VIEWPOINT
AMITABH SHUKLA
The transfer of senior IAS
officer Ashok Khemka by the Manohar Lal Khattar Government in Haryana has
triggered a row and invited the wrath of the professional TV panelists who
feign shock at the “treatment and humiliation” meted out to the officer. There
are other usual suspects who have joined the cacophony without understanding
the finer nuances of governance in a democratic set-up. At no point am I
questioning the personal integrity of Khemka. By all accounts he has an impeccable
track record on this front and even his critics concede that. But bureaucratic
efficiency, getting attuned to the demands of the profession and use of common
sense is one aspect and personal integrity another. An officer having
impeccable personal integrity is no guarantee for bureaucratic efficiency, the
way former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could not guarantee a taint-free UPA
regime despite being hailed for personal integrity.
So Khemka’a personal integrity is
one part and bureaucratic efficiency as perceived by the Government he serves
is another. Ideally, an officer should have impeccable integrity and also a
track record of delivery of services. It is the latter which is perhaps lacking
in Khemka’s case over the years if you keep aside his role as a whistle blower
in the infamous Robert Vadra-DLF deal. Haryana Government or for that matter
any Government is well within its right to transfer any official it deems fit.
Khemka is no different even if he had blown the lid off the dubious Robert Vadra-DLF
land deal which made him famous and a nationally known bureaucrat in the first
instance. The land deals of Vadra may have given the BJP an effective stick to
beat the Congress during elections but no way does it give permanent immunity
to Khemka if he does not follow the directions set by his immediate
departmental boss, the Minister concerned. If the State Government perceives
that its goals, targets and programmes are not being met and an officer is the
obstacle, one cannot question its right to transfer the officer concerned.
Khemka was transferred numerous
times in his career-on 46 occasions to be precise. He has “suffered” during all
regimes—be it when Om Prakash Chautala of Indian National Lok Dal was the Chief
Minister or whether Bhupinder Singh Hooda was in command for a decade. When BJP
won the Assembly polls and Khattar became the Chief Minister, perhaps Khemka
thought that he would be rewarded with better posts and get important postings.
He was posted in the crucial Transport Department as a Commissioner, not as an
award for exposing the Vadra-DLF deal, but as a routine bureaucratic exercise
reshuffle when a new Government takes over.
I do not think that all these
transfers in all these years by various Governments—INLD, Congress and BJP—have
been done solely with the motive of punishing an honest officer. All these
Governments cannot obviously enter into a conspiracy to punish an officer. They
have a lot in hand than to think about an officer. Whether the sympathisers of
the officer agree or not, there must also be some fault at the doors of Khemka
which they refuse to look at. Sympathisers of the officer say he refused to
play ball with “corrupt” political dispensation of the day over the years and
was punished again and again. They blame the “corrupt” political system for the
“plight” of officers like Khemka saying it was high time such a system was
changed to protect honest officers.
This is too vague a statement and
I do not agree with this. If someone decides to join IAS, IPS or Government
service, he or she will have to follow the laid down norms for civil servants.
In fact, they have to even follow those norms which are not laid down but
understood by every officer in service. When you are playing cricket, you do
not follow the rules of football. When in bureaucracy, you are supposed to
follow the laid down conventions. Khemka
made the mistake of questioning these conventions time and again. The
conventions may be good or bad but as an officer you are supposed to follow
them and not flout them. When you play cricket or football you do not question
the rules of the game. There is an entirely different mechanism to change the
rules.
He had been the Transport
Commissioner of Haryana for the last over four months and that was a sufficient
time for the Government to judge his performance and whether he fits in the
goals set up by the Minister concerned of the Department and the Chief Minister
as the head of the State Government. Obviously he didn’t fit into the scheme of
things or was in conflict with the policies and goals of the State Government
and was therefore shown the exit door and placed in a department which has
little or no impact on public policies. As the BJP Government had begun on a
clean slate, having won the State Assembly polls for the first time, I am sure
it did not have any preconceived notions or bias against Khemka.
What is surprising is the
reaction of Khemka on the transfer through his Twitter account. Being in the
Government for so long, the 1991 batch IAS officer must be aware that
expressing sentiments the way he did is not acceptable to any Government and
also does not conform to the bureaucratic dharma. Perhaps this explains why
successive Governments viewed him as a “trouble-maker” and not a problem
solver. To make the matters worse, he met Haryana Governor Kaptan Singh Solanki
to express his disappointment after being given the marching orders. Perhaps he
forgot that a Governor has little discretion in these matters and cannot issue
directions the State Government.
I am not saying that Indian
political system treats its bureaucrats fairly all the time. I am also not
saying that the political system is very fair and transparent. There are
several ills plaguing the system which needs to be addressed urgently. But playing
the martyr, like Khemka is doing, is also not the solution. This will not help
the cause of bureaucracy. Of course, a wider debate is needed to insulate
bureaucracy and police from the whims and fancy of the political dispensation
of the day. Consensus has to be reached to bring legislation for this. Fixing
the term of officials, particularly those at a particular level of seniority,
should be on top priority and is the need of the hour. Also, there has to be a
well settled principle on how an official can be removed before his fixed term
expires.
Its here where all political
parties have to chip in. But then, no party, particularly in the states, wants
to voluntarily give up its control on the bureaucracy and the police easily.
They want them firmly under their control as they think this is the way to
rule. Officers like Khemka would continue to be considered as loose cannons by
all Governments and a flesh in their thorn as they do not conform to their
expectations and flout the conventions, however faulty they may be. There are
around 175 IAS officers in Haryana cadre and if one does not conform to the
stereotype, he finds himself in an odd situation. This is perhaps what is
happening to Khemka. But as another officer put it, “neither will Khemka change,
nor will the State Government, whoever it is”.
Many advocate a systemic change
in the relationship of bureaucrats with their political masters. But it is
easier said than done. Small baby steps are needed first like fixing tenure of
officers and formulating a policy for their removal before the tenure ends.
This will be the way of least resistance in the ruling parties. (April 6, 2015 )
No comments:
Post a Comment