'Babus change colour according to political masters'

NEW DELHI: It was a power-packed Wednesday evening. The second edition of The Clash of Titans debate, organized by the Old Students Association of Hindu College, brought former bureaucrats, activists and commentators to debate the motion: This House Believes the Indian Bureaucracy has failed in delivering good governance. The debate was presented by The Times of India.
The debate centred on definitions of good governance and whether the Indian bureaucracy is accountable to itself and to the people in the delivery of services.
Representing St Stephen's College, diplomat-turned-politician Pawan Verma said bureaucrats depend entirely on their political masters-they are like litmus paper that changes colour with the changing nature of political power.
Yashovardhan Azad of Hindu College quoted Urdu poet Mir Taqi Mir to suggest that while it's fashionable to blame bureaucrats, it's the unsung bureaucracy that ensures last-mile connectivity between the state and citizen. He said any system that produces the kind of officers that Indian bureaucracy has can't be called a failure. Pradeep Puri, also of Hindu, argued that good governance in India only means nurturing a system that protects the privileged and the entitled. He said in 26 years, CBI's conviction rate is just 3.96%, showing that the Indian bureaucracy has abdicated responsibility and acquiesced in its own marginalization.
Rights campaigner Aruna Roy, who had been an IAS officer for seven years, argued that it's the lower bureaucracy-patwari and tehsildar-who are the real failures in the system. While the lower bureaucracy takes money from the poor, the upper bureaucracy works for self-aggrandizement. There are no principles because there is no accountability either to the people or to each other and the honest officer is either transferred or taunted and ridiculed by his peers. Yet when a bureaucrat is a good one, he becomes a god, such as S R Shankaran who is revered in Andhra Pradesh.
Zohra Chatterjee of Miranda House made a forceful argument in favour of bureaucracy saying any system that can manage Kumbh Mela and general elections and comprises individuals like Hemant Karkare, who gave up his life for the country, cannot be considered a failure. Krishna Singh said the bureaucracy's chief failure was that it has not been able to keep pace with the changes in society. A colourful intervention was made by award-winning actor Swara Bhaskar who asked when bureaucrats demand dowry how can they work for governance.
Swapan Dasgupta pointed out that in his experience at St Stephen's, most of his batchmates only wanted to join the bureaucracy for power and because they could think of nothing better to do. He said providing "good governance" was the last thing on the minds of those who entered the civil service.
The winning arguments came from Shri Ram College of Commerce, with Sharan Godiya arguing that the Indian civil service is simply not suited for independent India. Any system where there are time-bound promotions, where you get promoted because of your age and a job to which young Indians no longer aspire, has not just failed but is destined to fail because there are no incentives to succeed and bureaucrats are wired not to work. Pavan Bery of SRCC however argued that it's unfair to blame the bureaucats because if anyone should be blamed it's the politicians alone.
Rights campaigner Aruna Roy, who had been an IAS officer for 7 years, in a passionate intervention argued that it’s the lower bureaucracy—the patwari, the tehsildar who are the real failures in the system. While the lower bureaucracy takes bribe money from the poor the upper bureaucracy only works for self aggrandizement and personal ambition. There are no principles because there is no accountability either to the people or to each other and the honest officer is either transferred or taunted and ridiculed by his peers. Yet when a bureaucrat is a good one, he becomes a god, such as SR Shankaran who is revered in Andhra Pradesh.
Union Home secretary Anil Goswami was the chief guest at the function. In his closing address, Goswami said the biggest strength of the bureaucracy is its inclusive nature, the character of the bureaucracy is changing to include all sections of society. “We are attracting talent, we are getting services to different sections of society, we need this system although we need to work it better. “ Goswami said he is an optimist about the bureaucracy.
The judges at the debate were eminent jurists Mukul Mudal, Justice Leila Seth and economist Devaki Jain. Shri Ram College of Commerce was judged the best team and Aruna Roy was judged the best speaker.
In the end Roy summed up the issue when she said the debate about the bureaucracy is not about pros and cons but cast in shades of grey. Bureaucrats need to remain true to the values of the Indian constitution and not change their personas to suit the ruling political establishment of the day.
At the conclusion of the evening, the motion of the debate was put to a voice vote from the audience in which the majority voiced their support for the motion that the Indian bureaucracy has failed to deliver good governance.