We are in a situation in which any crisis of confidence,
trust, identity, in short even a minor niggle in governance, can be traced back
to the injection of bad politics. Even
matters which have no political element,say, a traffic accident, suffers from
miscarriage of justice because political interest intrudes into its
investigation and final outcome.This being the case, political interference and
influence in major matters such as appointment to statutory positions are not a
surprise but a tragic reality.
There was a time when the
selection of candidates for the highest constitutional posts, those of
President and Vice-President, proceeded smoothly with the dignity associated
with those posts. There was a tradition by which the south and the north of the
country alternately held these posts. Starting with Rajendra Prasad and
Radhakrishnan the system survived for years before the quality of the
candidates began to suffer due to political differences within and between
parties. Then the north-south balance was discarded and even the topmost posts
became subject to hot and sometimes unseemly contests. Some of the appointments
devalued those lofty positions.
The most recent episode of the NJAC* ruling of
the Supreme Court has set off so much agitated comment and veiled attributing
of motives. This shows that even the Supreme Court, the highest and the
ultimate arbiter of the land, is not beyond suspicion. A former Supreme Court
judge, although known for his seemingly impulsive outbursts, has taken the
daring step of submitting to the Chief Justice of India a sealed list of
corrupt judges in the higher judiciary.
A TV programme that
reflected supporting and questioning views on the NJAC ruling led to the ludicrous impression that the selection panel had to be
constituted in such a way that every member would have to have the power to
neutralise every other member ! Such was the depth of the trust deficit ! It
was also strange that the dissenting judgement of Justice Chalameshwar, one of
the younger and progressive judges of the country, came in for no more than a
reference in the debate.He has questioned the very basic assumption of the
primacy of the judiciary which formed part of the SJAC ruling.
Selecting the right person
for the right job has been a problem which management experts have been
grappling with for decades. I remember that in the early years of my corporate
life of more than forty years I have
seen selection being made on the
basis of
subjective assessment of Indian employees by expatriate managers. The
final selection very rarely had anything to do with professional capability but
was based on personal background and acceptability by foreign standards.
The problem is no different
in the selection of constitutional
functionaries in India such as the Chief Election Commissioner, , Comptroller
and Auditor General and even President and Vice-President. They are all politically sensitive positions
and all stake-holders have their own candidates in mind. With known faces and
names ranged in front of the executive, selection is subjected to severe
pressures and so much scrutiny.
Disagreement can be unpleasant between parties and the residue of this dissent
lingers to haunt the “chosen one” and the executive.
We in the corporate world also
faced a similar problem of making a choice from a number of in-house candidates
for a particular senior post. The selection panel members had their candidates
with whom they had worked and wished to support. The system ws flawed in that the candidates
were assessed by members whose standards were different. Overcoming much
resistance a new process was introduced by which a senior management panel would study the professional needs of
each position and draw up ideal specifications. This would be done when there
was no vacancy and no name or face in contention When a vacancy did occur the
selection would measure the suitability of the candidates against the job
specifications and choose the one who is closest to the model laid down.
In practice it was not perfect as human
failings in the panel were still a factor but the specifications ensured a
higher level of fairness.
Years ago PC Alexander,former Principal Secretary to
Indira Gandhi, was suggested as a presidential candidate and there was an unseemly disagreement
between NDA and Congress. Congress opposed it and Alexander quit the race, a
disillusioned man. At that time I recall having written to a couple of leading
newspapers that model specifications should be drawn up one-time for
all constitutional positions when there were no vacancies. The selection
would be made by a panel which would have the PM, the Speaker, Leader of the
Opposition and three other appropriate top constitutional functionaries,
current or former. With constitutional
protection this would in theory
ensure that an objective selection would be made at least to fill the vacancy
thereafter as it arose.
The NJAC matter has shown
how intrusive the human factor is. We have to recognise that no system can
succeed in an environment and with participants filled with suspicion and
vested interests. Add to this the polluted political air of the current
times and one can only speculate on how
or when fair and pragmatic selections can
made for positions laid down in the Constitution.
In India today, there is one spectre that haunts our national
life and it is that of the mindless politics being played all round. Whether it
be the working of the parliament, stalled legislation, OROP**, targeted violence
or even the entire political scene, one sees the impact of power play and focus on party interests over national
ones. Statesmanship is currently a rare commodity in our leadership.
Both BJP and Congress have
to discard their ego which is hurting the country and start talking to each
other with a view to protecting the dynamics that every country has to sustain
for growth. BJP has to recognise that winning a great election is only a
starting point and halfway into their term the countdown starts and judgement day will soon dawn. They, having
been in government, will bear the responsibility for any failures and blaming
the opposition will not help. There are rumblings already of the PM’s
reluctance to bend just that little bit to open a dialogue with the opposition,
Congress in particular.Prime Ministers have to be or learn to be statesmen.
Modi has everything going for him but he
has to face the painful fact that he is now national and not party property. His ministers also
have to be educated on this crucial aspect of their identity
As for Congress they have already erred in their
emphasis on personal attacks and in single-minded opposition to just about
everything in a mistaken impression of
their parliamentary role. Its leadership seems to be unable to think like a
national party wih a tradition. Sonia Gandhi has her moment of truth staring her in the face which she can turn
either way to a place as a great national leader with statesmanship or to a
test of her proclaimed Indian-ness in a
time of national need.
India is on the threshold
of opportunity to grow as a political and economic player. BJP and Congress as
the leading political parties of the nation have
to behave as such to grab this moment and agree on a list of national issues
which should be kept out of their political differences and on which they
should work together.. Bad politicians and bad politics have already done much
harm to India.
*National Judicial Appointments Commission
** One Rank One Pension
