His master’s bureaucracy | Opinion News, The Indian Express

His master’s bureaucracy | Opinion News, The Indian Express

Written by Shakti Sinha |Updated: December 25, 2018 12:20:46 am

The writer is director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.

His master’s bureaucracy

Mass transfers of officers in states which saw change in government is the wrong beginning.

The recent mass transfers of senior officers in states which saw changes in government seems exactly the wrong way to begin governing.

25In a vibrant democracy like India, a change of government is normally characterised by enthusiasm and expectation, particularly when the new government belongs to a different party or alliance from the previous one. The hope is that their elected representatives would devote their time towards pursuing a development-oriented and people-centric agenda. Mandates tend to go sour when governments do the opposite of that. An example of how to avoid this is to concentrate on the task ahead and not resort to diversionary tasks that are counter-productive.

The recent mass transfers of senior officers in states which saw changes in government seems exactly the wrong way to begin governing. It is disheartening when the machinery of government, which is the primary instrument of policy development and implementation, is targeted. Transfers are a normal part of a civil servant’s career. But seeking to identify large numbers and then targeting them because they held “important” posts in the earlier dispensation is undesirable. What made the present round of large-scale transfers worse was the open threat issued by certain political leaders, warning officers that they would be victimised for following legitimate orders of the incumbent government. Therefore, when chief ministers devote their energies to completely overhauling the state machinery, guided by a sense of paranoia over the “loyalty” of officers, it evokes memories of attempts to create “committed civil servants” or a “committed judiciary”.

These officials have been transferred even before cabinet formation. This leaves the state administration in a deep state of flux. On the face of it, these transfers can be characterised as victimisation and a search for “favourable” officers — such arbitrary transfers have the opposite effect of demoralising the bureaucracy. Worse, they embolden the corrupt and the cynical who are quick to spot opportunities for personal aggrandisement. The good and the honest often come to the perverse conclusion that it is better to not perform lest one is victimised later.