In his recent conversation with bureaucrats, the Prime Minister has drawn upon the semantics of language to drive home an important political message. A democracy needs “political intervention” — but not “political interference”, which can destroy the system, Narendra Modi said. In making the interesting distinction between “intervention” and “interference”, the PM drew attention to the complicated relationship that binds political parties/ rulers and bureaucracy.  “In a democracy, bureaucracy and political intervention go hand in hand… as legislators are elected by the people,” Modi told bureaucrats.    

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

The two words leveraged by Modi may seem to convey the same meaning. But scratch the surface and you find a subtle distinction separating the words. Whereas ‘intervention’ conveys a sense of positivity and spirit of engagement and deliberation, ‘interference’ stands for negativity and negative actions like meddling, trespassing, encroaching etc. To argue that political parties — more often than not — have been prone to interfering and not intervening as far as bureaucracy is concerned, is only to reflect the practice as it has existed on the ground, for decades. Using political heft to stifle autonomous functioning of bureaucrats has been stock-in-trade of politicians. It is also one of the reasons for the frequent surfacing of tensions between the two institutions. 

For instance, arbitrary transfer of bureaucrats is known to be used as a punitive measure to punish independent and fearless officials. Recalling the case of Ashok Khemka is important in this context. A senior IAS officer in Haryana, best known for cancelling the mutation of Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra’s illegal land deal, Khemka was transferred 46 times by successive state governments headed by different political parties, in over two decades. He is just one of many among his fraternity deliberately targeted by governments, for not executing the wishes of political masters, or trying to end corruption. 

However, not all bureaucrats can or are inclined to dig in their heels and fight back. The disruption in personal and professional life — as amply manifested in the Khemka case — is too high to bear. No wonder bureaucrats are too often unable to execute their duties without fear of retributive transfers. 

Politicians do tend to favour pliant bureaucrats in the hope that they — in turn — will further their political agenda. Change of guard in states is often followed by mass transfer of bureaucrats — done mostly without any logic or heed to suitability. The politicisation of bureaucracy — an unfortunate reality of India — decidedly falls in the category of “interference” as the PM put it. Intervention, on the other hand, can foster a sense of collaboration and team work between the political system and bureaucracy. Collaboration that can bring advantage to the people whom politicians and bureaucrats are expected to serve.

Notwithstanding the semantic distinction between “intervention” and “interference”, the possibility of “intervention” transforming into “interference” can’t be undermined. The lines between these two different spheres of action can indeed become blurred; the context in which the PM’s words assume special significance.  

The need to break the culture of politicising bureaucracy can’t be emphasised enough. History has been witness to repeated and deliberate subversion of the two important segments of the Republic — bureaucracy and police — by political parties. Such distortions have been particularly evident at critical times as — for instance — during communal riots and political violence. The inaction of bureaucracy at the behest of political masters in such times would decidedly qualify as ‘obstruction of public service and discharge of duty’, punishable under law. 

At the end, intervention alone is not going to energise bureaucracy. For that to happen, governments — central and state — need to let bureaucrats to do their work without expecting them to doff their hats to them. Autonomy is key to promoting a functioning and honest bureaucracy.