A ‘Mexican Standoff’ in Delhi

‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes Prime Minister’ will always be remembered as among the finest political satires ever highlighting the undue influence wielded by civil servants in the corridors of power. Their co-creator Sir Antony Jay must be turning in his grave after the 20th February disgraceful incident of assault on the Chief Secretary by MLAs of the AAP in the presence of the Chief Minister himself at his own house. This disgraceful incident has triggered a chain of events which are shaking the very foundation of the Executive in our parliamentary system of democracy.

The concept of merit-based bureaucracy spread from China to British India during the 17th Century and then into continental Europe. The Northcote– Trevelyan Report (1854) and Civil Service Commission (1855) that followed catalysed the creation of a permanent, meritocratic civil service, based on the guiding principle of integrity, honesty, objectivity and political neutrality. These are undoubtedly very lofty foundational principles for civil services which have withstood the test of time traversing a journey of more than one and half centuries. It is a different story that many pooh-pooh it as a powerful myth. However, there is unanimity that the emergence of the welfare state has made the administrative functions highly complex thus necessitating the need for a body of professionals, trained, experienced, paid and neutral. This administrative monster is a relic of the past, not aligned with the requirements of the 21st Century to bring about rapid transformative changes, is also a very strong counter-narrative. More about it some other time.

Notwithstanding its longevity, sterling past and exceptional performance in certain areas in recent times, many of the bureaucrats are increasingly perceived to be indifferent, insensitive, obstructionist, slow, corrupt and arrogant. The two executive arms –administrative and political– are supposed to work in conjunction for welfare of the people. However, it has mostly been a symbiotic relationship between the two with confrontation and conflict few and far between. Even those minor hiccups are glossed over as “difference of opinion” and “internal matters” and are deftly handled. Despite the rhetoric, the relationships between the two has fundamentally been driven by pragmatism, self-perpetuation and hardnosed self-interests in a long-sclerotic system at the expense of the common man.

On his part Mr Kejriwal, a known disruptor has tried to turn this nexus on its head. He has widely campaigned against a corrupt bureaucracy with his “video banao” message but in the end, both the above extremes do not bode well for governance. The siege within, if not handled promptly and properly, has the potential to destroy a very important edifice of governance. In that backdrop, the most unfortunate fallout of this tragic incident has been the naissance of unionism in the higher echelons of civil services. Officers are now treading where only the lower bureaucracy or the karamcharis once did. Left to fend for themselves, trade unionism is perhaps a Hobson’s choice for civil services as they have ganged up to defend and protect themselves with active support from lower bureaucracy.

Delhi administration is in a state of paralysis. The face-off within the Executive has to be resolved and the onus is on the Delhi Chief Minister, who was the host, witness and prime protagonist of this dramatic and unfortunate incident. Mr Kejriwal has maintained a Sphinx-like silence while letting his party MLAs loose.

The approach of Mr Kejriwal, a former bureaucrat himself, is reminiscent of the classic exchange in ‘Yes Minister’ between Bernard Woolley, Principal Private Secretary to Minister Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby, Permanent Secretary:

Bernard: “But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know.”

Sir Humphrey: “No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.”

With both sides entrenched, the standoff in Delhi is turning into a Mexican standoff while aggravating the pain of commoners. Candle-marches by babus and threats to thrash them by MLAs which has spilled onto social media does not seem to be nearing solution. As an elected representative and as a Chief Minister, it is incumbent upon Mr Kejriwal to break this logjam by standing up and taking full responsibility for this shameful incident. The least he can do is apologise and guarantee non-recurrence of such incidents in future at all levels. It’s the least of the demands and perhaps exigent in the current circumstances. Bloated egos on either side will only hurt the common man.

Many feel that Delhi’s uncertain status of statehood is a major contributing factor to this standoff. The structural, statutory deficiency of full statehood for Delhi is accentuated when the Union Government and Delhi Government are manned by the two different political parties. But for more than 20 years it has been well balanced and boundaries have been respected. Of course, these differences acquire an altogether different dimension with Mr Disruptor himself in the saddle. So far he has shown no remorse and this story is set to take many more twists and turns before the fat lady sings.

The writer is Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh, and views expressed are his own.