What will lead to greater accountability and efficiency:
It was at the Think India dialogue of Network18 last year that Narendra Modi said something about the bureaucracy that went viral. “A Congress leader,” he said, “suggested a very simple solution to problems of governance: Politicians should learn to say no and bureaucrats to say yes.” A year on, as PM, he is set to discover that governance is a little more complicated.
Since making that statement, he has run a presidential-style campaign, sought and received a mandate for himself rather than his BJP and become PM. In a departure from normal practice, Modi was briefed by the secretaries even before he was sworn in. And when home secretary Anil Goswami called on him, Modi reportedly took the bureaucrat by surprise by rattling off his personal and career details. If the bureaucracy was spooked by such meticulous homework, it managed to hide its surprise—perhaps actually braced for more surprises.
No answers yet, but experts warn that departure from the cabinet form of government isn’t an unmixed blessing. In Good Governance: Never on India’s Radar, former Union home secretary Madhav Godbole cites examples from Indira Gandhi onwards to chronicle the decline of the cabinet system, the abdication of joint responsibility and the emergence of the PMO as a modern-day palace. The UPA, Godbole writes, could have prevented many scams if the cabinet had discussed certain issues.
The spectre of the PMO as a palace and of palace guards running the country through chosen bureaucrats has raised eyebrows. But many bureaucrats say they’d prefer to wait and watch. Some say strong-arm tactics are needed to get the administration on track. Others voice concern over such centralisation and how it might encourage crony capitalism. This isn’t a new fear. Didn’t H.D. Deve Gowda, as prime minister designate, fly into Delhi in a Reliance plane when there were seven commercial flights daily from Bangalore? That flight, in which Vijay Mallya accompanied Deve Gowda, raised eyebrows. But times have changed. Nobody batted an eyelid when Modi, as prime minister-designate, took an Adani plane to Delhi.
Grapevine has it that several bureaucrats are already ratting on colleagues while trying to ingratiate themselves with the new dispensation. Ministers are already feeling sidelined as secretaries make a beeline to the PMO. Union home minister Rajnath Singh, the bureaucratic grapevine has it, had no clue that his ministry had withdrawn clearance for the extension of two senior ips officers to a central organisation at the behest of the PMO. The home secretary had not thought it necessary to brief him. The new equation, in which secretaries will be tempted to engage with the PMO, may not improve trust, efficiency or teamwork, say some bureaucrats.
One serving bureaucrat called it a recipe for disaster. It would lead to a trust deficit between ministers and secretaries. A former Union minister echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t expect ministers to give up their authority. “They’ve waited in the wings for ten years to grab at power,” he smirked. “Why would they let go even part of it?”
Before empowering the bureaucracy, says a cynical bureaucrat, it needs to become more efficient and responsive. All governments paid lip service to administrative reforms, but nothing has changed either at the Centre or in the states. One of the oldest in the world, the Indian bureaucracy is also rated as one of the worst. In a rating by 1,300 business executives, the Hong Kong-based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) found it one of the “most stifling”, corrupt, inefficient and slow-moving. The overwhelming perception is that corrupt bureaucrats are despised but thrive; the honest are respected but do not rise; and idealists end up in the boondocks.
The prime minister has his job cut out. He can either tame the bureaucracy or get tamed by it. Only time will tell if he has made a good beginning.
Apropos of Shaking up the Frame (June 16), it’s probably for the first time that bureaucrats are being empowered. Their experience and expertise makes them specialists in a way, unlike their political bosses. A minister’s assessment of a situation is usually done from a political point of view; bureaucrats view it through a governance lens. Empowering bureaucrats does not mean ministers will no longer wield control. In fact, cooperation between the two will improve administration and bring quick results.
Ranjit Sinha, Calcutta
Allow me to point out a climatic fact: the temperature in Delhi these days is higher than the number of Congress MPs in Parliament.
Mohan, on e-mail
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Anwaar, muslims are secular when they are a minority. When they are majority, they ask for sharia. Secularism and Islam are oppoiste to each other.
This is what I felt when I read first about this news.
These are talibani traits and somebody has attributed them to the wrong people.
If Modi manages to spruce up the judiciary and make it work, it will be job 90% done.
Will Modi even try to? Unlikely.
>> Your kind of arrogance and the inherent ugliness of sanghism will help unite liberal, secular and left forces sooner than you may imagine.
Their sad state, irrelevance, BJP's growth, greed for power, and the kicks administered to them by voters shall unite them together.
Their hatred for Hinduism shall act as glue in this effort.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT