When the Constitution was being framed, there were concerns about the civil services. India’s home minister Sardar Patel had famously observed that he had asked his secretary to give his views freely. He had no use for civil servants who wanted to echo the views of the political masters. He wanted their independent opinion on issues, in the best interest of governance. The civil services were thus expected to be apolitical.
In the 1970s there were efforts to dilute this approach. There was talk of a committed civil service. Questions were asked ― committed to whom? The civil service could only be committed to the Constitution. It could not have commitments in favour of any politician, party or ideology. It had to implement policies of the government in power. But it could not be committed to their political ideology, good or bad. Their responsibility was to help frame policies for welfare and economic growth with the approval of ministers or the cabinet. They were expected to implement these effectively and ensure that people got the full benefit of these policies.
The achievements of any government are projected through the media, for which the publicity wings of the government are specifically responsible. Political masters talk about these achievements in their speeches. They tell the people how much good work they are doing. The civil servants only explain to the common man the intricacies of policies and how they can use any scheme for their welfare.
But recent media reports indicate that a large body of civil servants would be expected to tell the people about the good work of the government in the last nine years. There is a campaign mode being prescribed for this. This is very unfortunate. Whether the government has done well or badly in the last nine years is not for them to say. They can only describe policies in their sectors. This approach may appear to be a politicisation of bureaucracy, which is very unfortunate.
There is another aspect of this issue. Governments in different states are run by different political parties. Many states have their own schemes. During elections, states ruled by parties opposed to the Centre may like to propagate their own policies. They may like to tell people how badly the Centre is doing and how well they themselves are working. This would create problems in implementing the idea of projecting achievements.
An important issue involved here is our long term-view of the functioning of the civil service. While the campaign planned may give some benefits to the ruling party, it may open the door to a civil service of poor quality. The essence of a democracy and good governance is that civil servants try to improve their professionalism in framing policies and ensuring maximum benefits to the people. They specialise in effectively implementing government policies to ensure maximum benefits to people. Whether an approach or programme is superior or inferior to the earlier government’s is not their business. But now, they are being effectively called upon to identify with one government. This is not part of the parliamentary system of governance. Governments come and go but the civil servants remain a neutral observer. The current orders of the government are completely in violation of this spirit.
The government’s decision on this issue is difficult to understand in view of the ongoing election process, during which the state machinery is expected to be completely neutral. To argue that those representatives of the Centre should be allowed to disseminate achievements of the party in power is clearly unfair. The Election Commission may take note of it and review this programme for poll-bound states.
B.K. Chaturvedi is former Cabinet Secretary and member, Planning Commission.
