In many senses, the seriousness of a new government and of a Prime Minister or chief minister recently elected to office can be measured by the manner in which he or she copes with the civil service. An absolute surrender to the bureaucracy — and allowing it to have its way on all occasions, without offering any relevant political input — is counterproductive. However, its opposite is not unmitigated hostility.
Whether we like it or not and whether we want to persist with it or not, the body of government servants, with the senior civil service at its apex, constitutes the permanent executive. This is the arc of continuity and delivery mechanism in the administrative system as it exists. As such, it is important for governments and politicians to encourage, empower, use and deploy these instruments and these civil servants. This is a necessary condition to fulfil the goals of an election mandate.
This relationship has to be carefully navigated. The manner of navigation is often a test of political maturity. Seasoned and surefooted politicians can give civil servants a certain energy, while retaining supervisory control in their (the politicians’) hands. This relationship is vital because without adequate civil service cooperation and trust, a political executive cannot really succeed. It can complement or supplement the bureaucracy with lateral entrants and political appointees, but it cannot fundamentally bypass the bureaucracy.
In this context, chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s war against a senior Indian Administrative Service officer who has been appointed acting chief secretary of Delhi by the lieutenant-governor (L-G) is puzzling and disappointing. The lady in question, Shakuntala Gamlin, has the seniority and the career record to merit the appointment. She will officiate as chief secretary while the incumbent is away on 10 days’ leave. The L-G of Delhi, which is not a full-fledged state and where the L-G has certain administrative powers, is within his rights to appoint Ms Gamlin and not side-step her for a junior officer, as Mr Kejriwal desires.
It is not as if junior colleagues cannot supersede those who are their seniors (by year or rank) in the civil service. Yet, there have to be strong grounds to do so, reflected in the annual confidential reports (ACRs), career history, instance of any professional misconduct and so on. Mr Kejriwal has been able to establish none of this in Ms Gamlin’s case. Rather, he and his political colleagues have behaved in an extraordinarily feckless manner.
A functionary in the chief minister’s office verbally asked Ms Gamlin to withdraw her name from contention and showed her an unsigned note, allegedly authored by the chief minister or on his behalf, making libellous charges against her and suggesting this would be used to damage her reputation and future prospects. The lady hit back by taking on the threat and refusing to succumb. It appears the root of the controversy is in Ms Gamlin’s objection to unelected Aam Aadmi Party members, those not in the Cabinet, sitting in on closed-door and confidential government meetings.
The Kejriwal government has gone on the offensive. It has publicly said Ms Gamlin is unsuitable because she is “extremely close” to private sector power distribution companies and has been lobbying on their behalf within the administration. This leads to a series of confounding questions. Ms Gamlin was appointed power secretary only a few months ago. If Mr Kejriwal believes Ms Gamlin is a discredited officer, why has he retained her in the same department?
Next, if an officer makes an argument at a government meeting that may be congruent to an argument being made by a private sector company, then is she being a lobbyist or is she offering professional advice? If she is being a lobbyist, as Mr Kejriwal is implying Ms Gamlin is being, then surely rigorous and additional evidence of the individual’s nexus with the private sector company and her desire to defraud or deprive the public exchequer needs to be offered. A serious charge is usually required to be backed up. Running a government is different from hit-and-run accusations at televised press conferences — unless Mr Kejriwal cannot tell one from the other.
Finally, Mr Kejriwal has advised departments of his government to sue the media for defamation in case of a mischievous, untrue or otherwise damaging report. By that same logic, is Ms Gamlin obliged to sue her own government and chief minister for defamation, for tarnishing her reputation, and for making charges of deliberate professional underperformance without offering a shred or proof? Where would Mr Kejriwal stand on this? Would he be able to clarify or would it become just one more of the many contradictions he has juggled over the years?
There is a larger point too that Mr Kejriwal needs to address. He has spent the past three months enveloped in a series of conflicts, intra-party and external, many of them manufactured to give his support base the impression that the world — the Union government, the L-G, the media, business corporations, the upper middle classes — is conspiring against him. While buying expensive ad time on television and linking his subsidy programme to a supposed decline in corruption in Delhi, he has had little time for strategic priorities and plans. Gimmicks such as the proposal to replace the CBSE and ISC examination systems with a Delhi school education board — which is scarcely a pressing need — cannot substitute for serious governance.
The singling out and victimisation of Ms Gamlin comes in this context. It raises perplexing concerns about what Mr Kejriwal’s goals are. Does he want to settle into five years of sober governance — or is he simply itching for a confrontation with the Narendra Modi government and another bout of street theatre?
The writer can be contacted at malikashok@gmail.com
