Is this justice?

The classic definition of a democratic administration was given 137 years ago by Abraham Lincoln: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”. The American president could have added a fourth preposition: ‘to’. As in ‘responsible to’ the people.

It is a physical impossibility and was so even in the era of the city-states, for governance to be carried on as an exercise in referenda. That is why we gift some of our authority to certain chosen representatives, and ask them to govern in our name. But the demands of modern governance mean that it is not possible for the select hundred, or even thousand, to carry out all the tasks of administration. That is why bureaucracies were invented.

We exercise a certain amount of control over our elected representatives, and insist that they answer for themselves at poll-time. That is when we remind them that they are answerable to us.

This does not mean that the ‘court of the people’ should be confused with actual courts. This nonsense has been given a new life by Jayalalitha’s disciples. They say: “If madam is elected, that means the court of the people has declared its belief in her innocence!”

Taking this to its logical conclusion, this means Tamil Nadu deemed her to be corrupt when she failed to win even her own Assembly seat, Bargur, in 1996! And that Laloo Prasad Yadav should have been shunted off to jail the day after he lost Madhepura to Sharad Yadav. And some might wonder why we have commissions of inquiry on Ayodhya when the ‘court of the people’ has cleared L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati, to name but three...
However, I digress. The point is that elections exercise a certain restraint, though not enough in my opinion, on the worst excesses of our politicians. But who polices the bureaucracy?

A couple of weeks ago, Lily George, wife of Sonia Gandhi’s trusted aide, was in the news. It was pointed out that she had once applied for a licence to operate a petrol pump. The allotment was made from the concerned minister’s discretionary quota, and appeared in spite of a certain delightful vagueness about her family’s income and other such matters. (Just for the record, the allocation did not materialise.)

Lily George was not the sole beneficiary of the minister’s discretion. Ajit Jogi, now chief minister of Chhattisgarh but then in the Rajya Sabha, had written a similar letter. He carefully said nothing about his status in Parliament and made a false declaration about his income. This was approved, and Jogi won his cherished licence. (He withdrew the application after somebody registered a complaint.)
The proximity of the Georges to the Congress president and Ajit Jogi’s current office meant that they came under scrutiny. However, it is no secret that there were several hundred such cases in the early years of the last decade when the Congress enjoyed its last stint in power. Satish Sharma, who made such ill use of his discretion as Union petroleum minister, was hauled up before the Supreme Court itself.

If I remember correctly, roughly four hundred instances of this ministerial indiscretion came to light during the court proceedings. Some of these allotments then had to be cancelled. Justice Kuldip Singh went so far as to impose a punitive fine on Satish Sharma. (This last decision was later reversed.)
I think we would all agree with any strictures passed by the judiciary on Satish Sharma. But, wait a minute, was the former minister acting absolutely alone? Why, one could demand, weren’t his aiders and abettors standing in the dock beside him?

Let us not forget that there are certain procedures to be followed in every wing of the government. Files are pushed back and forth with signatures applied where necessary. Anyone who has had the misfortune to visit a government office knows just how convoluted the process can be to get a birth certificate or a ration card. The process of measuring an application for a petrol station is certainly not less laborious.

So, will someone explain what happened when Lily George, Ajit Jogi, and several “indigent” Congressmen applied to the Union petroleum ministry for relief? Who were the civil servants who approved these requests, presumably after a certain amount of scrutiny? Surely, it did not take a Sherlock Holmes to realise, for instance, that Ajit Jogi was a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, and therefore far from indigent. Yet all these civil servants simply stamped their approval on these applications before sending them on to Satish Sharma’s table.

There are only two possible explanations. First, they were careless — to the point where cluelessness is indistinguishable from stupidity. Second, they knew that what they were doing was wrong, yet went ahead and did it anyway. Which ever the story you choose to believe, these bureaucrats did not deserve the salary they drew from our pockets.

Whether corrupt or careless, some punishment must go their way. But what has actually happened? Satish Sharma was hauled before the Supreme Court. He lost the election from Amethi. (He has subsequently been returned from another constituency.) Thus, both the courts and the “people’s court” have had their say on Rajiv Gandhi’s pilot friend. But what of the civil servants?

I understand that all those men who processed the applications are still wandering around in the corridors of power. One key official, shocking to relate, is a serious candidate for the post of a deputy governor in the Reserve Bank! I am not sure that one of the guardians of the Indian economy is the right place for a man prepared to wink at rules being bent.

Can anyone explain this mockery of justice? I freely confess that it makes no sense to me!

It is a simple proposition: if the civil servants assist a minister in bending the rules, then they should share his fate when the law enforcers come a-calling. We all agree that Satish Sharma was in the wrong. (And so were all those so-called ‘‘indigents’’ of course!) But so too were the bureaucrats who either stood by and did nothing, or were active participants in the subterfuge.

Yes, I know the explanation: ‘‘We were just following orders!’’ That is not, however, an excuse. Bureaucrats know the law; is there any record of even one of them pointing out to the Satish Sharmas of the world that he or she was about to do something wrong?

Elections provide a chance to remind politicians of their responsibility. When do we get a chance to remind the bureaucracy?

Earlier Columns