Hegel wrote, ``the members of the government and the civil servants constitute the main part of the middle class... The institutions of sovereignty from above and the rights of corporations from below prevent the middle class from using its educations and skills as means for arbitrariness and tyranny.'' In a similar vein, it is said in Manusmriti that the King ``should of himself ever visit all those officers appointed by him and discover their behaviour by his spies. For those servants appointed by theking for protection of the people are mostly takers of the property of others and cheats; from them he should protect these people.'' Hegel and Manu are in agreement that the government servants are mostly cheats and the sovereign should take proactive measures to ascertain their behaviour without waiting for the people to complain against such officers.

The Lok Pal, unfortunately, would be able to undertake no such action. According to the National Agenda, he would have ``adequate powers to deal with corruption charges against anyone, including the Prime Minister.'' He would have no proactive mandate. He would only inquire into charges that may be levelled against politicians or officers. Thus the basic problem is left unattended. The shopkeeper who has to pay hafta would rather not bring such charges lest the cheats take his property.

We need to fundamentally recognise that corruption is an innate tendency of the government servant. Every government servant must be presumed corrupt unless proveninnocent. The Lok Pal needs to be armed with proactive investigation powers to actively look for corrupt officers and trap them without requiring levelling of charges.

The BJP government may not find it possible to think so radically. The least it can do then is to implement some of the recommendations of the Fifth PayCommission which might go part of the way in giving a clean government to the people.

The Commission had suggested that the numbers of the bureaucracy should be downsized by 30 percent over a ten-year period. This could be achieved, among others, by ``compulsory retirement of those who are found to be incompetent or corrupt.'' Now the government could order an external review of competence, if not of corruption, of its officers and retire the incompetent.

The Commission had recommended that there should be a ``quinquennial assessment of Group A officers. Remarks about integrity would be allowed in such periodical reviews by a knowledgeable group and could lead to compulsory prematureretirement of the officer.''

The Commission said that ``what we require is on-line monitoring of performance, performance budgeting, performance audit, concurrent evaluation, continuous counselling and feedback at all levels.''

These are only some of the recommendations which, if implemented, will go part of the way in restraining the bureaucracy from becoming tyrannous. The government does not even have to enact a bill. These are administrative matters that can be implemented pronto.

The basic choice before this government is between the people and the bureaucracy. Over the years pampering by successive government has indeed turned the latter into a tyrannical institution. While we must recognise that there are a few honest officers, they are exceptions that prove the rule. The government will have to confront this powerful monolith. Unless it has the courage to face this reality, there will be no clean government.