West Bengal conundrum and Babus

West Bengal conundrum and Babus
West Bengal conundrum and Babus

A couple of former top bureaucrat have without mincing words described the  Narendra Modi Government’s action against the West Bengal chief secretary,  a day before he was to retire, Mr Alapan Bandhyopadhyay as “unprecedented,  disturbing and a disregard for rules”.

This was done by the Centre to punish Mr Bandhyopadhyay as he accompanied  by the state chief minister, Ms Mamta Banerjee arrived 15 minutes late to  attend a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Modi during the course of recent cyclone. She had her own explanation leading to her delayed arrival but the  Centre struck without even considering her version.

“This is perhaps the first time in the history of Independent India that a  secretary-level officer is being posted in the Centre one day before retirement.

Also Read |  Recalling Galwan Clash and One Year Since Then

The order is totally irregular. And to say that a secretary-level officer must  report to Delhi by 10 am on a particular day is just unheard of. The joining time  is normally six days plus travelling time for all bureaucrats,” observed former  Home Secretary, Mr G K Pillai.

The observation of Mr Pillai, a no-nonsense officer with an impeccable record  who refused to be on the board of any corporate entity while being in service,  he was also the Commerce Secretary, and even post-retirement benefit, is  significant in more than one way.

Firstly, it points to the morass resulting out of deadly politico-bureaucratic mix  with the former nudging its way unmindful of the rules and covenants and the  latter preferring to crawl when asked to bend. Secondly, Mr Pillai himself was  in the centre of a pleasant situation under which he was repatriated to his  home cadre Kerala while being a popular joint secretary in the Home Ministry.

This episode assumes significance, in relation to the current development, as  at that time veteran BJP leader, Mr L K Advani was the home minister and Mr  A K Antony of the Congress had just taken over as Kerala chief minister.

Also Read | G-7 Summit Disappoints

Mr Antony flew all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to  personally request Mr Advani for Mr Pillai’s services and to the pleasant  surprise of many including media-persons, Mr Advani readily agreed to let  go one of his finest officers then in-charge of the disturbed North East.

“How could I have said no when the chief minister personally came and sought my officer’s services. In fact, it was a matter pride for me as Home  Minister that the officer’s efficiency has been recognised,” Mr Advani had  candidly replied to a question in this question by this writer.

Although the two situations have no comparison but speak volumes about  the degradation that has set-in in the functioning of the executive which is  one of the profoundest pillars of the democracy. There were problems in  its functioning earlier also but the West Bengal episode, coming  particularly after the BJP’s defeat in the assembly elections, is a new low as it smacks of a mindset of personal political vendetta in which the state  chief secretary ended up becoming a pawn.

Mr Pillai was not alone in expressing his anguish but others of his ilk made  a common cause with him to denounce this bizarre situation. Former  Cabinet Secretaries, M/s B K Chaturvedi and Mr K M Chandrasekhar, and  former secretary DoPT, which is responsible for IAS cadre management  and rules, Mr Satyanand Mishra reacted in the same vein.

Mr Bandyopadhyay intriguingly finds himself caught in the crossfire between  Mr Modi on one side and his immediate boss Chief Minister on the other as  the latter “chose to skip or was late” to a review meeting held by the Prime  Minister over cyclone Yaas. Lately, the retiring chief secretary, though immediately appointed an officer on special duty by the state government for  three years, has been slammed with a second show cause notice by the Home  Ministry under the Disaster Management (DM) Act for arriving 15 minutes late  in the Prime Minister’s meeting.

Mr Pillai expressing surprise on the second show cause notice shockingly  observed, “in my long career, I did not come across any such precedence. That  too for missing a meeting! Both the orders are bizarre. No other words can  express it.”

Similar views were expressed by the former DoPT secretary, Mr Mishra who  termed the notice as “stupid”. “It would be a violation of the DM Act if an  order to attend the meeting was issued under the DM Act”, he felt.

The case of this stand-off between Centre and the West Bengal government  with the chief secretary becoming the soft target is a glaring example of the  system functioning in a manner where there is scant respect for the laid rules  and regulations leave aside the standing of the officer in question. This is a  typical example of politics overriding decency,” an ex-bureaucrat said on  conditions of anonymity. What do the rules governing deputing an IAS officer on central deputation say?

Provisions for the central deputation require the officer both the officer  concerned and the state giving their prior consent. In such cases a consultation  is done, and in case the Centre is not satisfied with a particular state’s  reasoning for to not relieve the officer, then the Centre can insist.

A specific reading of Rule 6.1 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, is: “A cadre officer  may, with the concurrence of the state governments concerned and the  central government, be deputed for service under the central government or  another state government or under a company, association or body of  individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially  owned or controlled by the central government or by any other state  government. Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be  decided by the central government and the state government or state  governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the central  government.”

Question arises if that meant all together doing away with the consultation  process. In the current West Bengal case no such consultation ever took place.

The spirit of the Rule 6.1 was never invoked as the subsequent developments  have revealed. That has resulted in raising suspicion about the real intent of either the Centre or the ruling BJP.

The genesis of this crisis lies in the Trinmool Congress chief, Ms Mamta  Banerjee standing up to the electoral challenge posed by the powerful  combine of Prime Minister Mr Modi and Home Minister, Mr Amit Shah and  successfully checkmating the latter’s electoral victory streak. Whatever is the  poll outcome, it is the verdict of the people of the state and the BJP should have accepted with a bowed head.

This is the usual culmination of an electoral process. Every political party  defeated in elections invariably accepts the verdict with customary, “we  honour the people’s verdict and will perform our duties as a strong  opposition.” But that does not seem to be the case with the current ruling  dispensation.

Where are we destined to go from here? Well, the answer lies only with the  people of India.


The author is a veteran journalist from Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir. He has spent most of his professional career in New Delhi.


The Dispatch is present across a number of social media platforms. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exciting videos; join us on Facebook, Intagram and Twitter for quick updates and discussions. We are also available on the Telegram. Follow us on Pinterest for thousands of pictures and graphics. We care to respond to text messages on WhatsApp at 8082480136 [No calls accepted]. To contribute an article or pitch a story idea, write to us at [email protected] |Click to know more about The Dispatch, our standards and policies   
West Bengal conundrum and Babus