival, or VIP visit, we can see the spectacle of such ‘magistrates’ guarding doors with a stick in the hand. One senior PCS officer I know called them ‘barsaati’ magistrates, drawing a parallel to the monsoon borne insects due to the seasonal nature of their deployment. Well, not only barsaati magistrates get such ignominious duties. The author has also performed quite a lot of them. Of course, being close to the area of expected ‘breach of peace’ is supposed to help. However, for such eventualities, the CrPC, vide its Section 129, empowers even a Sub Inspector of the Police to take the appropriate action. In fact, the SI, and his police superiors, would be in a much better position to act in these circumstances, owing to their training. If the idea is not to use the powers under Section 129, but those under Section 107, then why not go ahead and complete the loop by micro-appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates too, to summarily punish such breaches of peace, as and when they happen. (In my opinion it would be much more effective!) However, the judiciary is too smart to let its dignity be rubbed to the ground thus. In practice, the SEMs are not supposed to use even the powers under 129 (unless they want to be tried criminally, ironically, by the Judicial Magistrates!) They are simply supposed to coax, beg, whine and do what it takes – to sell off personal and professional dignity to keep a semblance of order. It reflects on the ‘hallowed’ Service too – if an executive magistrate is embodied in the ill trained and ill equipped ADO riding his hired rickety jeep as the ‘magistrate’ of an election ‘flying squad’, his boss the District Magistrate loses a lot of the awe he is supposed to inspire.

The question which faces us starkly, is why did did come about to happen? Out of all the engaging and powerful bastions the service held lien on, why did we end up putting all our eggs in the most vulnerable of the baskets - the Secretariat service, and failed to defend the most insulated one? Not only that, we steadily eroded the status of the Departments vis-a-vis the Secretariat. Thus, the powerful Board (with apex revenue jurisdiction) was made a parking place for out of favour senior officers (the Board has recently regained some of its lost glory, for sure, though.) Thus, in a period of around 15 years (from 1960 to 1975), our highest eligible post came down from Chief Justice to Cabinet Secretary (and Chief Secretary in cadre). We are not counting post retirement Governorship that many of our senior colleagues get as service is not a qualification for that. There is just one post of Cabinet Secretary in the country. There are hundreds of High Court Judgeships, over which quite a number of our senior colleagues would have been posted had the system continued. When the Courts took the activist route, these administrator turned judges could have bolstered the good intention of such judgements with a dose of practicality. They could have ensured that the Political leadership did not hammer the Secretraiat wing of the service into a "committed bureaucracy" mode by misusing the tools of administrative control. Alas, these are but wishful thoughts. For we chose to bet on the Secretariat service more. Knowing fully well that of all the Wings, this one had to play a second fiddle to the Political executive in a democratic setup. Why? If I am allowed to be cynical, I must say that it was the lure of limelight and 'action' that the members of the service still get. In Mason's book, it is known that even in the British Raj, those who opted for the Judicial branch were considered not 'manly enough' for the service - mere bookworms. Even today, Revenue officers who spend more time in Court (instead of on the field, and in front of a camera!) are seen as laggards, whereas they might be solving more problems than the latter. So, maybe when the Constitution was being drafted, our seniors decided to do away with this needless diversion. If I am allowed to be at my cynical worst, I think pecuniary considerations were also at play. The British Raj was largely a Police state, and secretariat work was just a bit of pen pushing and rule drafting. However, the INC had made it very clear that the Republic of India was to be huge Welfare State, with the Secretariat at the very nipple of its famed "mammaries". So, it was the new happening place, and the dry court work must have lost whatever charm it might have held. May be I am wrong here. May be, our Service ancestors, the departing ICS, just out of whim, flipped an enormous bird in the face of their younger IAS brethren! Maybe the political bosses held too firmly to the resolution of the Premiers' Conference. The fact, whatever the reason behind it may be, is that we have holed ourselves in a very precarious situation - we have locked ourselves in with a tiger, thrown away the tranquilizer, and are riding it hoping not to be eaten.

Nowadays, our Service brethren suffer a lot of heartburn when the other allied services ask for pay and service conditions equal to us. Theoretically, they are not wrong. ICS used to be paid better as they held higher posts. All Central Services are theoretically eligible for empanelment (the protest is simply to make the theory a practice). However, only the ICS used to diversify to Judicial (and hence Constitutional) posts, where there was no question of parity. Even today, we say that the Benaami Act has hugely empowered the Revenue Service, and various anti corruption legislations have done so with the Police. However, most of these are investigatory powers, with some quasi-judicial standing. We inherited the powers above the investigators, that of Courts, and we have squandered them off slowly but surely. Even today we have enormous court powers. An SDM in UP still has the power to decide titles of Agricultural land, which is 80% of the Land Area of the State. This is in addition to the powers of a Criminal Court under CrPC, which, if properly used, are still good enough to maintain the rule of law and strike fear in the hearts of those who wish to disrupt it. Sample the wordings of the Section 107 (1) - "When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond" etc The Websters' New World Law Dictionary defines 'wrongful act' as "Any act that will damage the rights of another, unless it is done in the exercise of another equal or superior right. For that reason, the scope of wrongful acts is not limited to illegal acts, but includes acts that are immoral, anti social, or libel to result in a civil suit.etc." Thus, this section gives the Executive Magistrate (not just the DM, ADM or SDM, but even the ADO in his rickety jeep on Flying Squad duty) the power to order a person not to do some act which may breach peace, the act being not confined to the list of currently legislated illegal acts. That, my friends, is practically the power of legislation! The same EM can, after hearing out the person, order him to undertake not to do the act under section 117, and commit him to jail if he does that act after giving this undertaking! This is the theoretical part, though. What we do, practically, is to simply state the police report verbatim in our notices under 107, and take undertakings without any hearing, from persons who are too illiterate to know the law (and their rights under it), aided by counsels of similar nature. When we decide that a person is too much of a threat to be left out, we pass orders under 116(3) instead of 117, and then hold the person in illegally in the name of 'verifying the sureties', instead of the easier exercise of passing the orders under 117 and committing the person at the first attempt to breach peace under 122 - which is the legal way. How can the young Magistrate learn all this if he is not to be present in his court, but on the field, ingratiating himself with all and sundry low life local politicians to keep peace in a way Neville Chamberlain would have been proud of. He is supposed to do Grievance Redressal in 7 days. Well, the populace does not approach an SDM with the corporate style grievances like - "Excuse me, my pizza is a little cold, kindly change it". Sample any list of public grievances, at any forum - the daily hearings of BDOs and SDMs to the PG Portals of PMO. Most of these are about land and property related disputes - someone encroaching upon others' field, either maliciously, or simply because someone else has encroached upon his own field in the first place. A person has sold his land holding to two different persons, without subdividing it, and now both purchasers are fighting over the better located roadside area. Or simply, the villagers of a village have signed a mass application for a road that connects their village to the highway. If all such applications are combined, the demand for funds outstrips the supply by 50 times, not to speak of the engineering manpower of the district. These are not grievances that can be redressed in 7 days, whatever the rules may decide. If such issues were amenable to 7 days resolution, our courts would not be cluttered with decades old suits. And asking the officer to 'go to the field and solve it' is even worse. It ensures that the days' business is confined to that particular issue alone, whereas the same officer might have seen 10 - 20 issues off had he spent the day in his court instead. Secondly, it lessens the authority and majesty of the officer. There is hell and heaven difference between going to the miscreants backyard and summoning him in your Court. We need to understand the difference between political work and governance work (and also make our political masters understand it). "Going to the field" at every occasion is the job of the politicians, who must seek votes. The permanent executive was insulated from the whims of people simply to enable them to take practical, if less popular, decisions. Governance is not the business of pleasing people. It is the business of keeping order and making things flow unimpeded as far as possible without disturbing the order. Politics, on the other hand (especially a deep democracy like ours) needs to be people pleasing, or populist. It would be undemocratic if it were otherwise. It was our job to make the twain meet. A political master once told that they could do away with the IAS and work better with the provincial service. True. They might. It was not our role to race the political ambitions and ideas to their desired conclusion, whatever may the implications be. It was to aid, advise and occasionally dissent. However, from the highest policy making levels to the lowest implementation levels, we have 'rolled over'. Government orders, and even legislations are churned out at the drop of a hat. My old timer Collector told me that when GOs used to be issues in his starting years, it used to news worthy - that government has changed some policy. There used to be quality in legislative and subordinate legislative drafting. The land acquisition act of 1894 served us well for over a century. Opportunistic politics played on impractical ideas. We could have dissented, and played the 'bad guys',and drafted a practical legislation. Instead, we got ourselves the Act of 2013. The rest, as they say, is history. The role of the dissent has already been abdicated to the judiciary, who have taken to it with aplomb. Our equally, if not better, qualified brethren are made to appear stupid when judiciary plays that role. Simultaneously, at the field level, the lower role of control has also been systematically eroded by tying the Collector to actual execution of almost all departmental schemes (instead of control). Instead of keeping a check that the implementation is done as per the norms, the Collector must now push to the target, norms be damned. The departmental officers have turned blunt, and look up to the Collector to get all their schemes implemented. All GOs are now addressed to the Collectors and Commissioners, and similarly, all District Level correspondence to block and lower level functionaries is being signed increasingly by the Collector. At the end of every month, we have this ridiculous spectacle of Collectors urging the Departmental officers to fudge their figures, so that the Collectors' rankings go up! The turtle on whose back the Elephant of the empire rested has been steadily reduced to the donkey who hauls the cart of the Welfare State. That was not the idea with which the British created the post of the Collector and the ICS, or the one with which Sardar Patel retained the two. Outside of his core work of Revenue, Law and Order and Elections, the role of the Collector should be that of control. If we do that, majority of the writs from the myriads of departmental works would stop clogging the higher Courts. A very good idea would be to stop posting IAS at positions where simply following procedural orders exceeds 50 percent of the brief. The service was raised to apply its mind, challenge and question. There are much better options available if all that is needed is a "Yes sir", and a click of the heels.

As far as our mode of solving our Service issues is concerned, I feel that we should take Maggie Thatchers' words quite seriously, and let our effectiveness do the talking. Even on this date, even with all the decline in its standing, the Service (or rather, individuals from the service, within the government executive at least,) wield(s) a lot of power. If all of us decide (the emphasis is on ‘all’ of us), not to let bad things happen, they won't. Our senior colleagues are still holding the highest offices of the government. If the stands taken by us in public is correct and based on facts, why wont our senior colleagues act on it in their official capacity and prevent the miscarriage of justice. The investigative agencies, the prosecution, all are under various departments of the government headed by our senior colleagues. Even if they weren't, we, through our Associations, have the calibre to move the Court and put our version better than most lawyers. However, we choose to wield decidedly political tool of public protest. Politicians are way better at that, and would beat us comfortably each and every time on their home turf. Also, picking only on graft cases is a PR Disaster. When was the last time we defended our court powers. The CrPC, in its Section 132, clearly says that - (1) No prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 129, section 130 or section 131 shall be instituted in any Criminal Court except –

with the sanction of the Central Government where such person is an officer or member of the armed forces;

with the sanction of the State Government in any other case.

(2) No Executive Magistrate or police officer acting under any of the said sections in good faith;

        no person doing any act in good faith in compliance with a requisition under section 129 or section 130;

        no officer of the armed forces acting under section 131 in good faith;

        no member of the armed forces doing any act in obedience of any order which he was bound to obey, shall be deemed to have thereby, committed an offence.

Can any SDM or ADM today really believe in the above Sections and discharge his Law and Order duties fearlessly? Can he believe that the government shall not sanction prosecution because the supporters of the local MLA were lathi charged and the concerned officers in the Secretariat rolled over. Or if the Court decided to try the case without waiting for the sanction, will our associations take it up with the higher judiciary? And why only the Magistrates -  a lot of our colleagues and subordinates from the Police, from the CAPF look forward to such protection, because, in their eyes, once a Magistrate is present on the spot, every action they take is technically under a Cout order. Leave aside law and order, what do we do to defend our (rather fast dwindling in numbers) subordinates in the departmental services, who, try to do the right thing despite political pressures. If we, as a body, start taking up such causes too, then perhaps they would not be questioned so much as they are being done now.

 All is not lost. It is not possible to scale the earlier heights, nor is it proper in a democracy, where the political authority has to be ascendant. However, the Institutions must be supreme. That is where our strength lies, and that is what we must exercise. We should endeavour to reassert ourselves in the domains which are beyond the political ambit, for from there we draw our strength to resist being cowed down in the domains where we work in the supervision of political authority. To begin with, can it be argued that a Magistrate (even a lowly Executive Magistrate) derives powers from Statutes, and, more often than not, he must use them against people of political background. Hence, his administrative control vesting in a body totally comprised of political beings can lead to conflict of interest, which may manifest itself as ineffectiveness (when the ruling party breaches peace), or partial action (when the opposition is involved). We have made Civil Services Boards, but they are manned by serving officers, who are similarly encumbered by the government. One way is to include the higher Courts (as the ultimate custodian of the CrPC, under which our Magistrates work) in a better empowered Board. Perhaps we do not need to look outside. Our retired senior brethren have manned the Election Commission since its start. Since they are independent of political control, they (and under their administrative control, we) have been conducting elections quite flawlessly. That includes a much better enforcement of Law and Order under MCC. Would it not be good if the situation of law and order could be the same throughout, as it is during MCC. Would it not be good if all government work proceeds with the effectiveness of election work? We do not need to even create a new body. We just need to subordinate the Services Board(s) to the UPSC. Can we do it? Certainly it shall face resistance from all the stakeholders who have aided and abetted this decline, and have vested interest in a weakened Service. However, the biggest challenge lies within; the loosening of the Secretarial (and hence the political) stranglehold over originally autonomous institutions. The toughest fight we must fight, it turns out, has to be with ourselves!