By Rajindar Sachar
There was lot of condemnation in public at the handling of Dera Ram Rahim Ashram case leading to the death of 33 people mostly by goons of Dera. This was coupled with withdrawal of the State Machinery. Such was the awe created by Ram Rahims cozy relationship with BJP Haryana government that the Haryana Home Secretary publicly derided and blamed Lady Deputy Commissioner Panchkula for not calling the Army earlier. Could one ask him – one of the senior- most Civil Servants – as to what prevented him from advising the junior D.C. to do so – or even in the alternative himself ask for army. After all he was only at a distance of 10 K.M. Did he not think his duty to go to the spot himself. Could it be that the closeness of Khattar Government to Dera, where Ministers had been regularly going and paying obeisance to Dera Chief was the hurdle.
Apart from other significant matters concerning the role of State machinery with such shady institutions – there is even more important policy matter in a democracy, namely “How in a democracy, events like these, namely of killings of public by police firing should be dealt with”. I may in this connection point out that Socialist Party of J.P. and Dr. Lohia had propounded a policy regarding police firing resulting in deaths in Independent India. It was of the considered view that in a free democratic country like India, any public firing leading to the deaths of citizens must automatically lead to the resignation of the State Government. The leaders believed that in Independent India, no State Government in these circumstances would have any legal or moral sanction to continue. Because if a situation reaches that stage it shows the complete incompetency of State Government and it should be incumbent on the State Government to resign in that eventuality. In fact Socialist Party had to face this situation early in free India. It will be recalled that in 1952 General elections though Socialist Party under the leadership of J.P. Acharya Narender Dev, Dr. Lohia was expected to do well, considering the sacrifices and contribution to freedom struggle and especially to the most important phase of struggle for Independence, namely 1942 movement – but unfortunately the party did not do well.
The Socialist Party however was able to form a government in the then State of Travancore with Chief Minister Thanu Pillai. Some time later there was agitation in Travancore and police firing took place resulting in the death of some demonstrators. Immediately Dr. Lohia and many others like us demanded resignation of government of Thanu Pillai. But some sections of the Socialist Party opposed it. Since no agreement could be reached large number of us under the leadership of Dr. Lohia, walked out of the Socialist Party as we were of the view that in free India, police killing of citizens must automatically lead to resignation of the state government if human Right violations were to be safeguarded – as we considered that to ignore this human Right violation was dangerous to the functioning of a democratic state – and this has been proved by subsequent events in India, as is shown by official figures released by Government of India that at least over 50,000 people have been killed by police firing by the various State Governments – this happened because sound Human right standards were not accepted, namely the automatic resignation of State Government of Haryana in such an eventuality – this alone can satisfy the test of democracy and human Rights, which every government under our constitution is bound to observe.
The expansion by Mr. Modi of his Ministry has led to B.J.P. followers ravings about setting up High Standard of political conduct. How wrong is this assessment will be shown by instant reflection. I am not touching the reshuffling of port folios amongst Ministers for the obvious reason that is the privilege of Chief Minister.
But it does call for comment on a number of precedents which are unacceptable. To start with, the case of Suresh Prabhu in the cabinet invites an act of cynicism and hypocrisy. Prabhu resigned as a railway minister publically owning responsibility for the rail accident purporting to put himself at the level of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Frankly if he had not resigned, I for one would not have found fault with him because I believe that to ask for resignation of Railway Minister because of accident admittedly caused by gross negligence of middle rung railway officials is not correct public policy. But having publically done that, to include Prabhu as a Minister for equally important portfolio namely commerce, is the limit of hypocrisy because if responsibility for accident is personally trumpeted about as sacrifice, it ill behooves Prabhu to remain in the cabinet.
I have also serious principled objection to the retired bureaucrats joining a political party. This act is partisan and to amounts to the breach of principle of separation of politics and bureaucracy.
I could understand a bureaucrat having retired, taking to politics, then getting elected as M.P. and then being included in the cabinet. But I have strong objection to the retired bureaucrats being picked up for cabinet and then to try to get then elected directly or indirectly by nomination to the Rajya Sabha. This interferes with the accepted principle of neutrality of bureaucracy. This tactic shows a tendency to convert slyly to the presidential system from the present cabinet system. These officials have never rubbed shoulders with the masses and have led exclusive lives – such a pattern ill behooves our constitutional set up which require a public contact with the masses. Of course it fits the single dictatorial mental make up of Modi – these not so clever manipulation must be opposed by all
believing in democracy and Indian Constitution.
