DEMOCRACY ON TRIAL
By
P. V. NARAYANA RAO PATRULU, B.A., B.L.
It
is a decade since we attained Independence. But the glow and joy of newly won
freedom which should be writ large on our face is simply non-existent. It is
said that we have attained greatly in stature in the international plane. May
be so. We have given ourselves a beautiful Constitution. We have set before us
the objective of a Welfare State based on the socialistic pattern and, unto
that end, have been harnessing our energies and resources these six years and
more to a planned economic programme. But the man in the street in India today
appears utterly unconcerned at these unprecedented developments. He finds
around him little to enthuse over, and no incentive to strive after and work
for anything as a participator in a democratic set-up. This is the malady we
have been immediately heir to in the wake of our victory in the freedom
struggle.
In
order to gauge accurately the malaise and devise the remedy, we have first to
climb down from the Olympian heights of idealism, and descend to the bedrock of
facts as they affect the common man and his day-to-day existence. He is not
concerned with your idealistic conceptions of One World, the U. N. O., the
International Court of Justice or the two Blocs. He is rather homely and humble
in his interests and outlook. He is concerned with the problems of
availability, at prices within his reach, of food, clothing, shelter, medical
aid and the other necessaries of life, and also with uncorrupt and sympathetic
administration of public affairs as they directly effect his daily concerns.
Our foreign policy may have been successful, we may have risen high in the
estimation of other nations and our stock may be higher today in the Councils
of the U. N. O. We may have embarked on the Five Year Plan and the Community
Projects, with a view to improve our agriculture, our industries and
educational methods. But these high sounding phrases and programmes have little
meaning for the man in the street who judges every thing by the touchstone, as
to whether he is today happier than before. He is in a sense right, for, when
we sought his help and co-operation in the struggle for freedom we did not do
so promising him that we would work for World Peace, that we would make the
wolf and the lamb among the Nations to drink together at the same stream, and
promote International Justice. We pointed to his poverty under the foreign rule
and the indifference of the foreign administrators to his suffering, and held
out the prospect of a better standard of living and higher economic prosperity
as a result of the end of alien rule and of the economic drain it entailed.
Judged
by the common man’s standard, which, when all is said and done, is perhaps the
right yardstick, it must be admitted that the state of things obtaining at
present is disappointing. The landlords today are bereft of their property and
the merchants and trading classes denuded of the profits of their business by
high multi-point taxation. The wage-earning section, in which may be included
the professional classes, the clerks and other persons engaged in similar
situations, and the labourers employed in the
industries including the cottage industries, and the vast mass of
agriculturists, find their slightly augmented income more than swallowed by the
abnormally high cost of living which is far higher today than in the days of
British Rule. As to the day-to-day administration of Government departments and
other quasi-administrative bodies and institutions with which they are far more
intimately connected than with the larger issues of State policy, all classes
and sections of the population, irrespective of their economic position, find
that there has been a distinct deterioration and that corruption, arrogance,
and inefficiency are rampant all round.
Though
certain political parties in the country are taking advantage of economic
distress of the people to foment political discontent, the man in the street is
not yet so blinded by prejudice as not to appreciate, when properly told, that
the deterioration in his economic condition is not entirely due to the
mishandling of the country’s affairs by the Powers that be. But what he
cannot follow, and perhaps rightly, is why in the wake of the British quitting
India there should have come into existence this widespread corruption and
inefficiency in the administration in most of the Government departments and
quasi-public bodies and institutions. If the Governments at the Centre and in the States are not to be blamed for it, who
else are to be? This is a question which proves difficult of answer, and in
order to appreciate the difficulty one has to institute a cursory comparison
with the position that prevailed under the previous regime.
The
British bureaucracy, with all its faults, was, on the whole, pure and
uncorrupt, though perhaps arrogant. Most of its members hailed from a country
where standards of public morality are perhaps the highest in the
world, and they came out to this country with high administrative ideals. They
were proud of the glorious achievement of the British connection with India,
namely, the establishment of a high standard of administration in this country,
and, with rare exceptions, they were actuated by the ambition of sustaining
that reputation. They accordingly aimed at the purity and the efficiency of the
administration. Every one of them began at the lowest rung–the headship of a
Revenue Division or, a similar position in other departments and, rung by rung,
climbed up the ladder, having gained experience at every stage. Themselves
devoted to the ideals of purity and efficiency, they insisted on the same
qualities in the subordinate staff, from the peon to the head assistant in
every office. They provided by elaborate rules, rigidly adhered to, for their
training and promotion by graded merit dependent on honesty and efficiency and
not on mere length of service. It is such men that remained in charge of the
Districts in every department, at the Provincial Headquarters, and at the Centre. Corruption and administrative inefficiency were not
unknown in the British regime, it is true. But none but the purblind will deny
that both were held sternly under check. With the end of British rule, all
these officers went back, leaving behind a sprinkling of Indians belonging to
their order. These Indian officers, greatly augmented by men recruited from the
lower rungs filled all the places. This new bureaucracy, with mostly
inexperienced Ministers, chosen on party considerations and seeking guidance at
their hands, set above them, suddenly discovered that they were the monarchs of
all they surveyed, and since absolute power corrupts absolutely, some of them
became absolutely corrupt, and instead of checking the ranks below them, they
set them an example. This has been the genesis of the whole tragedy. Whether
the evil could have been nipped in the bud and, if so, how, is a debatable
question, and there is no purpose now in entering on these questions. In the
wake of corruption came inefficiency, for you can have no scope for corruption
unless you relax the prescribed rule. It is said this relaxation of prescribed
rules is some times the outcome of interference by some Ministers and
Legislators in the day-to-day work of the executive, and while such chosen
representatives of the people are expected to see to the strict enforcement
of the prescribed rule, they themselves encourage the
executive to deviate from the rules in cases in which they happen to be
interested for personal or party ends.
The
heads of the offices, with honourable exceptions, are
ill-equipped for the responsibilities of their position, due to either to
sudden or rapid promotions, or to faulty selection or other cause. Others,
though not lacking in equipment, become ease-loving and prone to laziness because
of want of check or control from above. And with a view to lessen even this
burden of their work and lighten their labour, they
propose and manage to get sanctioned by the inexperienced Ministers at the
head, the appointment of extra hands for every situation, far in excess of the
real necessity, and at ruinous cost to the tax-payer. Both these kinds of
officers mostly depend upon their clerks and assistants for guidance and
clearance of the files.
This
corruption and inefficiency prevalent in the administrative system has encourged anti-social evils to raise their ugly heads in
the economic life of the country, with the result that the common man is today
groaning under the weight of black-marketing, exorbitantly high prices, and
adulteration of foodstuffs and other articles of consumption. No wonder, the
common man feels exasperated at all these evils the result of which he has
directly to bear in the so-called Welfare State and concludes that there is
something rotten in the State of Denmark.
The
pathetic appeal which the late Mr. Mashruwala made to
“The Members of the Public Services” in the columns of Harijan
in the year 1949, and which created a stir in the country at the time, may
be called to mind. But even that moving, pathetic exhortation has fallen on
deaf ears, and the position, instead of improving, has worsened during these
eight years that have followed. If the administration of the country is not to
be allowed to go on the down grade and the people’s lot become harder, in spite
of our great economic objectives, the political party that happens to be in
power must realise its responsibility.
But
we, the public workers at this end of the scale, have also a responsibility to
help in the implementation of the Acts and Rules passed and framed by them
pursuant to their policies. If we organise ourselves
into bodies of associations in the nature of vigilance associations to spy on
the working of Government departments and other offices and the
conduct of individual officers or their staff, and concentrate
the searching spotlight on their vagaries and lapses and bring the same to the
notice of the concerned higher authorities, it is believed that much of the
administrative corruption and inefficiency might be held in check and
Government policies duly implemented. The work is undoubtedly uphill and
unpleasant, but the sacred responsibility of citizenship seems to leave no
other alternative. It is as futile as it is difficult for individuals, to be up
and doing in the matter. It is only organised bodies
that can undertake the task, and exert the weight that is necessary. Ministers
at the head often complain that they do not get reliable complaints, and if
they can be furnished with information on which they can depend, they could do
a great deal in this direction. If such organised
vigilance associations are formed all over the country, then their
representations are sure to carry the necessary weight with the authorities.
It
is sincerely hoped that public workers will vouchsafe serious consideration to
the idea rather crudely suggested above and, if acceptable, implement it with
such modifications, as to details of organisation and work, as may be deemed
effective and helpful.