Over 1.3 Million Public Grievances Received In January-March 2022: Govt

Over 1.3 million public grievances have been received by the Union government through the CPGRAMS, the Lok Sabha was informed on Wednesday.

New Delhi: Over 1.3 million public grievances have been received by the Union government through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), the Lok Sabha was informed on Wednesday, April 6.

Of the total of 13,32,567 grievances received in 2022 (till March 31), 4,18,451 were disposed off, minister of state for personnel, public grievances and pensions Jitendra Singh said in a written reply.

As many as 30,23,894 grievances were received in 2021, of which 21,35,923 were disposed; 33,42,873 in 2020, of which 23,19,569 were disposed; and 27,11,455 in 2019, of which 16,39,852 were disposed, the reply said.

Also read: How ‘Grievance Redressal’ Under the New IT Rules Amounts to Unlawful Harassment of Media

An appeal mechanism was introduced in CPGRAMS from January 20, 2021.

“From the date of introduction of appeal mechanism and till March 31, 2022, total 98,337 grievances have been filed in CPGRAMS,” the minister said.

(PTI)

How Bureaucracy Has Left the Indian Civil Services Adrift

India’s crisis-ridden bureaucracy is unrecognisable, and this perception of the civil services overshadows the handful of upright officers who continue boldly to keep the system afloat.

Once hailed as the steel frame of independent India, the country’s civil service today is a pale shadow of its halcyon past when officers of high intellectual calibre, personal integrity, and the brio to give unbiased advice, held sway.

Successors of the ‘heaven born’ colonial Indian Civil Service, or ICS, and the analogous Indian Police or IP, newly independent India’s civil services was not too different. They equitably managed the turbulent times of Partition, rife with bloodshed, refugees’ influx, and the division of assets between the two newly created nations.

In the decades thereafter, guided by competent political leaders they kept hope alive by nurturing a fledgling democracy in a hugely diverse country, which few in the world thought would survive as a nation state.

But over seven decades later India’s crisis-ridden bureaucracy is unrecognisable; vilified for its inefficiency, nepotism, and corruption, but above all else, for its arrogance and high-maintenance and low mileage capabilities. This common perception of the civil services overshadows the handful of conscientious and upright officers who continue boldly to adhere to old values and keep the system afloat.

Ironically, it is because of this latter diminishing complement of officers that many systems continue to function relatively well.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to concur with this public perception of the Indian bureaucrats. He recently excoriated the country’s civil servants in the Lok Sabha, venting his ire particularly against members of the ‘hallowed’ Indian Administrative Service (IAS) that heads the country’s bureaucratic pinnacle.

Also read: The Civil Services Have Failed To Deliver and It’s Time To Reconsider Their Importance

The ‘babu’ culture

Participating in the motion of thanks to President Ram Nath Kovind’s parliamentary address, an incensed prime minister lamented that India’s growth had become ‘hostage’ to the whims and fancies of babus a mildly pejorative euphemism for civil servants and the untrammelled power they wielded.

“Babus will do everything,” an incredulous prime minister asked rhetorically. “Because they became IAS (officers) they run fertiliser factories ….chemical factories… even fly planes,” he fulminated. “What is this big power we have created,” he asked, going on to inquire of his fellow parliamentarians whether it was judicious to hand over the ‘reins of the nation (of power and governance) to babus’.

The prime minister’s outburst upset senior civil servants who rather than introspect on the criticism levelled against them spent their energy speculating on what had prompted Modi’s outburst. Near-unanimously they agreed that the prime minister’s tirade against them was because of a handful of projects that had been delayed; of course, due to no fault of theirs.

What Modi stated in parliament on February 10, starkly echoed the despair and helplessness of billions of Indians, subsumed by a bureaucracy which other than the IAS is supplemented by the Indian Police Service (IPS), and overseas by the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). Assorted central services oversee varied other departments like revenue, customs, railways, forests, and cantonments, amongst others.

New IAS civil servants headed for training. Credit: PTI

New IAS civil servants headed for training. Photo: PTI

Exceptions notwithstanding, there is a collective strain that defines them all, at least in the popular perception: power, pelf and relative inviolability. The civil servants’ calibre is in direct proportion to their ability to perform in the qualifying examination and the subsequent interview. Thereafter, efficiency, probity, conscientiousness, and empathy are of limited relevance for the average three decades most officers serve.

Most officers assume the trappings of feudal grandeur much like their colonial predecessors, but without either their efficiency, commitment, or impartiality. Their ‘power’ props begin with their massive office revolving chairs, with the mandatory white towel changed regularly draped over the back for reasons unknown. Over decades this white towel has emerged as an unquestioned symbol of bureaucratic authority that brooks no challenge and is always right.

Red lights flash continually outside their office doors to further indicate high office and importance. These worthies, ironically known as public servants, are largely inaccessible to common people who obsequiously line up outside their offices for redressal of their grievances, sometimes waiting the entire day without getting to see the ‘sahib’. In colonial times, those in authority were commonly known as ‘mai baap’ (my father); in independent India they have a shorter, adaptive Anglo-Indian appellation sir ji.

Sir ji’s calls are screened by his army of staffers who invariably mouth the patent questions: ‘aap kahan se bol rahe hain’,  ‘kya kaam hai’, or a helpful ‘dekhta hun sahib kamre mein hain ke nahin’. But this is mere tokenism as most callers are summarily informed that ‘sahib’ is either out or busy in a meeting. This generally means only one thing  the personal staff does not consider the caller important enough to bother the boss. Similarly, visitors are disdainfully discouraged either by making them wait, or advised to meet some other lower-level official in connection with their grievances.

Such inaccessibility contributes majorly towards building public perception regarding the importance and invincibility of the officer. And though civil servants cannot possibly meet, or talk to everyone, there is no system to differentiate between those who have legitimate grievances and others who do not. This malaise has percolated down to the lower power structure echelons, leaving millions of unrequited supplicants across the country.

A large proportion of these civil servants’ business is conducted via haloed meetings, attended by officers whose comprehension of the subject under discussion is normally limited to what is included in the briefs or notes prepared by their juniors. Moreover, these incessant rounds of meetings tend invariably to be long and tedious, devoid of all levity or humour, and seldom result in any definitive decision. In most instances, the minutes are recorded on the ubiquitous file which in turn remains in perpetual orbit.

The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) had famously defined bureaucracy as a highly structured organisation predicated on specialisation and technical competence, a formal set of rules and regulations, a well-defined hierarchy, and impersonality in application of rules. A century later Weber would be hard pressed, to put it mildly, to define Indian bureaucracy even remotely in this overarching framework.

Even insiders, who have spent decades in civil service, find it difficult to explain this sarkari jalebi that impinges on every Indian’s life in varying degrees but one that renders the bureaucrat wholly indispensable. It is also a truism that the power an Indian civil servant wields is vast and in many cases in indirect proportion to the ability of the person exercising it.

Metaphorically, India’s bureaucratic hierarchy divided into four groups mirrors the toxic chaturvarna vyavastha, or the caste system, to which admission is determined by one’s performance in the annual civil service and other entrance examinations. And much like the accident of birth that determines one’s station in the chaturvarna vyavastha, entry into one of these aforesaid categories too determines the future course of one’s career, circumscribing mobility across the broad four civil service groupings.

Specialisation is an important facet of bureaucracy in the Weberian scheme, but in the Indian context the ‘generalist’ IAS officers are the ultimate mavens in all administration branches, as Prime Minister Modi emphatically pointed out in the parliament.

Potentially, an IAS officer with a mere bachelor’s degree in arts could well be deemed as much of an expert in financial management as in aerospace and defence, in most instances learning the basics on the job. The depth of knowledge and experience normally necessary in each of these areas, it seems, are no barrier. As the prime minister declared: the ‘Babu’s can do everything.

Also read: Lateral Entry Is Fine. but What About Enhancing the IAS’s Professional Competence?

Streamlining the country’s bureaucracy

India’s first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), aiming at streamlining the country’s bureaucracy, had in 1970 recommended that an overarching ‘functional field’ needed to be created for the lAS. The Commission proposed that this could consist of land revenue administration, exercise of magisterial functions and regulatory work in the states in fields other than those looked after by officials from sundry civil services.

It also suggested that the jobs which do not fall within a particular ‘functional area’ need to be demarcated into eight areas of specialised administration: economic, industrial agricultural and rural development, social and education, personnel, finance, defence and internal security, and planning.

Expectedly, these recommendations were never fully implemented. Instead, a hybrid system was adopted that provided an edge to IAS officers in matters of promotion, postings, and career furtherance. Under this skewered arrangement, the non-IAS services received step-brotherly treatment leading not only to resentment, but also demoralisation. Though the non-IAS officers are now being inducted into higher positions in the ministries in greater numbers than before, such opportunities continue to be limited relative to the number of officers seeking such opportunities.

The recommendations of the first ARC continue to be relevant as governance has become increasingly technologically enabled and specialised. Successive governments declared their intent on assuming office of executing administrative reforms, but these were cleverly stymied each time by the internal forces, reminiscent of the delightful BBC comedy Yes Minister and later Yes, Prime Minister.

In one uproarious episode Prime Minister Jim Hacker asks of senior bureaucrat Sir Humphrey Appleby whether he knew of a civil servant resigning on a matter of principle.

I should think not! What an appalling suggestion! retorts Sir Humphrey in high dudgeon.

Familiar?

Amit Cowshish is former financial advisor (acquisitions), Ministry of Defence.

Why ‘Politicisation’ of Public Grievances Is Not the Bad Thing It Is Made Out to Be

Politics affects all of our lives, especially those who rely on the State for their material needs. This is why if something is either ignored or not sufficiently dealt with by the State, it must be politicised.

These days it has become a common invective to denounce particular popular actions as ‘political’ or ‘politicised’ in order to delegitimise them. This is a tactic that has traditionally been employed by all ruling parties in India’s political history, but has become an especially handy tool for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its supporters within the media and public.

The allegation of “politically motivated” currently being hurled at the farmers’ protests fomenting around Delhi as well as other parts of the country is the most recent example of the same. This is just the latest use of the bogey in the last 12 months.

It has previously been used to, among other things, attack the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters, the raising of concerns about stranded migrant labourers being charged for being ferried by the railways to their homes during the lockdown, the opposition to the conduct of NEET and JEE exams amidst the pandemic, the questioning of the Union government’s response to border incursions by China, and the protests against the shocking ill-treatment of the gang-rape victim’s family in Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras.

The question that begs to be asked is: what is this ‘politicisation’, and is it indeed a bad thing?

Politics is serious matter

Politics is not just the domain of political parties contesting and competing with each other in elections. Understood holistically, the term refers to all the activities associated with the governance of a country, especially (but not limited to) the contestation of power among political parties, as well as deciding how that power to govern is wielded. It is reductive to treat politics simply as a horse race, a pro-wrestling match, a ‘who will be the next PM/CM’ reality show, or BJP versus INC/AAP/TMC.

Politics affects all of our lives, especially those of our fellow citizens who rely on the State for their material needs. This is why if something significantly affects the lives of citizens and is either ignored or not sufficiently dealt with by the State, it must be politicised.

This need for politicisation through participation in the political process is sanctioned by the Constitution of India, not only through the right to participate in elections through voting in and contesting them, but also through the fundamental right to assemble peaceably and without arms, to form associations and unions, and to move freely throughout the territory of India.

Also read: Success of Farmers’ Protest Renews Hope in the Politics of Mass Mobilisation

This is why anyone can form a political party; indeed, we have thousands of political parties across the country. It wouldn’t be incorrect to hold that our constitutional and legal framework provides every citizen with the freedom to hold political thoughts, and to participate in political activities.

It is, therefore, quite puzzling, then, that political parties are derided for ‘doing politics’ or politicising public concerns and issues. Is that not their raison d’etre? Every single party is guilty of it, especially during election campaigns, so why does it become a pejorative only when someone opposes the government’s narrative and raises uncomfortable questions?

People, including members of opposition parties, gather in central Delhi for a protest against the government's decision to withdraw Rs 500 and Rs 1000 banknotes from circulation, November 28, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton

People, including members of opposition parties, gather in central Delhi for a protest against the government’s decision to withdraw Rs 500 and Rs 1000 banknotes from circulation, November 28, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton

Good politics versus bad politics

A distinction must be drawn, then, between ‘good politics’ and ‘bad politics’. As outlined by professor Sadanand Shahi in an editorial in Hindustan, bad politics is of the kind that attempts to disengage the citizenry from politics by making them apolitical. This is precisely because an apolitical citizenry can easily be convinced that politics is sleazy territory to be stayed away from.

Such citizens get conditioned not to expect or demand better governance from their political representatives or the State that improve their lives, and can consequently be swayed by narrow identitarian or parochial concerns that invoke passion but ultimately have no impact on their material living conditions.

Such bad politics is evident, for instance, in the politicisation of the gotra or religion of a prominent politician, the unfortunate suicide of a Bollywood actor, and the rabble rousing over marriages between Muslim men and Hindu women.

Conversely, good politics is the kind that articulates legitimate public grievances, and policy issues that have a bearing on the public good.

This is why every government decision that impacts lives detrimentally must be contested, and Opposition parties must challenge those decisions in the political domain. After all, that is how government policy improves in the first place, through the exertion of popular pressure.

Even seen from the prism of cold electoral logic, it makes sense for Opposition political parties to politicise citizens’ unrest and differences with the government: Different political parties are supposed to represent distinct and diverse ideologies and political stances, and Opposition parties must organise and canvas support for positions on which they diverge with the government in order to set themselves apart and hope to win votes at the next election.

After all, if every Opposition party goes along with the government’s narrative and doesn’t stand with citizens when they voice differences with the government’s policies, then why would citizens vote for them?

In fact, if the Opposition can be faulted for something, it is that they don’t politicise enough matters of government failures crushing citizens’ lives, be it, for instance, the unchecked police brutality against citizens, the non-payment of salaries for several months to teachers and doctors, the resistance towards ASHA workers’ demand to be paid at least a minimum wage, the unemployment crisis that has enveloped the country for the last few years but has especially exacerbated due to the twin blow of the pandemic and the national lockdown, the central government’s failed response to the pandemic which has caused untold avoidable deaths and heaped misery on so many more people, and the education deficit being faced by students who cannot go to schools and are outside the limited privileged circle of those who can afford schooling via smart tech devices.

Also read: Why Today’s India Needs a Resurrected Swatantra Party

These are issues that affect voters’ lives, and will find more resonance with public as opposed to petty bickering over a politician being asked to leave government accommodation that she doesn’t even need, or shameful resort politics of the sort we have seen in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan since the pandemic took root in India.

After all, in a democracy, politicians work for us, and have an obligation to explain themselves and answer our questions. What’s wrong with an Opposition party member or, indeed, a citizen, posing those questions and asking for information? Pointing out flaws in the policies of the government of the day and providing an alternative narrative is exactly the Opposition’s job!

Opposition parties protest against the handcuffing of farmers in Andhra Pradesh. Photo: Twitter/@JaiTDP

The public good must be politicised

Calls to not politicise issues are meant to divert attention from people’s legitimate demands, and reduce the government’s accountability. If the Opposition is attempted to be shut out or dismissed under the canard of ‘politicisation’, be it in the parliament, in TV news channel studios or on the streets, then we are only left with the government’s narrative. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, however, every party, and, by extension, every person’s voice counts, not just the ruling party’s. The weakening of the Opposition, therefore, by equating genuine dissent and questioning with narrow political attacks, weakens democracy.

Politicisation of trivial matters must be called out and criticised. Politicisation of people’s grievances, on the other hand, must not only be encouraged, but also expected from opposition parties, in a healthy democracy.

Vineet Bhalla is a Delhi-based lawyer.

Parliamentary Panel Asks If It Is Time to Move on From ‘First-Past-The-Post’ Electoral System

In a questionnaire sent to all political parties and the Election Commission, the panel has cited the UP elections to argue that first past the post may not be the “best suited system”.

In a questionnaire sent to all political parties and the Election Commission, the panel has cited the UP elections to argue that first past the post may not be the “best suited system”.

A polling officer applies ink on the finger of a voter at a polling station on the outskirts of Jammu April 10, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

A polling officer applies ink on the finger of a voter at a polling station on the outskirts of Jammu April 10, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

New Delhi: An all-party parliamentary panel is reportedly looking into alternatives to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system currently in use for Lok Sabha and assembly elections in India.

According to the Indian Express, the panel, headed by Congress leader Anand Sharma, has expressed “apprehensions” that the FPTP may not be the“best suited system”, citing the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections as an example to highlight their point. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has sent a six-page questionnaire to all political parties as well as the Election Commission (EC), asking for their views on the matter.

In the FPTP system, the candidate to receive the most number of votes in any constituency wins and all other votes are disregarded.

“There are different systems of elections — like first-past-the-post (FPTP), list system (open list and closed system), proportional representation, ranked or preferential voting, and mixed systems. In our country we follow FPTP for Parliament and Legislative Assemblies’ elections and proportional representation for the election of President…What is your view in the matter and please also suggest the alternative system, if any,” Indian Express quotes from the questionnaire. “Apprehensions are now being raised that in recent years the FPTP system is not the best suited system as is evident from the recent Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, where results have indicated that a party getting 39 per cent vote share won 312 seats and parties getting 22 per cent and 21 per cent got only 47 and 19 seats respectively,” the questionnaire goes on to say.

While talking about the UP elections, the committee does not specify by name which parties it is referring to. Opposition parties have often talked about how it is the FPTP system that ensured a complete majority for the BJP in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections – even though they received only 31% of the votes.

The panel has also asked the EC whether it would be feasible to introduce a different electoral system in India and what challenges may get in the way. The EC has also been asked to compare the FPTP system as followed in India and the UK, as well as how various major democracies use the system (if they still do) and the challenges they may be facing.

Within the same questionnaire, the panel has asked questions under five heads, including ‘Electoral Funding’, ‘Systems of Elections’, ‘Media/Free Airtime’, ‘Internal Democracy in Political Parties’ and ‘Miscellaneous’. Under the media section, the panel has talked about the increasing number of media houses and asked whether these need to be “regulated/controlled”. “In many cases, political parties and candidates are directly or indirectly controlling stakes in media houses, leading to witch-hunting and character assassination of political parties and candidates. There is also emergence of cartels and oligarchies in media ownerships and leaning towards parties in power to further business,” the panel says, according to the Indian Express, while seeking views on “airtime allocation to political parties and candidates in privately owned electronic and print media during elections”.

The questionnaire also asks for views on “cross ownership of media houses by corporates and their influence in the conduct of elections” and the “ideal way to limit their influence”; and on how to “check or regulate the money power used through media” to swing election results.

According to the Indian Express, certain opposition parties like the Congress, BSP, CPI(M), NCP, CPI and Lok Janshakti Party have responded to the questionnaire. However, the BJP and several other parties are yet to send in their replies.