Are PM Modi and the BJP blurring crucial lines of governance?
In the last week, we have seen Amit Shah protesting and calling for open defiance of the Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala, Sambit Patra inquiring after the gotra of Rahul Gandhi on a TV channel, Union Minister of State for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Giriraj Singh warning people about Hindu sentiment, Ajit Doval warning Indian voters that India needs a stable government (no prizes for guessing which one) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking for donations from the public via the NamoApp.
How are all these seemingly separate instances related?
In all these instances, in my view, there is an overstepping of boundaries and assigned roles considered di rigeur earlier, either by the dilution of barriers between the personal and official, or sheer defiance of court as in the case of Amit Shah. Where the Prime Minister's appeals are concerned, none has ever before in the history of our country solicited funds from the public for the party he belongs to.
Even more of a concern is the erosion of walls between the armed forces and politics as evinced by frequent appearances on television channels by former servicemen with their aggressively partisan stands, and now, increasing instances of senior army personnel venting to the media. General Bipin Rawat's recent bellicose statements on television - "I believe there is a need for another surgical strike" – is only one such example.
As any military strategist is aware, the whole point of undercover manouvres is that they are undercover and not tom-tommed about.
In the current climate of aggressive sabre-rattling with the BJP government valourizing and making political capital out of a military operation, this is hardly an innocuous statement to make. The image of the Army as a politically neutral institution suffered due to the appointment of its retired chief, General VK Singh, as a minister in a government headed by the BJP, which is known for its Hindutva agenda and minority bashing.
Though constitutionally there might not be a restriction for such an appointment, it is a blow to the confidence of minorities, especially in J&K and Assam (with a sizable Muslim population) where the Army is often called on to assist civil administration.
It is relevant to mention here that Modi’s public request for funds is apparently a mere façade. The BJP coffers are reportedly overflowing. A special scheme was introduced last year for funding political parties with anonymous secret donations by corporates as Electoral Bonds. The amendments to Companies Act, Representation of Peoples Act and RBI Act bringing in the Electoral Bond Scheme were included in the Finance Bill 2017 and passed as a Money Bill without voting in the Rajya Sabha.
The Electoral Bond Scheme itself allows for any amount of donations being made by companies to political parties via Electoral Bonds whether they have profits or not. The donations will be tax-exempt for donor and beneficiary. The information cannot be divulged by the Election Commission, the IT Dept, the Registrar of Companies or under the RTI Act.
Now, one is well aware that corporates would prefer to give donations to the incumbent in power. The public request is thus a sentimental ploy to marshal popular support and emotional investment for the 2019 general elections.
However, in constitutional terms, the prime minister is supposed to be above politics and above party. According to the Constitution, the main “executive” powers of the government are vested in the prime minister. He/she is the head of government “without fear of or favour” to any political dispensation.
The highest post of the nation was always supposed to be one distinct from the party he/she represents but our present PM has apparently been reduced to a 24x7 party pracharak. Neither is he seen as above partisanship to corporate interests. The first unpleasant note was struck on 2 September 2016 when the country awoke to full-page advertisements splashed across major newspapers in a corporate advertising campaign featuring the PM dressed in a blue jacket, placed under the brand slogan.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal slammed Modi over the feature. In a written reply in the Rajya Sabha to a question by the Samajwadi Party’s Neeraj Shekhar, Rajyavardhan Rathore, Minister I&B, admitted that the administration was aware that the commercial group used the prime minister’s photographs in the advertisement. According to The Emblems And Names (Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950, itself, "...No person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government use... for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession... any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or, any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government."
Yet, no action was taken by the government.
In April 2016 a Pune-based real estate company was pulled up after it used advertisements containing pictures of Modi and Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. According to a media report, the ads suggested the company’s real-estate developments were part of the Prime Minister Awas Yojana scheme. Similarly, other corporate features seem to have taken a similar strategy of associating products to Modi’s Digital India. The most popular digital wallet company in India, within an hour of Modi’s demonetisation speech, released for publication full-page print advertisements that thanked the prime minister for the “most bold decision taken in this financial history of independent India”.
Ajit Doval is the National Security Advisor to the government of India. His role is not to make irresponsible comments to the media recommending hardline rightwing approaches. Yet, in his address in the Sardar Patel Memorial lecture on October 25, he cautioned that a “strong, stable and decisive” government and leadership was needed for the next ten years to achieve political, economic and strategic objectives.
“Weak coalitions” will be “bad” for the country, he said. We know that it is likely that if Mr Modi did not make it in the next election, the successor government would be a coalition. However, how does the NSA play partisan BJP politics and pass the judgment that any coalition will be “weak”?
Ever since Mr Modi came to power, many of India’s higher education institutions have been fatally compromised by the appointment of RSS-backed ideologues with virtually no relevant experience to head prestigious academic councils. Last year, the government appointed BB Kumar – who had apparently previously declared PM Modi as India’s “best prime minister” – as the chairman of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), an apex government body that controls 29 research institutes. This government also appointed Jagadesh Kumar as the vice-chancellor of JNU. Mr Kumar reportedly has an association with an RSS wing. In his brief tenure, Mr Kumar has reportedly cut down MPhil and PhD seats, and shut down courses, which sparked off protests.
If we are concerned about bureaucrats crossing the line, then consider the following: On May 17, 2018, the following letter was reportedly sent by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to all the ministries. It reads:
“The Prime Minister’s Office [PMO] has desired to consider the following suggestion and necessary action on it for its implementation from the current year itself — to examine if service allocation/cadre allocation to probationers selected on the basis of their civil services examination be made after foundation course. Examine the feasibility of giving due weightage to the performance in the foundation course and making service allocation as well as cadre allocation to All India Service officers based on the combined score obtained in the civil service examination and the foundation course. Provide comments/inputs within a week so as to enable the Department to take further necessary action in this matter.”
At present, service/cadre allocation to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and other Central government services is strictly based on the ranking in the civil services examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) whose credentials, in this context, are impeccable. Of the over 10 lakh persons who appear for the civil services examination every year, about 1,000 are selected through a rigorous three-tier system which comprises the preliminary examination, the main examination and the interview. By virtue of the sheer numbers involved, the entire recruitment process is totally opaque, ruling out any subjectivity in the process. This is also the reason why the credibility of the UPSC’s recruitment process has never been questioned.
As is the norm, those who clear the civil services examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission are allotted the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and other central services based on their UPSC exam ranks. After that, they are sent to LBSNAA for training, which starts with a 15-week foundation course before the recruits branch out to service-specific training programmes.
As per documents reviewed by The Indian Express, the Prime Minister’s Office allegedly now wants to alter that process and allot services and cadres to candidates only after taking into account how they fare in the Foundation Course. This development does not augur well for the country’s bureaucratic machinery which is considered the administrative backbone of India.
It is feared by many critics that this is yet another attempt by the Narendra Modi government to tinker with public institutions.
EAS Sarma, former Secretary, Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and a retired 1965 batch IAS officer of the Andhra Pradesh cadre, is of the quoted opinion that the element of subjectivity that is bound to creep into the assessment process will destroy its credibility.
Institutions such as Film and Television Institute of India, Central Board of Film Certificates, University Grants Commission, Sahitya Academy and central universities, to name a few, have apparently seen questionable appointments and whimsical functioning.
The Prasar Bharti website in its mission states the commitment of the body to “uphold the unity and integrity of the country and the values enshrined in the Constitution.” With its live relaying of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's speech on Doordarshan in September 29, 2017, the sacrosanct, to my view, has been breached.
While our institutions are systemically imploding, parallel power centers are taking over. Critics suggest these include The Vivekananda Foundation with alleged close links to the RSS and the India Foundation. In 2015, The Economic Times reported that the India Foundation apparently hosts weekly “closed-door sessions on high policy issues.” The organisation has arranged gatherings of foreign ambassadors, hosted foreign dignitaries, and helped organise events on Modi’s foreign visits, including his rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden in 2014. Ajit Doval’s son Shaurya Doval is one of the India Foundation’s directors. The Economic Times report called him “an increasingly influential player in shaping Modi Sarkar’s policy thinking.” Ram Madhav from the RSS, also an India Foundation director, is now the BJP’s national general secretary. On the list of directors alongside Shaurya and Madhav reportedly are cabinet minister Suresh Prabhu, the ministers of state Nirmala Sitharaman [now the defence minister], Jayant Sinha and MJ Akbar, and other heavyweights linked to the BJP and the RSS.
As the BJP continues to wage an aggressive propaganda of development and strategy of social divide, social and political institutions of the country are likely to further stifle, weaken and erode. More lines will be blurred and crossed.
The mutual piggybacking of agendas, and the resultant conflict of interests, marks the breakdown of the barriers between party and government and government and State.
Understand the grave implications to our Constitution and parliamentary democracy.