Unity in diversity

What if I am not a Sikh myself, I am certainly a human, and, therefore, I am loud and clear in seeking death for 1984 Sikh genocide culprits. India should be rid of all uncivilised barbarians, high or low, who go on rampage on whatever pretext, killing Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Christians or anyone; and shred our social fabric irreparably. Preserving unity in diversity needs delicate handling at the edges, but a sledge-hammer at the core of governance.

Preventive diligence a must for festivals congregations

Keeping in view the increasing trend of festival celebrations becoming a show of local political popularity, a time has perhaps come for the administration to strictly regulate and minimise the current scenario of a large number of multiple splinter congregations for celebrating festivals of mass participation in every city. It is extremely difficult and almost impossible for the Government to provide emergency backup such as fire tenders, ambulances etc at hundreds of such venues at the same time on the same day in every city. Police, doctors and other officials become too thinly spread. Ideally, since not the entire population attends them, one such safe venue for every 2.5 lac population should be earmarked. Bigger cities can have more venues in that ratio. The organisers should be persuaded to essentially contribute for providing public utilities at the venue. The grant of permissions should be through an approval process by a Committee consisting of DM, Police Head, CMO, Head Fire Services and Head of the local municipal body. I am sure these instructions, more or less, exist already. It is a human tendency that instructions are allowed to get diluted in casual routine and tend to fade away unless effectively reiterated periodically. It’s now a case for nationwide application to prevent stampede, accidents, fire incidents and other tragedies.

The State must ensure ‘Ease of Living’ for all citizens at any cost. Citizen-centric governance is the ultimate end.

The State should be absolutely citizen-centric and go all out to make people’s lives comfortable through efficient delivery of services to them. Ease of living is what a State must ensure for every honest and hardworking citizen at any cost :
Sarvesh Kaushal
Former Chief Secretary, Punjab
—————————
Full text of interview:
—————————
* Q: You belong to a family of servicemen for three generations. Does that help?
A: My answer is both yes and no. Yes, because one is groomed all through the formative years about the work and conduct essentials. No,because one is exposed only to a particular section and not the different hues of the society on a level platform. In India, services mostly handle the supply side, and not the demand side of the sea saw. One must have a taste of the receiving end to calibrate one’s responses to correct perspective.
* Q: Why do people feel dissatisfied when it comes to dealing with the government offices?
A : Yes, particularly the youth. Hard working people are generally stressed out because they face cut-throat competition in their daily routine. Apathy of public authorities at the cutting edge levels is the last straw which pushes them against the wall.
* Q: Where does the remedy lie?
A: The civil servants need to pace up and cover real ground in providing citizen-centric administration. Ease of living for the citizen is the first and foremost thrust area which is not getting the desired amount of priority, attention and efforts. There are no authentic benchmark indices for ease of living rankings. Ease of living is the core remedy for making a vast population relatively more satisfied and happy. Their day to day lives need to be de-complicated.
* Q: What are salient thrust areas for improving ease of living?
A: The first and foremost, a fundamental change is required in the mindset. Bureaucrats must trust the citizens. They should step into their shoes and respect them for the desperate effort they make day in and day out to keep themselves afloat. Unfortunately, many bureaucrats are still steeped in the colonial legacy of rulership, and therefore invite backlash of contempt, disrespect and distrust by the people in a democracy. The governance narrative must change, there is no place for attitudinal kinks now.
* Q: What measures should we take for improving ease of living?
A: Cent percent digitisation of citizen related government records and their automatic online retrieval under well notified Standard Operating Procedures for domicile, caste, physical capacity, education and employment related certifications is the first and the foremost. Online submission of all applications and exchange of correspondence with government and it’s entities, and a very strong date bound Management Information System for concurrent forensic breakup and analysis of pendency in government upto the last man.
* Q:What else?
A: Of course Ease of doing Business, quality of health, education and transport infrastructure.  Skill development, employability and employment generation. Safety, security, rule of law.
* Q: You mentioned rule of law. What are the systemic corrections required in policing for ease of living?
A: Let me clarify that ease of living should be for honest law abiding citizen. The system, without suspecting everyone, should automatically make the life of a dishonest, manipulative, law breaking criminal’s life extremely difficult.   There should be certainty of punishment for such elements. Only then the vast majority of right minded citizens will have ease of living. Police investigators should be highly qualified professionals and third degree physical torture which is an obsolete tool which should be effectively discarded. Law should provide for a full audio- video footage of every second of police custody and custodial investigation, and it should be legally mandatory to supply a certified copy of that to the person in custody. There should be a Board to study the acquittal cases, and if they have symptoms of malicious prosecution, the criminal and departmental liability should be inescapable. This should apply to all institutions empowered to arrest and carry out custodial investigations. The fear of wrongful arrest and torture in custodial investigations is the biggest worry that a normal law abiding citizen suffers all through his life. Lots of police reforms are being enforced, a lot more needs to be done.
* Q: There is a feeling going around that bureaucrats shirk taking difficult decisions?
A. To answer this, we should understand the decision making process. It’s a universal fact that time changes everything and life is like a flowing river. When a bureaucrat takes a decision, it’s a snap-shot of circumstances based on which he takes decision at that point of time. But as I said circumstances keep changing, and when they change, some decisions may appear wrong later. Secondly, in a democratic form of government, there is always counter opinion on the table and a bureaucrat always keep that in mind – which renders decision making process reticent and slow. Thirdly, our system doesn’t allow any scope for genuine mistakes and realising that, fearful for not taking right decision without an iota of doubt, bureaucrats avoid taking any decide at all. Some develop a fear of the unknown over the years. Finally, there is very little incentive to be pro-active.
* Q: Isn’t this decision paralysis a serious governance issue?
A: Yes it is. But blaming civil servants alone for that is not fair. In a system where even an imaginary allegation through ‘source reports’,  anonymous and pseudonymous letters etc. can render a bureaucrat guilty till he proves his innocence, which may take a decade, what confidence do we generate in them? Even during a preliminary enquiry or disciplinary proceedings, the vigilance clearance is withheld for any foreign posting, foreign training, central deputation and almost everything. Even if bureaucrat is fully exonerated, he has already after lived long years of tainted life, and perhaps dubbed as ‘controversial’ all through his life despite having proved his innocence.
* Q: What is your take on the ‘media trial’ culture? How do you react to adverse campaigns?
A: Being a no nonsense person causes problems. The vested interests hit hard, and below the belt. Even I also suffered a couple of patently false and motivated allegations from dirty vested interests as part of conspiracies, which fell flat one by one after the authorities inquired and realised that they were unsubstantiated. It takes time to vindicate oneself. The remedy lies in the top civil servants, Tribunals and Courts not getting influenced or swayed by motivated media trials.
* Q: The new amendment in Prevention of Corruption Act would provide some protection for bonafide mistakes. Isn’t it?
A: Of course at the prosecution sanction stage. It all depends whether the competent authorities have the moral fibre and guts to be fair and just in denial of the prosecution sanction where it merits disapproval. If they are self-image conscious, they will tend to mechanically grant the sanction saying that ‘what has the officer to fear in trial if he is innocent’? We must never forget that it is equally important to restore the dignity of a falsely accused officer, as much as it is to bring a rightly accused officer to book.
* Q: Why are the inquiries allowed to linger on endlessly?
A: Fishing and roving inquiries and do not close sometimes even when there is no prima facie truth in allegations. Blocking a fishing and roving inquiry sometimes invites a risk of allegation of complicity. At the top of it, some institutions, I don’t need to name them, have been found indulging in sensationalism in pointing out highly exaggerated hypothetical losses and culpability, leading to medial trials. Everyone knows about them. This has vitiated bold and independent decision making in bureaucracy.
* Q: What should be done?
A: It is imperative that the political executive and senior bureaucrats provide the right type of leadership to their juniors, and encourage them to take well reasoned, well documented, bonafide and proactive decisions. Without tolerating and sheltering corruption at any cost, they should introduce confidence building measures for pro-active decision making without any fear of uncalled for retribution later.
* Q: You studied law and graduated while you were in service. How is that useful to you?
A: Anyone in government must study the laws as thoroughly as possible, because the entire governance has to take place as per law. Ignorance of law is no excuse, and acts of omission are as serious as the acts of commission. I feel merely studying law and obtaining a degree in law serves no purpose unless one becomes a perpetual student of laws, and keeps on regularly brushing up one’s knowledge of the emerging laws and their interpretation by the Supreme Court and High Courts. if one is able to develop the mental faculty of legal analysis and legalistic thinking, it’s a remarkable administrative quality. Secondly, I feel very confident and reassured that the doors of my second profession are wide open after my retirement from service.
* Q: Your message?
A: Truth and righteousness. Never say Yes to the vested interests, you must say No, whatever may the consequences be. Never say No to a citizen when a citizen is entitled to a Yes, howsoever difficult may it be.  Be citizen centric and go all out to make their lives comfortable through efficient delivery of services to them.  Tour extensively and remain in touch with the people to understand their issues. Always be fair, just and kind to all fellow human beings. State should be a truly welfare state, having a sacred obligation for the welfare of the last man on the street. Always wish and work hard for peace and prosperity of all citizens. In them one should see the reflection of God!

Sarvesh Kaushal, former Chief Secretary, Punjab (India), retires. Upright officer, with a knack of taking firm and quick decisions.

THE INCONSEQUENTIAL ANGELS

 

 

 

Sarvesh Kaushal

(*Authored in 2001)

 

 

            A stage comes in a bureaucrat’s life when creativity gets buried under the dunes of monotonous official and domestic chores. The tragedy of being’ in­consequential angels’ is writ large on the faces of those who once solemnly resolved to act as the catalysts of change. The idealistic individual gets haplessly sucked into the gutter of the system; a whirlpool that takes him to the brink of abyss. About the politicization of the services, I find it an inevitable consequence of the strings of power firmly woven around the deft fingers of the political know-alls, who have the final word in all matters, ranging between irritating trivialities to infinite significance. In the post independence era of Indianized democracy, we have also learnt to face lethal shots from bunkers of extra – legal authority. I proceed to write a few words about the alleged lack of commitment of the bureaucracy. Often accused of systematically reducing their involvement of ‘head and the heart’ in discharging duties, it appears the bureaucracy has purposely shrugged off its accountability in the absence of any real responsible decision making authority allowed to remain with them. Inducements or veiled threats of backlash tend to pre­empt the expression of honest opinion. Whatever a bureaucrat opines can be effortlessly brushed aside by recording a custom made jugglery of words conveying a make belief justification of something which must not happen, Is it not indeed a solemn virtue to calculatedly drift away from the toxic affluents of the systemic opportunism ?Why not, then, a policy of ‘masterly inactivity’? Political governance, without an exception, swears by its conviction to acquire transparency, but goes all out to frame such Conduct Rules for the Civil Servants that render it as opaque as possible. Where is the necessity to prevent the civil servants from commenting in the media about policy matters which are substantially significant in public interest? The bureaucrats, publically blamed in the media for ‘inefficiency, corruption and non­cooperation’, are gagged by the conduct rules and end up as mute victims of schematic character assassination leading to social disgrace. Where do we stand today?

Pavlov showed that if he rang a bell each time a dog was fed, it would start salivating at the sound, even without the presence of food. These reflexes which constitute the basis of animal behaviour, now form the basics of our cadre management. With the bureaucrats intermittently hearing the transfer bells all through the year, Pavlovian response has by and large become the’ reflex response’ of our service. This is due to the fact that the work distribution and duty assignment between the one bureaucrat and the other have been cleverly tampered to generate artificial imbalances and inequalities which are systematically exploited. As the inequalities are so prominently accentuated, an apparently’ routine’ transfer can now be clearly defined either as a ‘punishment’ or a ‘reward’. On the threshold of the new millennium and faced with the obvious level of redundance of our service, a bureaucrat can ill-afford to have a “wishful dream” at this juncture. The following few lines I wrote in 1980s sum up what I may not have been able to convey today: ­

                 “Thoughts Shudder my Body               
The heaven of my heart;
Caught in a whirlpool
Rendering me a spool
Churning my mind
Sucking in into black depths
While body staggers
Whirls with the wind
Laughing at my plight
To a devil’s delight
A scared moon
Staring in gloom
At its own shadow
On marshy muck
Once a lush meadow
My Heart attempts a convulsion
Victim of fortune’s cruel revolution
Buried under fathoms of water
That has mooted as cruel lides
Reflecting merciless strides
Of vanquisher of peace
Of a broken heart
Shattered will
And wishful dreams”