Re-building of Somanath Temple: A Tribute to Sardar Patel and K.M. Munshi

16 Jan, 2018 | Dr Makkhan Lal, Distinguished Fellow, VIF

Somanath temple came in news in a big way again in the recent months. This was after almost three decades when it was in the news because Mr. Lal Krishna Advani started his Rama Janmabhumi temple rathyatra from Somanath. It was a very symbolic gesture in the sense Advani desired to convey that Rama Janmabhumi temple will be built with the participation of people and the government alike; exactly the way Somanath temple was built after the independence.

In the recent times, the Temple came in news again due to Rahul Gandhi’s tours in the wake of Gujarat elections. His visits were meant to convey the people of Gujarat that he was a devotee of Lord Shiva and a janeu-dhari (the sacred thread wearing) Brahmin. When Rahul Gandhi visited the temple and the Congress party took pride in announcing his visit wearing janeu (sacred thread), it declared him to be a Brahmin and a Shiva-bhakta.

Indians in general do know how and who destroyed the famous and venerated Lord Somanath temple but very few know how it was rebuilt and what kind of teething troubles it faced before the sacred ceremony of prana-pratishtha could be performed. This article deals with the issues regarding the rebuilding of Somanath temple. It is a fitting tribute to K.M. Munshi whose 131^st birth anniversary falls on 30^th December, 2017.

Emotional attachment and psychological feelings in the minds of every Indian regarding the destruction of Somanath temple and its standing ruins have been well explained in an article by K.M. Munshi written in 1922. He writes:

“Desecrated, burnt and battered, it still stood firm – a monument to our humiliation, and ingratitude. I can scarcely describe the burning shame which I felt on that early morning as I walked on the broken floor of the once-hallowed sabhamandap littered with broken pillars and scattered stones. Lizards slipped in and out of their holes at the sound of my unfamiliar steps, and Oh! the shame of it! – an inspector’s horse, tied there, neighed at my approach with sacrilegious impertinence.” 1¹

The Nawab of Junagarh would just not allow the Hindus to re-built and renovate the crumbling temple which marked the holy spot where Yogeswar Lord Krishna left his mortal remains. However, after the accession of Junagarh to India in October 1947, Sardar Patel and N.V. Gadgil went to Prabhas Patan and visited the ruins of Somanath Temple. While walking along the ruins, N.V. Gadgil requested Sardar for the restoration of the Somanath temple which was immediately accepted by him, and in a public meeting on the same evening Sardar Patel announced:

“On this auspicious day of the New Year, we have decided that Somanath should be reconstructed. You people of Saurashtra should do your best. This is a holy task in which all should participate. That the Government of India has decided to rebuild the temple and install the shrine.”

Junagarh administration and the Jam Saheb gave donation each on the spot. And 5000 acres of land around the temple was marked for the temple and various other projects like a Sanskrit University, Culture Centre, building of monument at the place of Dehotsarga and indeed, development of the town Prabhash which had fallen into neglect.

However, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the then Education Minister and great friend of Nehru, opposed the idea and in one of the Cabinet meetings argued that the ruins should be handed over to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to be preserved in the same ruinous condition as a historical monument. The Minister, however, had not suggested similar measures to be taken for the Muslim shrines and mosques, repairing of which were being done by the ASI under his Ministry. But Sardar Patel was very firm and resolute regarding the rebuilding of the temple and responded with a note stating:

“The Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely that this sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of the temple or by prolonging its life. The restoration of idol would be a point of honour and sentiments with the Hindu public.”³

The Government of India decided that the temple would be constructed by it, as it was being done in the case of Muslim shrines and mosques. Nehru indeed presided over the Cabinet meeting in which this decision was taken. The work began in the right earnest. The whole scheme was discussed with Gandhi ji also who approved of the entire scheme except that the funds necessary for the building of temple should come from public. Thereafter the idea that the Government of India should finance the reconstruction of the temple was given up.

Sardar Patel passed away on 15 December, 1950. After the passing away of Sardar, Nehru started criticizing the whole project and became very hostile not just to the project but to those cabinet colleagues – mainly K.M. Munshi and V.N. Gadgil – who were associated with it right from the beginning. Both N.V. Gadgil’s and K.M. Munshi’s writings bring this out very clearly. As preparations began for the prana-pratishtha according to the shashtras, the President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, was requested to do the ceremony. In the midst of these preparations, once after a Cabinet meeting, Nehru called Munshi and said: “I don’t like your trying to restore Somanath. It is Hindu revivalism.” Munshi not only felt very hurt but took the comments to imply that the things were done on his back and without his knowledge. To this Munshi replied: “I would go home and inform about the things that had happened.”⁴

On 24 April, 1951, K.M. Munshi wrote a very long letter detailing the entire process regarding Somanath temple. But for this letter, many things regarding the rebuilding of Somanath temple would have remained completely unknown. ⁵ Munshi writes (for the complete letter may please see Secular Politics Communal Agenda⁶):

“After the Indian Army was invited into Junagadh by the Dewan of the ex-Nawab, Sardar, Jam Saheb and Gadgil went to Junagadh. Next day, on 13 November, 1947, they went to Prabhas to see the ruins of the Somanath Temple. There they decided upon the reconstruction of the Somanath Temple. It was publicly announced by the Sardar ‘that the Government of India had decided to rebuild the temple and install the shrine.’ Jam Saheb and the Junagadh Administration both gave a donation each on the spot. Junagadh Administration agreed to develop the town of Prabhas and to place at the disposal of the Somanath Temple about 5,000 acres of land for its development. The States Ministry of the Government of India thereafter took steps to implement this decision.

On 13 December, 1947, the Standing Committee of the Public Work, Mines and Power (WMP) Ministry accepted Gadgil’s proposal that the Government of India should reconstruct the temple in the original form and develop roughly one square mile of the surrounding area. I understand that this decision was included in the Weekly Note to the Cabinet. As I learnt from Gadgil, it was also mentioned to the Cabinet. At the time, the decision of the Government was that the W.M.P. Ministry should reconstruct the old shrines and they were so doing in the case of certain Muslim shrines and mosques. The Government of India, thereafter, deputed Government architects to visit Prabhas and prepare a report for the reconstruction of the temple. When the whole scheme was discussed by Sardar with Bapu, he stated that it was alright except that the funds necessary for re-constructing the temple should come from the public. Gadgil also saw Bapu and Bapu gave him the same advice. Thereafter, the idea that the Government of India should finance the reconstruction of the temple was given up … .

On 25 December, 1947, the States Ministry requested the Junagadh authorities to lease out a sufficiently large area surrounding the temple for development on the lines decided upon. The Junagadh authorities thereafter took steps to earmark the area that was to be given for the temple. The matters were discussed at considerable length between the administration of Junagadh and myself who was asked by Sardar to look into the matter. Ultimately, Sardar approved of the area that was to be given to the temple … .

On 23 January, 1949, a Conference was held at Jamnagar attended by Sardar, Jam Saheb, Gadgil, Dhebar, the Chief Minister of Saurashtra, Samaldas Gandhi, Administrator of Junagadh, and the Regional Commissioner. Then the States Ministry had decided to transfer the temple properties to a Somanath Trust to be created for the purpose. At that conference the scheme was finalised. It was decided that the Trust should be executed by the Saurashtra Government; and that the Government of India and the Saurashtra Government should each have two representatives on the Board of Trustees. I was, thereafter, asked by the States Ministry to prepare a Trust Deed for the purpose, which I did … . Several Government servants, including Dr. J.C. Ghosh, Chemist, and the Town-Planning Expert of the Government of India were members of the Committee. The Director-General of Archaeology was appointed the Convener, and in view of my fairly intimate knowledge of ancient history of Gujarat, and particularly of Somanath, I was appointed the Chairman of the Committee. As a Chairman, I took up the implementation of the scheme in closest co-operation with the States Ministry… .

On 18 October 1949, Sardar approved of this Trust. Government of India appointed Gadgil and Rege, Regional Commissioner of Saurashtra, as their representatives on the Board of Trustees; it also nominated Shri B.M. Birla and myself as public men; Saurashtra Government nominated Jam Saheb and Samaldas Gandhi as their nominees. In inviting Gadgil to be a Trustee it was specifically mentioned that in view of the fact that he was the head of the Ministry of WMP, it was appropriate that he should be one of the Trustees.

On 22 November, 1949, the States Ministry wrote to Jam Saheb as follows:

‘Somanath is an ancient heritage of ours, and we have to take every care to see that the temple and its environments are maintained in a manner worthy of their ancient traditions. For this purpose we propose to constitute a Trust. Your Highness will remember that Sardar made an appeal for funds for the Somanath Trust sometime ago....’

The objects of the Trust Deed make it clear that the temple is not only to be open to all classes of Hindu community, but, according to the tradition of the old temple of Somanath, also to non-Hindu visitors; that the area should be developed as a model town; that educational institutions including a university and agricultural farm should be established. The intention to throw open the temple to Harijans has evoked some criticism from the orthodox section of the community… .

Sardar himself was to have not only attended the inaugural ceremony, but actually to perform the ceremony. Unfortunately, the temple could not be completed, and he died in the meantime. Apart from any other sentiment, we all feel that we should help in the redemption of Sardar’s pledge to the best or our ability…. As you will see, the Government of India not only took the initial decision to reconstruct the temple, but formulated and set going the scheme, and created the agency for its further implementation. This will clearly indicate to you the extent of the Government of India’s association with the scheme… .

Yesterday you referred to ‘Hindu revivalism.’ I know your views on the subject; I have always done justice to them; I hope you will equally do justice to mine. Many have been the customs which I have defied in personal life from my boyhood. I have laboured in my humble way through literary and social work to shape or reintegrate some aspects of Hinduism, in the conviction that that alone will make India an advanced and vigorous nation under modern conditions… .

One word more. It is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives. I have been given the privilege of seeing my incessant dream of Somanath reconstruction come true. That makes me feel—makes me almost sure—that this shrine once restored to a place of importance in our life will give to our people a purer conception of religion and a more vivid consciousness of our strength, so vital in these days of freedom and its trials.”

N.V. Gadgil, the then Minister of Urban Development and Rehabilitation (MUDR), has also mentioned this about-turn of Nehru after Sardar’s death. Gadgil writes:

“Another important work I remember is the restoration of Somanath Temple… I prepared a plan and recorded it in the proceedings of the Cabinet. The Maulana said that the site should be preserved as it was. I said that the intention was to restore it to its original state and thus to destroy a silver of distrust between the Hindus and the Muslim…. Earlier it had been decided to undertake the work through the Central Government. [But] On Gandhiji’s advice, it was decided to entrust the work to a Trust which would have one representative of the Central Government.

The Government of India appointed a committee of two engineers and one architect for the supervision of the work. By 1951, the whole of the base of the temple was ready as also the inner altar. We requested President Rajendra Prasad to be the chief participant in the installation of the Lingam…

As is usual with Munshi, he gave the enterprise a grandiloquent turn and wrote to our Ambassador in Peking, Panikkar, to send the waters of Chinese rivers for the ceremony.⁷ Panikkar, that secular Ambassador, asked the Ministry of External Affairs to what particular head of account the expenses on that could be debited and the letter was placed before Nehru… Nehru expressed the opinion that the President should not attend the ceremony. The Cabinet also discussed the matter… I quoted from the Cabinet reports to prove that Nehru’s charge that the thing was done without informing the Cabinet was not correct. The Maulana and Jagjivan Ram said that the matter was discussed. Government of India had spent about hundred thousand rupees on the work. I pointed out that the Government gave subsidies and grants to thousands of mosques and tombs and there could be nothing objectionable if it spent a little money in restoring a Hindu temple. I understood secularism to mean the equality of all religions… Millions of Hindus are idol-worshippers and not intellectuals like Nehru. Some of us are subject to the weakness of a firm faith…”⁸

The above two quotations speak for themselves and bring out rebuilding of the Somanath temple was not such a smooth task, after all. Even after the completion of temple building uncertainties remained regarding the installation of deity (pran-pratishtha). The then President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, was requested to preside over the ceremony. Nehru strongly advised the President to desist from going to Somanath for the installation ceremony of Shiva Linga in the temple. However, the President not only ignored Jawaharlal Nehru’s advise, and did go to Somanath for the ceremony. On that occasion he delivered a speech in Hindi which is a master peace of philosophy, culture, history and literature capturing essence of India’s soul.

References:

1. K.M. Munshi, 1922, in East and West. As quoted in ‘Somanath: Fulfilment of a Collegian’s Dream’, Bhawan’s Journal, Jan.1, 1967.
2. K.M. Munshi, 1967, Pilgrimage to Freedom, Appendix 105, p. 560.
3. Ibid.
4. K.M. Munshi, 1951, Pilgrimage to Freedom, pp. 560-64.
5. K.M. Munshi’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru dated 24 April, 1951. In K.M. Munshi, above.
6. Also reproduced in Makkhan Lal, 2008, Secular Politics Communal Agenda, pp. 150-154.
7. K.M. Munshi had written to all the Ambassadors for the water and soils from the country in which they were posted. This was to be used, as per the provisions of shashtras at the time of Pran-Pratistha and the inauguration ceremony of the temple.
8. N.V. Gadgil, 1968, Government From Inside, Meerut, pp. 185-186;

(Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the VIF)

Creation of Telangana: Do Small States Pose A Threat to National Integration?

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

North India was under Greek rule in the form of a colony, whose Governor General was Seleucus Nicator. India was divided into little principalities or Janpads of which Magadh in modern day Bihar was probably one of the most prominent. Magadh had a sage, thinker, a political philosopher called Chanakya, also known as Kautilya, who had left Magadh for Taxila or, as it was then called, Takshashila, because he was persecuted in Pataliputra, the capital of Magadh. Presumably out of a feeling of revenge, but mainly because Chanakya was a great political philosopher, he took as his shishya, or student, one Chandra Gupt of the Maurya clan, whom he groomed to become the ruler of Magadh. When he succeeded in this, he proceeded to teach Chandra Gupt Maurya the art and science of government.

Chanakya well understood the need for a strong, unified, well organised state as essential to the integrity and security of the nation. Forcing the Greeks out of India was a matter of the highest priority, but Chanakya did not allow his student and young master, Chandra Gupt, to act impulsively in the matter. He advised him that for Magadh to be strong, it was vital that he bring all the Janapadas of Northern India under the umbrella of Magadh and then as a unified nation wage war on the Greeks. His strategy worked beautifully, Seleucus Nicator was defeated and Greek domination over India ended. The lesson for us modern day Indians is that only if India is strong and united can it unify and prosper as a nation. Otherwise, with its heterogeneity, its diversity, India can and in the past has broken into small units, thus making the nation vulnerable to foreign invasion. Successive waves of invaders, the Shakas, the Hunas, the Kushans, races of Turkic, Afghan, Mongol, Uzbek and Persian origin as also Anglo Saxon invaders have conquered India not because they were strong but because we were divided and weak. We also have a long history of treachery locally for personal gain, whether it was Ambi who sided with the Greeks against Porus, Jai Chand who sided with Mohammed Ghori against Prithviraj Chauhan, some of the rulers of Rajasthan and Gujarat who sided with Mahmud Ghazni in his attack on the holy shrine of Somnath or Mir Jafar, who sided with Robert Clive against Siraj-ul-Daulah. It is these traitors who have delivered a weak India to a foreign invader. The hidden Mir Jafars today include those who plead that Kashmir should be allowed to seek its destiny outside India, advocate that if the North East wants to break away why stop the people and even support Naxalite terrorism on the grounds that after all they are only protesting against what they feel is an unjust society. Now added to the list is those who use violence as a means of the creation of new States, of which the latest example is Telangana.

India has a long history of conflict between the concept of a nation State and the exact opposite which is fissiparous and which tends to divide. When the Centre becomes weak the constituent units first become autonomous and then eventually break away. That is what happened with the Mauryan Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Mogul Empire and, eventually, the India which the British had united and which they now vacated on 15th August 1947. In the Mogul Empire, for example, so long as the Emperor was strong, the Subedars (Governors) behaved. When there was a perception that the Emperor was weak, the Subedars began to flex their muscles. Aurangzeb was the last real Mogul Emperor and even during his declining years, the Deccan had begun to show signs of extreme unrest and the satraps had begun to assert their autonomy, if not independence. This is what the later Moguls inherited from Aurangzeb. By the time Nadir Shah attacked India, the Mogul Emperor existed only nominally and the Subedars went their own ways and increasingly the influence of foreigners such as the British, the French, the Portuguese and the Dutch grew. Whereas French and Dutch influence was curbed and reduced to a minuscule because of developments in Europe and the Portuguese never expanded beyond Goa, British control over India grew so much that by the time of the First War of Independence (which the British termed as the Sepoy Mutiny) in 1857, the British were virtually masters of India through the Governor General, nominally a servant of the East India Company but actually the representative of the Crown. In 1858 even that fiction was gone and Britain assumed direct control of the Government of India.

The British rulers firmly put down all regional resistance, made the country politically and administratively unified and established a nation State to which India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are heirs. It is this India minus Pakistan and Bangladesh that India inherited, but with a nascent problem of the possible effect on Indian unity subsequent to lapse of paramountcy by the British before they left. The possibility of declaration of independence by the Princely States was very real and had Sardar Patel not firmly intervened to first have the Instruments of Accession signed by the rulers and thereafter Instruments of Merger which incorporated the Princely States into erstwhile British India, the balkanisation of India would have been complete. Sardar Patel’s vision and firm resolve in action came from his deep understanding of the basically centrifugal, fissiparous tendencies of us Indians in which a firm hand at the Centre maintained both order and integrity of the nation and weakness inevitably led to fragmentation. The strengthening of centripetal forces which unified are evident in different parts of the Constitution, which need not be enumerated here, but it is also a cautionary signal that if these become weak then centrifugal forces will take over and India will break up.

This brings me to the events which have resulted in Parliament voting for the breakup of Andhra Pradesh into the two States of Telangana and remaining Andhra Pradesh. The history of how Andhra Pradesh came into being in 1956 after the reorganisation of Indian States is well known. The Madras Presidency was huge, embracing as it did both the Tamil and Telugu speaking parts of the Presidency and including Malabar District of Kerala. At that time, after the merger of Hyderabad into India, part of the Telugu speaking population of India dwelt in Hyderabad State, mainly the districts which formed what is now emerging as Telangana. Potti Sriramulu, the leader of the Telugu Movement for a separate Andhra Pradesh, went on an indefinite hunger strike which resulted in his death, Jawaharlal Nehru panicked, the States Reorganisation Commission was set up, it was decided to accept language as one of the major factors for determining a State’s boundaries and in the process Andhra Pradesh was born, consisting of the Telugu speaking districts of the old Madras Presidency and of the old Hyderabad State. Hyderabad ceased to be a State, Hyderabad city became the capital of the new State of Andhra Pradesh, the Marathi speaking districts of Hyderabad State were merged into Bombay State and later formed the Aurangabad Division of Maharashtra. The Kannada speaking districts of Hyderabad were transferred to Mysore, now Karnataka. The new State of Andhra Pradesh inherited the rich coastal region and the dry Rayalseema region of erstwhile Madras Presidency and the extreme Left affected districts of Telangana from Hyderabad State.

The Telangana region was highly exploited by an iniquitous zamindari system which existed in Hyderabad State and the misery of the peasant population led to heavy infiltration by extremist Communist forces, resulting in considerable violence. The Hyderabad State Government of the Nizam had banned the Communist Party in 1943 and this ban continued after the merger of Hyderabad with India. V. Nanjappa was sent as Special Commissioner for Telangana and he ruthlessly put down lawlessness in the districts of Karimnagar, Warangal, Nalgonda, etc. This is the area in which Naxalism also prospered, till the Andhra Pradesh Police through ruthless action suppressed it and forced the Naxalites to largely migrate to Chhattisgarh and Odisha. The resources of Andhra Pradesh were of a magnitude such that Naxalism could be handled. This was true of united Madhya Pradesh also and till Chhattisgarh was formed, Naxalism was very much under control. It is only when the Naxal affected areas of Madhya Pradesh became part of the smaller Chhattisgarh State that the problem magnified till it reached its present proportions of almost uncontrolled lawlessness.

What the new State of Andhra Pradesh also did was to enact and enforce land reforms which relieved the peasants of crippling inequality in the Telangana area. Firm police action provided the environment in which government could begin to function once again, but it is land reforms, development programmes and extension of economic opportunities which helped Andhra Pradesh to bring Left extremism under control.

Before discussing the merits or otherwise of the partition of Andhra Pradesh, which must be seen in the context of our history also, it is important to comment on the procedure adopted for passing the Bill regarding the partition of Andhra Pradesh by the Parliament. The formation of new States and alteration of areas and boundaries or names of States is governed by Article 3 of the Constitution. If a Bill is introduced in Parliament in this behalf, it is mandatory for the President to refer the Bill to the Legislature of the State concerned for expressing its views. The Andhra Pradesh Legislature overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, but Parliament went ahead with the Bill for breaking up Andhra Pradesh, totally ignoring the views of the State Legislature. Under Article 1, India is a Union of States and all the States are equal partners with the Centre in the Federation or Union. The State Legislature is a representative body elected by the people of the State which is a constituent of the Indian Union. Parliament, despite this, cavalierly brushed aside the considered views of a State Legislature on an issue pertaining to the very existence of that State. To vote into law a proposal to break up a State in an environment in which nineteen members of Parliament representing that State were not allowed to participate in the debate, in which all voice of reason is drowned in a cacophony of contradictory shouts and slogans, by not even subjecting such an important Bill to a public debate, Parliament has itself murdered the very democracy that its members have sworn to uphold. In doing so, it has worked in contradiction of every one of the nine pillars of the Constitution as given in the Preamble. They are the complete sovereignty of India, socialism, secularism, democracy and a system of government which is republican. Further they are justice, liberty of thought, equality and promotion of fraternity which assures the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. By the manner in which Parliament acted, it is obvious that it has no respect for democracy. It does not believe in liberty of thought and expression because it has brushed aside the views of the people of Andhra Pradesh expressed through the State Legislature and by preventing nineteen members of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh from participating in the debate on the Bill, the proceedings become flawed. The Parliament has certainly not promoted fraternity, unity and integrity of the nation because by dividing the State, it has opened the flood gates for similar demands, the end result of which could well be the formation of such tiny States as Gorkhaland, Bodoland, etc. Not only would this lead to a conflict between people, it would also seriously jeoparadise the integrity of India with small little States, all highly parochial, pushing their own agenda which could even lead to breakup of the Union. Our past history reinforces views in this behalf.

The leaders of Telangana say that they are breaking away from Andhra Pradesh and not from the Indian Union and, therefore, why should there be any fear or insecurity for those who live in Hyderabad. It is pertinent here to draw their attention to the city of Mumbai where the Shiv Sena launched a programme of Marathi chauvinism which targeted all non Maharashtrian groups? It started with a movement to drive people from Udupi out of the city because it was felt that they monopolised the lower end of the restaurant trade on which some local anti-social elements had set their eyes. This escalated ultimately into a movement to drive all non Maharashtrians below a certain economic level out of the city, including those from U.P. and Bihar. The moneyed people, of course, were welcome. Mumbai city is a part of the Indian Union through the constituent State of Maharashtra, but are non Maharashtrians safe there? Mumbai was considered the most cosmopolitan city in India and if this sort of chauvinism can prevail there, why should Hyderabad be different? Will Telangana with Hyderabad not reflect itself in a hate Telangana movement in remaining Andhra Pradesh? If this is promotion of fraternity, then I see no difference between it and South African racism and Nazi pogroms against anyone they counted as being non Aryan. Perhaps the case is being overstated, but there is enough evidence from our history to suggest that this form of communal violence based not on religion but on community, language, region, etc cannot be ruled out.

All the new States which have been formed by dividing large States, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, the Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, etc., have, after a brief period of what seemed to be accelerated development, lapsed into what could be called the fruits of incestuousness. I call these States incestuous because in every one of them the same four or five families or groups successively enjoy power. All the maladies of interbreeding afflict these States as the personal interests of a limited number of politicians interact and interplay, resulting in poor government, extreme corruption, nepotism and now ultimate decline. It is a fact that village society, because of lack of diversity and of skills, tends to be ritualistic both in its arts and its life style. Urban society, on the other hand, because of diversity and heterogeneity, encourages hybridisation and the new vigour which comes with it. That is why in small States like Jharkhand or Haryana, the system has no access to diversity, rituals overtakes social behaviour, there is no innovation and, ultimately the common denominator is corruption and nepotism, together with downright bad government. Is that what one foresees for Telangana also?

I know that there are many votaries of small States. The advantage of large States is that because of their very diversity no single region within that State dominates. In united Madhya Pradesh, there was a balance between Mahakaushal, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh and every region has given Chief Ministers and top politicians in a state which was in equilibrium. The separation of Chhattisgarh has disturbed this balance in the State. Madhya Pradesh has lost but Chhattisgarh has not gained and, therefore, the overall position is negative. In any case, after the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution, local government has become a part of the State fabric and, therefore, dealing with local problems is now within the domain of local government. With local government and the district administration being at the cutting edge of delivery of government to the people, the role of the State becomes one of policy making at State level and implementation of State level schemes. With this division of work, why do we need small States which, because of lack of scale, would not permit local government to flourish? The Centre, by and large, has the role of holding the country together, framing policy at national level, looking after the larger national interests of security and coordinating the activities of the States in such a way as to bring about national prosperity. In this kind of a set up, we need a strong Centre, large, viable, non-parochial States and strong administration at the level of District, the Tehsil or Development Block and the town or village.

Was Telangana born out of the greed for office of a few leaders or did it represent the voice of the people? K Chandrashekhar Rao, as the leader of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) which spearheaded the separate statehood movement, has let the cat out of the bag. Soon after the Bill was passed, he met Sonia Gandhi and Digvijaya Singh. It is reported that he has told them that if he is supported by the Congress in becoming Chief Minister of Telangana, he will deliver the parliamentary seats there to the Congress in the 2014 general election. Supposing he had been made Chief Minister of the united Andhra Pradesh, would he still have pushed for a separate Telangana? Telangana is the produce of greed, not need. Where this will lead the country one shudders to think.     

How All India Are The All India Services?

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

Article 1 of the Constitution makes India a Union of States and the Seventh Schedule framed under Article 246, by containing List 1, the Union List, List 2, the State List and List 3, the Concurrent List prescribes the legislative bounds of Parliament and the State Legislatures in what is basically a quasi federal structure. Part XI, which refers to the relations between the Union and the States, whether legislative or administrative, defines the extent to which the legislative and administrative jurisdictions of the Union and the States extend and to what extent the Union writ prevails over the States. The Union, while giving constitutional autonomy to the States within their respective executive and legislative competence, is centripetal in that under Article 248 residuary powers of legislation vest in Parliament.

The quasi federal structure of India is somewhat different from that of the constitutional structure of other Federations, for example, the United States of America. In the United States, separation of powers between the Federal Government and State Governments is complete in that in matters legislative, executive or judicial, the Federal Government functions through federal officers and federal judges, as also Congress in matters within the federal competence and the State Governments function through their own set up in matters within State competence. The Federal Government has its own civil servants who administer the areas which come within the legislative competence of Congress and the States have their Civil Services which operate in areas within the competence of the State Legislature. However, the Indian Constitution has a unique structure embodied in Article 312 which permits Parliament to make laws for the creation of what are known as All India Services. The same Article states that the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service which predate the Constitution would be deemed to be created under Article 312. The same Article also permits the creation of an All India Judicial Service, though none has been constituted so far. The All India Services are covered by the All India Services Act, 1951 and rules have been framed under the Act, including the Cadre Rules, the Conduct Rules and the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Under the Cadre Rules, posts in the Central Government and the State Governments in the two initially constituted All India Services, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the subsequently created Indian Forest Service (IFS) are prescribed and against these posts only an IAS, IPS or IFS officer can be appointed. There is provision for lateral entry by promotion from State Services or by induction through limited special recruitment, but the fact remains that the senior posts in the General Administration, which include Revenue and Development Administration, the Police and the Forests, including wildlife, can only be held by an officer of the IAS, IPS or IFS respectively. The uniqueness of this constitutional provision is that whereas India is a Union of States, it is a union or federation in which the senior Civil Service posts, including the Police and the Forest Department, are held by officers who are under the direct rule making control of the Union Government. The officers are assigned to a State Cadre and normally serve under the State Government, but they are liable to transfer either for service under the Union Government or, under certain circumstances, on deputation to other State Governments, public sector undertakings and as the rules stand today, to international bodies or even to private undertakings.

An All India Service officer is appointed by the President and can be removed from Service or awarded a major penalty only by the President. An All India Service officer is recruited through the Union Public Service Commission, his promotion through a departmental promotion committee even within the State is done through such a committee, which has representatives of the Union Public Service Commission and of the Government of India. The State Government’s authority over the All India Service officers is limited by the provisions of the rules framed under the All India Services Act.

One need not discuss in detail why the All India Services were thought necessary and were created in a quasi federal structure, but some knowledge of the background does help. British India was governed as a unitary state in which for administrative purposes, the country was divided into Provinces, each headed by a Governor. Elements of federalism were there even under the 1919 Government of India Act and were strengthened under the 1935 Government of India Act and the Provinces did enjoy a fairly high degree of autonomy because a country as large as India cannot be administratively managed from one power centre alone. In fact, in those days of poor communication links, the districts were fairly autonomous and the D.C. and S.P. were required to take decisions on the spot, which government invariably supported. Therefore, the provincial governments had considerable freedom of action, including the setting up of provincial services, but the country was held together by what were known as the Imperial Services of which the Indian Civil Service, or ICS was at the apex. The other major Imperial Service was the Indian Police or IP, but there was an Indian Forest Service, Indian Service of Engineers and an Indian Medical Service of all India nature. The Imperial Services were appointed by the Crown and not by the Viceroy and Governor General. When India became independent and the provinces became States which had constitutional legitimacy, the Indian Civil Service was carried forward as the Indian Administrative Service. In some ways, the legal provisions of the Government of India Act 1935 were carried forwarded into the Constitution, with cast iron constitutional autonomy being enshrined in lieu of the surrogate autonomy of the provinces granted by the Government of India Act 1935.

The reason why we provide for an All India Service in a quasi federal constitution, apart from the need to have continuity in the administrative set up in India after we became independent, was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s clear understanding that India had major fissiparous tendencies which needed to be controlled and countered by building into the Constitution centripetal features which would hold the country together. A unified judicial hierarchy, the All India Services, a single independent audit organisation under the Comptroller and Auditor General, with constitutional power of the Central Government to give directions to the States under certain circumstances and the power of the President to take over the administration of the States under Article 356, are all parts of the centripetal features of our Constitution. Sardar Patel was firmly of the opinion that if the executive government of the States and the Union was carried out through officers of All India Services, who were protected and immunised from arbitrary action by the political class, then not only would we have a nonpartisan administration where officers work without fear or favour but a united India would also be ensured through these Civil Services whose ultimate rule making control is vested in the Central Government. Hopefully this would eliminate political whimsicality from the administration.

Upto 1967, the system worked extremely well and this was possible because, by and large, the Governments, both at the Centre and in the States, were formed by the same party. In 1967, suddenly the politics of defection through purchase of power was introduced and now power was up for grabs. Thus began an era of political uncertainty in which the politicians, in order to remain in power, had to use bribery as a major weapon. Money for bribes can only be made by misusing the instrumentality of State power and obviously an impartial and fearless Civil Service would be an obstruction in obtaining such money. The Civil Service had to be tamed and the politicians proceeded to do this with vim and vigour, using the instrument of posting and transfer as a major weapon. In 1975, when Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency and concentrated all power in herself, a new slogan of a committed Civil Service was added to our administrative lexicon. A committed Civil Service meant that civil servants would no longer necessarily be servants of the law and would be prepared to carry out the will of the political masters, even if it meant that the administration became partisan. At this stage, intimidation of civil servants was added to the armoury of the politicians and not only were honest, impartial civil servants sidelined, many of them were subjected to humiliation through suspension and worse. So long as the Central Government continued to be under a single party, some element of protection was available to the civil servants, especially the All India Services.

However, when the Central Government became weaker and we entered into an era of unprincipled coalitions, narrow political interests very often overtook the legal provisions relating to the All India Services and in many States the local satraps arbitrarily decided the fate of civil servants because the ruling coalition in the centre needed their support in order to remain in power and hesitated to protect the civil servants. In some States, the politicians went berserk and Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are two glaring examples of how the All India Services were hounded, bullied and bludgeoned into virtual servility by totally arbitrary actions of Chief Ministers such as Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mayawati. In West Bengal and in Kerala, the Left Front Governments did not act in a crude manner but they did take political decisions whereby in areas of interest to the party in power, the civil servants were rendered helpless. Industrial unrest is one area where the police and the magistracy were reduced to impotence where the interests of the Left Front were concerned. Here it is what the party dictated which mattered and not the law. In Tamil Nadu, whereas both the DMK and the AIADMK Governments left the cutting edge level of the district administration more or less alone because the Collector was used for efficient delivery of such services as were politically ordained, at senior levels the All India Services were made subservient.

This was a total negation of Sardar Patel’s ideal of an impartial Civil Service, immunised from undue political influence and, therefore, in a position to give advice without fear and favour and to administer without bias. Over the years, the position has worsened. The standard joke in Uttar Pradesh is that the Annual Confidential Report of an IAS or IPS officer serving in the districts is seldom written because hardly any officer serves for even three months in a district before being transferred and the ACR must span at least a three months tenure. There is total whimsicality in such transfers. The Queen of Hearts in the book ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ was in the habit of going around shouting, “Off with his head”. That is how Mayawati behaved, that is how Mulayam Singh Yadav operated. It is unfortunate that senior officers at the level of Chief Secretary and D.G. Police have been silent spectators to the virtual destruction of the Civil Service hierarchy and have not had the courage to open their mouths in protest.

I have a theory about this which is based on my own experience. After I was removed from the Delhi Development Authority towards the end of 1979, I spent a whole year without a posting in Delhi and somehow the impression was created that I was dissatisfied or disgruntled. The fact is that I was being paid my full salary without having to do a stroke of work and was personally very comfortable, but it is true that being on the shelf is never a good feeling. There were several of us who were similarly placed, including Hari Pillai and Ved Marwah of the IPS and JC Jaitley of the IAS. Krishnaswamy Rao Sahib, who was then Cabinet Secretary, sent for me and wanted to know why some IAS officers were disgruntled. I asked him whether he wanted an honest answer and when he said that that was what he wanted, I told him that the real reason why there was some dissatisfaction is because a whole succession of Cabinet Secretaries had not put their heads on the chopping block. He was a little taken aback and wanted to know why I said this. I told him that there were a number of us without a posting for no fault of our own except that some politicians were annoyed with us and that even for postings at junior level, officers were being informally advised to find a political godfather. I said that successive Cabinet Secretaries were probably looking for their governorship on retirement and, therefore, were hesitating to stand up for these Services. In my view, the Cabinet Secretary should have told the Prime Minister that personnel management was his job and not that of the politicians, whose job was to frame policy. Anyway, the meeting ended inconclusively, though to give the Cabinet Secretary his due, he did not hold my acerbic remarks against me.

Recently, a young IAS officer with two years service, Durga Shakti Nagpal, has been placed under suspension by the Uttar Pradesh Government because she took on the powerful political and commercial interests behind illegal sand mining. There are innumerable decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts calling upon government to control illegal mining and it is the duty of civil servants to implement these orders. If, however, the politicians are to harass civil servants doing their duty, how will the rule of law prevail? Javed Usmani, the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, should have stood up to the Chief Minister and opposed the suspension of this young officer. Instead, he has become a party to framing a false and frivolous charge-sheet against the officer to try and justify the suspension. Durga Nagpal’s case is one of many in which civil servants of the All India Services are being harassed. The IPS is a major target because politicians want to use the police for furthering their own ends. I remember a case in which Mayawati, because she was annoyed with the SSP of Lucknow, suspended him and transferred the DG Police, Zonal IG and the Range DIG and this happened in the presence of the Chief Secretary. Did that worthy protest at these totally irrational orders? He preferred to be a silent spectator. This weakened his own position also. What a contrast with RCVP Noronha, the then Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, who not only resisted the wholly unjustified suspension of R.S. Khanna, the then Sales Tax Commissioner, by P.C. Sethi, Chief Minister, but refused to issue orders and when Sethi asked whether or not orders would be issued, replied, “They probably will be issued, but by my successor”. It is P.C. Sethi who stepped back.

How do we remedy the situation? The Supreme Court, in a writ petition filed by Prakash Singh, IPS (retired), has been pressing the Central Government and the State Governments to immunise the police from undue political influence. The Supreme Court wants the Police Act to be amended to give the police autonomy, to provide tenure for officers from the rank of Station Officer up to DG Police and to protect officers from arbitrary action by government. Why is the Supreme Court suo motu not extending this to all the Civil Services and in particular the two other All India Services? It is about time that we put in place a set of laws and rules which, whilst accepting that it is the elected representatives through the Council of Ministers which will have the final say in all matters relating to policy of governance, the Civil Services are also be given due protection against arbitrary action by the politicians so that they can perform their task of implementing lawful orders without fear or favour. One set of rules which need immediate amendment is the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969. Rule 3 relates to suspension. Under this rule, a State Government may suspend an All India Service officer serving in that State Cadre. The opening words of Rule 3 are important and they read, “If, having regard to the circumstances in any case, and where Articles of Charges have been drawn up, the nature of the charges, the government of a State or the Central Government, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending, that government may, if the member of the Service is serving under that government pass an order placing him under suspension…” The same rule, however, says that if there is a difference of opinion between the Central Government and the State Government about the suspension order, then the opinion of the Central Government shall prevail. In the Durga Nagpal case, the order of suspension and the grounds of suspension are so flimsy and so obviously contrived that the Central Government should have treated this as a case of disagreement with the State Government and should itself have quashed the suspension order. It is not necessary to wait for ninety days, within which period a charge sheet has to be served.

Considering the fact that there are many State Governments which are misusing the power of suspension, we need to amend the rules on the following lines:-

The State Government should have no power to suspend an All India Service officer except on the following grounds:-

(a) The officer’s conduct is under investigation in a criminal case, in connection with which the officer has been arrested and remanded to custody in excess of forty-eight hours.

(b) The officer’s actions are so prejudicial to public safety or national integrity that he must be neutralised without delay. However, in every such case, the State Government must submit a report within forty-eight hours of the order to the Central Government, which may then decide whether or not to continue the suspension of the officer.

(c) In every other case, if the government feels that the suspension of an officer is in the public interest it must make a report to the Central Government, which may decide whether or not the officer is to be placed under suspension.

Other than this, the State Government should have no power whatsoever to place an All India Service officer under suspension. This is all the more so because the power to impose a penalty on an All India Service officer vests in the Central Government and can be imposed only in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. This would go a long way in ensuring that the All India Service officers function without fear and favour.

There is another set of reforms that we need if we have to make the All India Service truly national in character. At present there are many officers who, after allocation to a State Cadre, never serve outside that State. This must immediately end. In the approximately thirty-five years span of service, an All India Service officer should serve outside his cadre for at least ten years. Every All India Service officer should have one stint of five years of service in a cadre other than the one to which he is allotted, that is, he must serve under a State Government other than the one to which he is allotted. He must also put in an additional five years stint in any post under the Central Government. Thus, in his thirty-five years of service, at least ten years will be spent outside his parent cadre. The idea is that an All India Service officer must serve anywhere in India and not be confined to just one State. This would widen his horizon and give him an all India perspective, which is very necessary if our All India Services are to have a national character.

There is another suggestion I have to make, which is that the All India Services must be made to realise that they are servants of the law and not the personal servants of a politician. Therefore, if a civil servant has acted in a manner which promotes the interests of a politician or a political group and in doing so has been in violation of the law, then, if the State Government does not take action, the Central Government must charge-sheet the officer and take disciplinary action against him. Every All India Service officer must be made to realise that if in order to curry favour with State politicians, he acts in a manner prejudicial to law, he will have to face the consequences because the Central Government will intervene. This is the only way to curb the whimsicality of wayward Chief Ministers who are under the false notion that they are above the law and can, therefore, expect senior civil servants to even ignore the law to serve the interests of the Chief Minister. If condign punishment is awarded in a few such cases, it would have a salutary effect in reminding the All India Services where their duty lies.

The Case Against Smaller States

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

In his book, “The Story of the Integration of Indian States”, V.P Menon, who was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s right hand in ensuring that the British legacy of lapse of paramountcy which virtually gave independence to the Princely States in India was nullified, negated and reversed so that India became a united country, makes certain statements which very aptly described what India was and what it is thanks to Sardar Patel. Certain quotations from his book must be given if one is to understand how India became one. He writes “India is one geographical entity. Yet, throughout her long and chequered history, she never achieved political homogeneity. From the earliest times, spasmodic attempts were made to bring about her consolidation… These and later attempts at political consolidation failed again and again for one chief reason:… The empires were held together almost entirely by the personality and might of the Emperor. The whole edifice crumbled when the line of supermen came to an end.

Even under these Emperors, a diversity of autonomous states constituted the mosaic of an empire. The Emperor claimed suzerainty over these rulers, who offered allegiance to him, coordinated their foreign policy to his diplomatic moves; usually served him in war and offered him tribute; but who, in other respects, retained their sovereignty. Whenever the authority of the Emperor weakened the subordinate rulers asserted their independence… Mutual jealousies and conflicts made the country an easy prey to any organised invasion”.

This situation continued when the Mughal Empire disintegrated after Aurangzeb’s death till the British stepped in and by conquest, subsidiary alliances, annexation and military defeat of intransigent Princes took over the entire governance of India. However, they continued to give a special place to the Princes who, within the limitations prescribed by the British Government, enjoyed considerable autonomy and freedom to manage their own internal affairs. Control vested in the Political department and the Residents appointed in Indian States or group of States. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, some sort of a federal structure was created and a new direct relationship established between the Princely States and the British Crown as represented by the Viceroy and Governor General. However, the full integration of Princely India and British India never took place and the paramount power continued to be paramount and paramountcy remained as vague and undefined as ever.

When paramountcy lapsed, there was an uncertainty about the relationship of the Indian States with newly independent India. This is the time when V.P. Menon suggested to Sardar Patel that the lapsing of paramountcy might in fact be good for India because now the State could be dealt with on a clean slate without being hampered by the treaties entered into by them with the British. It is on this basis that Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru approved the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession which were ultimately entered into by the rulers with India. Ultimately these were succeeded by instruments of merger, the Princely States were done away with and the Dominion of India, succeeded by the Republic, became one nation. The integration of Indian States brought into the Indian Union as an integral part of the country about five lakhs square miles of territory which formed Princely India under British rule. We lost 3,64,737 square miles of territory to Pakistan, but Sardar Patel ensured that this was more than compensated by the assimilation of Princely India into the Indian Union. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Kathiawar to Kamrup, India became one. The Government of India Act, 1935, which was virtually the Constitution under which British India was governed and which had introduced elements of federalism into a unitary State, was replaced by the Constitution which made India a Union of States and introduced a unique brand of federalism which has no parallel. Unlike the United States of America, where thirteen separately governed colonies voluntarily came together at the time of the American Revolution to form the United States of America, in India, the provinces and subsequently the merged Princely States formed a Union of States. This was not a Union formed by the coming together of separate entities, but rather a convergence of what were units of administration into States and then bringing them together into an India which existed under the 1935 Act. The States have a degree of autonomy under List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, with concurrent legislative powers of the State Legislature with Parliament on matters included in List 3.

However, in this Constitution there are certain factors which make it centripetal. The first is that the Governors of States are appointed by the President. The second is that the Judiciary forms a single hierarchy from the lowest civil court or magisterial court all the way through the District and Sessions courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Any Judge or Magistrate can try any case under any law, whether of Parliament or of the State Legislature. In the United States of America, there are separate Federal Judges and State Judges, each of them having jurisdiction over federal laws and state laws respectively. In India, the Supreme Court is at the apex. In the United States, at the apex is the Supreme Court, but otherwise the Federal Courts do not have any jurisdiction in matters of state laws and the States have no jurisdiction in matters of federal laws.

The third element which distinguishes the Indian Constitution from others is that residuary powers vest in the Union under Article 248, whereas in the United States, under the Tenth Amendment, residuary powers vest in the State. The fourth element of centripetalism is the provision relating to the All India Services contained in Article 312, whereby officers of the All India Services, who are under the rule making control of the Central Government, man all cadre posts, whether in the States or at the Centre. No other federal constitution has such a provision. This Union of States, with its centripetal orientation, is what keeps this country united because unfortunately India has always had a tendency to fissiparousness, to which V.P. Menon has referred in his book. What Sardar Patel brought about by the integration of States, what our Constitution makers have enshrined in the Constitution, is that a system has been established which would keep India politically homogenous and end the dependence on the personality of the ruler. Theoretically the Indian Union cannot be broken merely because the rulers have become weak. A democratic, constitutional entity is ruled by the will of the people and, therefore, no individual leader can cause the disintegration of India.

That is the theory. What is the reality? After good and positive government by leaders who had been through the freedom movement, we suddenly introduced an element of acquisition of power through engineering defections. When history is written objectively, we would perhaps find that the single biggest blow to good governance and primacy of the rule of law is this single act of the making power a purchasable commodity. Pt. D.P. Mishra, the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh whose government was threatened by the defections engineered by Govind Narain Singh, had advised the Governor to dissolve the assembly and order fresh elections. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who was Prime Minister and who personally disliked D.P. Mishra, informally advised the Governor not to accede to this demand and instead invite Govind Narain Singh to be the Chief Minister. I am sure she herself did not realise what disturbances, what a political whirlpool this single pebble thrown into a tranquil lake would cause and what irreparable harm it would do to the country’s political fabric. It introduced corruption into politics on a scale which could not even be imagined in 1967 because it converted power from being an instrument of public service into a commodity which could be purchased. A commodity market cannot be expected to be philanthropic and once political power had been converted into a commodity, such politics could not be expected to be welfare oriented. Now the sole purpose of politics was to somehow collect the funds through which power could be purchased and then to use power to recoup the funds and earn a surplus which could be used to buy power next time. Countervailing bidding was naturally done by the Opposition aspirants for power and thus the levels of corruption kept jumping up. Today the position has become one in which every politician is suspect, the motive of every political decision is deemed to be dishonest and every policy of government seems to be short term and aimed not at welfare but at obtaining some political advantage which can be encashed in terms of funds for the next election. This is a horrendously ugly scenario because a democracy, in which the entire political class comes into disrepute, can no longer function as a democracy at best it becomes an oligarchy and at worst it becomes a collection of thugs, thieves and dacoits. The graph is moving fast in the direction of the worst case scenario. The people now become the prey, good governance has been buried deep underground and the State itself has become a milch cow which has to be exploited to the point where it runs dry. This is the stark reality facing India, in which political power is the most profitable lever of business for unscrupulous politicians.

Political power is even more easily gained when through vivisection, we partition existing administrative units and create new ones so that the number of posts increases. Every new State creates the post of a Governor, a Chief Minister, Ministers, a new Legislative Assembly with a Speaker, a new High Court with a Chief Justice and Judges, a new Public Service Commission and the entire paraphernalia of government. In a large State for a person to be Chief Minister he has to have a State wide image and identity, which a person like D.P. Mishra or Shyama Charan Shukla had in what was then India’s largest State, Madhya Pradesh. Local influence could make you the Mayor of your city, but it would not earn you power in the State. If, on the other hand, a city itself becomes a State, the Mayor automatically becomes Chief Minister. Political interest, therefore, lies in creating the maximum number of States. The statement of K C Rao who has led the agitation which will now create a new State of Telangana that all government servants from outside the ten districts of Telangana will have to quit Hyderabad puts in a nutshell the mindset of our divisive politicians. There is no question of any public interest in the creation of the new States, there is only the question of how a small minded person of no status can suddenly acquire the stature of a Chief Minister.

There is a fallacious belief that the demand for States’ reorganisation is a popular one having mass appeal. To the people it makes no difference where the Chief Minister resides because the interaction of the common citizen with officialdom is at the level of the village, the town, the tehsil or the district. He wants that the interaction should be absolutely minimum, but the attitude of government officials should be positive, they should be insulated against unauthorised influence and the legitimate work of the citizens should be done with due dispatch. From this, one can deduce that the demand for new States is entirely engineered by selfish politicians who are looking after their own interests.

It is these politicians who say that if the United States of America can have fifty States, then why should India be confined to twenty-eight plus one, the twenty-ninth State of Telangana. What they forget is that the territorial spread of the United States of America is three times that of India and the States have come into being as the nation expanded from the original thirteen colonies through westward migration right up to the Pacific shore. It is the extent of the colonisation of America and quite often geographical boundaries which determined the shape and size of the States of America. For a very long, time there were only forty-eight States and the States of Hawaii and Alaska were added only because these federally administered areas had become ripe for statehood. In India, we seem to run a cycle whereby we think that agitations can redraw the boundaries of States at the whims of the politicians.

It started with Potti Sriramulu who agitated for the creation of a separate Telugu speaking State, which would include the Telugu speaking districts of the Madras Presidency, together with the Telugu speaking districts of Hyderabad State. The agitation succeeded because unfortunately Sriramulu, who was on a fast unto death, died because his followers who had a vested interest in a Telugu speaking State did not allow him to break his fast. Jawaharlal Nehru panicked, a States Reorganisation Commission was set up, Andhra Pradesh was formed, Malabar District was transferred to Kerala from Tamil Nadu, the Kannada speaking districts of Hyderabad State was transferred to Mysore State, which became Karnataka, the Marathi speaking districts of Hyderabad State were transferred to Bombay State and became Marathwada and in sharp contrast with other States, the new bilingual State of Bombay was enlarged by merging Saurashtra into it, Even this was undone subsequently through public agitation in Bombay which brought the State of Gujarat into being. Madhya Pradesh lost Marathi speaking Vidarbha to Bombay State but gained the Hindi speaking States of Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal. Punjab was split, with Himachal and subsequently Haryana separating from it. In the east, Assam has been divided, with NEFA becoming the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya being made into three separate States out of Assam and the empty shell of residuary Assam being left to fester with sponsored revolts by the Bodo people and Ahoms. The British left us with a unified North East and we have divided it into a mosaic of tiny States.

In the last splitting up of States, Madhya Pradesh lost Chhattisgarh, a State with such paucity of administrative infrastructure that the Naxalites have virtually captured it. In Bihar, Jharkhand was separated and the new State became a byword for political instability. Residuary Bihar lost its entire forests and mineral wealth and in the parochial environment in which we find ourselves, Jharkhand has always refused to share anything with Bihar. It will not end here because the demand for the splitting of Uttar Pradesh into four States, the creation of a State of Vidarbha and a demand for statehood for Darjeeling and Bodoland have picked up steam. A weak Central Government whose political leadership seems to have become completely bankrupt is all set to surrender to such demands and one fears that the mosaic of tiny States which existed when paramountcy lapsed may be re-created in India. The BJP, which has publicly come out in favour of small States, is as much a partner in the disintegration of States as is the Congress.

The argument is that small States are better governed and better designed for development. Has the separation of Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh brought it development? In the recent catastrophe which overtook Garhwal, one thing has emerged very clearly. Being a hill state, the administration in Uttarakhand is very thinly spread on the ground. The State Government’s resources are very limited and whereas the huge resources at the disposal of Uttar Pradesh would have been diverted to Uttarakhand had it continued to be part of Uttar Pradesh, they were no longer available to the new government. But for direct central intervention and the superb work done by ITBP, IAF and the Army, the death toll in Uttarakhand could well have gone into five figures. When the entire resources of Madhya Pradesh were available to the whole State, of which Chhattisgarh was a part, Madhya Pradesh Police had Naxalism under control. In Chhattisgarh, it is absolutely rampant.

Even if small States do show some initial signs of progress, that soon fizzles out because the politics of a small State tends to be incestuous. What this means is that the same half a dozen families and interest groups which, in a large State, would have been submerged, now rotate power amongst themselves. I stated earlier that power is no longer an instrument of service and, therefore, the purchase of the commodity called power opens unlimited opportunities to the purchaser to milk the State and make huge sums of illegal money. How can such a State promote welfare? Small States also breed extreme regionalism and as has been our experience in the recent past when regionalism moved into Parliament and small regional groups assumed excessive importance because delicately balanced coalitions need the support of regional parties, then compromise, corruption and bad governance become the order of the day. That is what small States do to us. 

Building a Self Cleansing Environment

Dr M N Buch 

(Visiting Fellow, VIF)

One of the defining moments in my life was when I was on deputation to Princeton University for a mid-career course. It was the height of the Vietnamese War and the United States was in ferment because many people, especially students, opposed the war because they did not feel it justified. Many liberals thought that the United States had taken over the colonial mantle of the French, who ruled Indo-China. The Americans, therefore, were fighting an unjust war in which, despite the fact that a major contender for power in Vietnam was the Communist Party; the South Vietnamese regime was not really legitimate because it was a puppet of the colonial rulers. This was the regime that was supported by the Americans. Lyndon Johnson, the President of the United States who was constitutionally eligible for one more term, made a public broadcast that his policies had split apart the nation and, therefore, he was not offering himself as a candidate for the post of President. I call this a defining moment because despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was not a pronounced liberal or the best example of a principled politician, he was at least mature enough and responsible enough to realise that he could not offer America the kind of leadership it needed at this time of crisis and, therefore, he was voluntarily withdrawing from the field.

The King of England reigns but does not rule. Kind Edward VIII fell in love with a divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson and wanted to marry her. The Prime Minister advised that this marriage was not acceptable, even as a morganatic marriage, to the government, parliament and people at large and he advised the King not to enter into this matrimonial alliance. In many ways Edward VIII was a weak man, but rather than giving up the woman he loved he preferred to give up the throne of Great Britain. In doing so, in choosing the woman he loved above the Crown, Edward VIII did recover some of the character which a king should have. This is a case where principles and statecraft triumphed over a desire to hang on to a position. There are many countries in the world where politicians have stepped down because their conduct could no longer pass scrutiny. Yoshihiro Tanaka, Prime Minister of Japan, resigned when he was accused of taking a bribe of two million dollars from the Lockheed Corporation. The party demanded that he resign and he obliged immediately. He was ultimately convicted of the offence and given a jail sentence, but he did not stay in office a day longer than was justified by his conduct and he thereby saved the post of PM from public opprobrium and contempt. John Porfumo, a senior minister in Britain, resigned when it came to light that he had bribed a prostitute in order to buy her silence. Even Margaret Thatcher quit as Prime Minister when her party asked her to step down. She did not form a rival party in protest, as happens so often in India. In all those countries where politicians follow a code of conduct being in power is not the ultimate goal and losing power is not the ultimate shame.

It is not as if Indian politicians never followed a code of conduct or ethics which transcended the purely legalistic or the narrowly defined rules of propriety. T.T. Krishnamachari resigned as Finance Minister because of certain allegations relating to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as Railway Minster because he felt that he failed in his duty to ensure railway safety and an accident occurred killing a large number of passengers. There never was an allegation that the minister was himself in any way negligent or remiss in his duties, but he was a dead honest politician who felt moral responsibility for the way in which his ministry functioned. Madhavrao Scindia resigned as Civil Aviation Minister after the crash of a newly acquired Airbus 320 at Hyderabad despite the fact that an enquiry proved that the accident was caused by pilot error only. LK Advani also resigned from all public offices, including in the BJP organisations, because of the Jain Hawala case in which investigation later revealed that he had no hand whatsoever. These four politicians quit not because they were pressurised to do so but because they answered to a higher inner voice which reminded them of their moral duty. There have been other resignations also, such as two Chief Ministers of Maharashtra, but all these resignations followed proven wrongdoing, which forced the party in question to insist on such resignation. Today’s politician seems to be a breed apart from our earlier politicians who, perhaps because of Gandhian principles, did accept that conscience is also a factor in governance and that if they have done wrong, wittingly or unwittingly, they should accept moral responsibility for their acts of omission and commission. The present generation of politicians and, for that matter, bureaucrats, seems to feel that all that is needed is not to be caught in wrongdoing. Doing illegal or improper acts which benefit them personally are considered not only to be in order but almost to be a perquisite of office which they would be foolish not to enjoy.

How does the voice of conscience operate? A very good example would be that of the late Kaka Saheb, that is, N.V. Gadgil. He was Minister for Works and Housing at the Centre, he was a contemporary and close colleague of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel and he was austere, hard working and honest. His Private Secretary was another outstanding Civil Servant called D.S. Borker. On a visit to Bombay Kaka Saheb Gadgil decided to inspect some of the CPWD works. In those days perhaps the highest ranking CPWD officer in Bombay was an Executive Engineer and he accompanied the Minister during the inspection tour. At lunch time he invited the Minister to eat with him at home. After the meal when Kaka Saheb and Borker Saheb departed, in the car the Minister told his Secretary that an enquiry should be held against the Engineer to ascertain how he was able to feed the Minister in silver thalis and whether the Engineer was honest or not. Borker Saheb turned to the Minister and asked whether he had read what was inscribed on the thalis. He told him that the thalis were shown to be the property of Mafatlal Group’s guest house and had been borrowed by the Engineer because he did not have utensils of a quality in which he felt he should feed the visiting dignitary. Kaka Saheb immediately ordered the driver to return to the Engineer’s residence. That gentleman was taken aback at the Minister’s return, but Kaka Saheb told him that he had come to apologise for having an unjustified thought in his mind about the integrity of the Engineer. Such was the conscience of the man, who refused to harbour an evil thought about his subordinate on account of pure conjecture. Perhaps we can not all be Kaka Saheb but surely our politicians can at least begin to distinguish between right and wrong and to behave accordingly. In this we do not need a lesson from the West.

It would be foolish to insist that there has been no erosion of values in India. We are no longer governed according to the principles laid down by Mahatma Gandhi. The change is best exemplified by a small article written for the Times of India by Shri Sriprakasa, a senior Congress leader, a Gandhian, a former Central Minister and Governor of Assam. He narrated an incident where after retirement he was required to travel from Bombay to Madras in order to attend a meeting. His granddaughter came to visit him in the evening and found him sitting morose. On being asked why grandpa was sad she was told that he had to cancel his visit to Madras because railway reservation and ticket were not available. The granddaughter said that she would get him the ticket, which she did next morning. When Sriprakasa asked her how she managed this miracle she blithely told him that she had bribed a ticket agent Rs. 50 and was able to obtain the ticket. Sriprakasa told her that he would have been unable to do this because he was born in the land of Gandhi and could not give a bribe. The granddaughter said that she, too, was born in the land of Gandhi but she had no difficulty in paying something extra for the ticket. Sriprakasa’s comment was classic. He said, “My child, my Gandhi was Mohandas Karamchand and yours is Indira”. I think this example amply illustrates how our value systems have eroded and that it is now considered quite legitimate to use even questionable means to attain one’s objective. This is a very dangerous thing to happen to any nation, more so to a country which has always prided itself on its sense of morality and decency.

For the first twenty years of independence our politicians were still guided by the principles of satya, ahimsa, austerity and impeccable personal integrity as taught by the Mahatma. The year 1967 saw the emergence of a new culture of purchasing legislators in order to gain power, thus awakening in them a sense of commanding a price and for this purpose to forego every principle of good conduct. The decline in public morality has been so rapid that it is difficult in India to point to an honest politician, official or businessman. Every field of human endeavour is now pervaded with a sense of selfishness in which personal gain has replaced any desire for national service. Jawans of the army are put to risk if their weapons are faulty, but there does not seem to be any qualm of conscience in buying defective weapons after taking hefty bribes. Hospital patients face the difference between life and death, depending on the quality of the drugs that are administered to them. Despite this drug manufacturers and retailers offer spurious drugs and doctors happily purchase them on account of large commissions received by them. Who cares for the patients? The Gwalior region and western U.P., both areas renowned in the past for the quality of milk and milk products, are today centres of production of synthetic milk which contains poisonous detergents, fertilisers, etc., and is positively toxic. Mawa, the base of so many Indian sweetmeats, is adulterated and we virtually eat poison when we consume sweets at festivals. Most food products are adulterated. The automobile industry, especially the service stations which maintain vehicles, is known for imitation parts substituting for the genuine at the time of repairs, which endangers the road worthiness of vehicles and is substantially responsible for so many accidents. Appointment in service is often done on the basis of bribes offered, contracts are sanctioned in a similar way, construction is defective because essential materials are either adulterated or stolen and are substituted by spurious materials, functions are organised on paper and the money is swallowed up and even in the matter of such items of national and international importance as the Commonwealth Games, the making of money illegally seems to supercede the need to complete the projects in time and of the quality and standard which is required of such construction. It is a horrifying tale in which ultimately the average citizen becomes the prey, politicians and officials are the predators, unscrupulous businessmen are the beneficiaries and the nation is the loser.

Where do we begin in cleansing of the system? The constitutional arrangement of government in the country is that policy decisions and broad rules and regulations for implementation of policy lie firmly within the domain of the Legislature, the elected members of the Legislature and, by implication, in the parties which support the legislators. Who will stand for election is determined by each individual political party. These parties, therefore, are a part of the overall system of governance that we have adopted. Because it is the party which chooses the candidate, it is of the very essence that the political parties themselves should be responsible, conscious of their national duty and with office bearers of impeccable integrity. Ministers and officials may be covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, but one cannot expect honest politicians to come from a party whose office bearers are not themselves completely honest and who, therefore, cannot insist on high moral standards being adhered to by the representatives of the party in public office. If a minister, on account of holding public office, must accept a code of conduct which is more restrictive and stringent than what applies to an ordinary citizen, then the office bearers of the political parties to which the holders of public office belong have also to adhere to such a strict code of conduct. This code must not only lay down the rules for the party and its office bearers but also the moral values according to which the party and its members will work. By definition the head of the party has to be a person who can be respected, not only because he is politically astute but also because he is known to be a person of integrity and high moral principles. This puts political leaders a notch above even Caesar’s wife, because they have to be not only seen to be honest and above suspicion but also must be proactive in enforcing a code of conduct on their party members. It is against this benchmark that political leaders have to be judged.

There has been a spate of complaints by neo activists such as Arvind Kejriwal and professional complainants such as Subramaniam Swamy against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Robert Vadra, Nitin Gadkari, the Ambani brothers, etc. Some people refer to these activists as crusaders. A contrary view could be what Mahatma Gandhi said about Katherine Mayo’s scurrilous book on India, which he described as, “A gutter inspector’s report”. However, there is no gainsaying that corruption levels are high. Because the highly placed are generally not touched by our investigating agencies, the political parties concerned themselves do not have a mechanism by which they watch and judge the conduct of their own office holders or prominent supporters and then take action suo motu against those who have fallen below acceptable standards. Robert Vadra is not a Congressman, but he is the son-in-law of the lady who is President of the Congress. Without in any way applying judgment to the allegations I would still suggest that the Congress Party should have had an inbuilt mechanism similar to an Ombudsman, which mechanism should have persons of universally accepted credibility, who could conduct internal enquiries into allegations made against the party’s leaders and then come out with a reasoned report of what they have observed. If the report is objective then where it finds the charges to have substance, it would set the public mind at rest either because the party has taken action against the guilty person or the party has found the person not to be guilty and made known publicly the reasons for the findings.

This would apply equally to BJP, where Nitin Gadkari, its President, is under fire. A credible enquiry which finds one way or the other about the charges would be in the interest of the party itself. If Nitin Gadkari has done no wrong then detailed reasons for arriving at this conclusion must be given. If, however, Nitin Gadkari has strayed from the straight and narrow then the party itself must take action against him. The present attitude of the party in which it has given a tongue in cheek clean chit to Gadkari is neither in the interest of Gadkari nor of the party.

The law defines the acts which constitute an offence. The Police, specially constituted investigating agencies, various administrative structures which can hold a proper enquiry are in place, but they have a limited role in that they come into play only when there is an offence, or there has been such a breach of administrative propriety that disciplinary action should be taken. This, however, will be restricted to persons in office. On the other hand the arrangement I have suggested for political parties would go well beyond that which is defined as an offence and will cover the entire gamut of the conduct of the person complained against or about whom there is suspicion. Here the party would take suo motu action. If the political parties are serious about building the internal mechanism which could give us a self cleansing environment of governance and politics, then we can once again create a new paradigm of moral values and join Sriprakasa in the land of Gandhi, whose name was Mohandas Karamchand.

Incidentally, the mechanism suggested is different from that of Lokpal, which would be in the official domain and, regardless of what Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan say, would be vulnerable to pressure. Moreover, being a creation of an Act of Parliament the institution can be abolished or neutered by another Act of Parliament. The self cleansing mechanism of the political parties would be an internal creation and unless the party is bent upon being reviled in public, it would itself support its own creation and protect its credibility by acting firmly on its findings and recommendations. Given a fair chance the party Ombudsman may actually force the parties to become clean.