The
debate on Generalist versus Specialist in the administrative hierarchy
of India has been on since the time of independence. We place the
generalist IAS office above specialists in almost all departments and
rare is the occasion when an outsider occupies a Secretary post in the
Union and State governments and the promotion to the post of Joint
Secretary is virtually assured to all in the IAS. This has lead to
discontent among the specialists as, for example, the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service is headed by the CAG who is an IAS officer, department
made of IA&AS officers lead by an IAS officer. Complaints of
civilian administrators not heeding the demands of the armed forces
chief are common. The question has come up again in my mind due to an
article in the Economic Times and the book 'The Honest Always Stand
Alone' (by C.G.Somiah who joined IAS in the early 1950s and was the CAG from 1990 to 1996).
I have read about the disagreement artists, writers, social activists and intelligentsia have against banning of certain books and works of art. I have always thought artistic freedom should be absolutely uninhibited and only then will we have a free country. But while reading C.G.Somiah's book, I got a perspective of the other side that has to take the decision on whether to ban the book or not, when he narrated the banning of 'Satanic Verses' in India before it was even banned in Pakistan. To say that administrators are pandering to wishes of fundamentalists and pretentious religious sentiments would border on the blasphemous and be totally unfair to them. Artists, while trying to defend freedom of expression, do not realise that it is not their freedom that is being restricted by the government on behalf of narrow-minded sentiments nor are these sentiments attempting to attack this freedom. What happens is an attempt to defend a blind belief based on false and uninformed interpretation.
I would like to explain using an example. During the Anna Hazare strike in August 2011, there were several individuals who took part in processions and wore support badges for Anna Hazare. But very few of them had taken the effort to go through the Jan Lokpal Bill and the Bill introduced by the government in Parliament. These individuals were also mistaken in their understanding of the bill as they thought this would end everyday corruption that we as the common man experienced. They were also unaware of the severe deficiencies in the bill civil society had come up with. What this shows is that, individuals follow the herd, we accept popular opinion and this may or not be correct and this becomes the voice of the masses, which may or may not reasonable. (I do not attempt to tarnish the power and importance of mass opinion, but I am merely trying to show the dynamics of what happens and how)
Based on this understanding and acceptance, it becomes clear that the demands to ban books and other creative works do not stem always from a reasonable, informed and logical demand but a mass opinion. So the demand is not against artistic freedom but against hurt to their beliefs and we all know that in India and elsewhere in the world, religion is an emotional subject which can get out of control. In the interest of maintaining law and order and protecting society from such out of control interests, the government has had to act at times. Only administrators and government can take a whole view of the situation and come to a decision. Only a generalist can come to such a decision and that is why they are important to any administration as it deals with multitudes of divergent interests that can come into conflict with each other, which if not contained or settled at the earliest, can spread causing widespread chaos and uncertainty. The basic purpose of any administration is to maintain law and order in the country and it is merely fulfilling its duties while taking such decisions on sensitive issues.
Yet, I must add that such decisions must only be sparingly be used in situations like the one I mentioned. Frequently conceding to such demands would give the impression of a weak administration that has little authority over the country or state. It must be used only when situations can spread out of control over an area beyond the capacity of our law enforcement agencies. Politically twisting such situations for petty gains are also common, as we saw when Salman Rushdie had to withdraw from Jaipur Literary Festival as a death threat was purported to have been issued against him by some religious factions. This was merely done to avoid a law and order issue, which although could be interpreted as a smart way to avert a crisis. It was the threat of violence that prohibited the screening of the movie 'Dam 999' in Tamil Nadu, whereas the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case related to prohibition of the screening of the movie 'Oru Gramathinte Katha' had said that possibility of law and order issues is not a valid reason for such bans. Such ad hoc measures would not do, the government must assert its authority over such issues and should be able to control law and order issues and not be held hostage by threats of violence, law and order and politics.
This is a justification as well as an explanation for the need for generalist administrators in our country. Administrators are in a position to take a neutral view of issues only because of their generalist specialisation and this is absolutely important in a country as diverse geographically, culturally and linguistically as ours. But there definitely is a need to overcome politics, vulnerabilities in enforcing the rule of law and authority over mob mentality and all the facts on the ground must be considered while taking a balanced decision which is what the IAS is meant to do and has been doing (albeit with a few exceptions and individual misfits) in its history.
http://economictimes.
I have read about the disagreement artists, writers, social activists and intelligentsia have against banning of certain books and works of art. I have always thought artistic freedom should be absolutely uninhibited and only then will we have a free country. But while reading C.G.Somiah's book, I got a perspective of the other side that has to take the decision on whether to ban the book or not, when he narrated the banning of 'Satanic Verses' in India before it was even banned in Pakistan. To say that administrators are pandering to wishes of fundamentalists and pretentious religious sentiments would border on the blasphemous and be totally unfair to them. Artists, while trying to defend freedom of expression, do not realise that it is not their freedom that is being restricted by the government on behalf of narrow-minded sentiments nor are these sentiments attempting to attack this freedom. What happens is an attempt to defend a blind belief based on false and uninformed interpretation.
I would like to explain using an example. During the Anna Hazare strike in August 2011, there were several individuals who took part in processions and wore support badges for Anna Hazare. But very few of them had taken the effort to go through the Jan Lokpal Bill and the Bill introduced by the government in Parliament. These individuals were also mistaken in their understanding of the bill as they thought this would end everyday corruption that we as the common man experienced. They were also unaware of the severe deficiencies in the bill civil society had come up with. What this shows is that, individuals follow the herd, we accept popular opinion and this may or not be correct and this becomes the voice of the masses, which may or may not reasonable. (I do not attempt to tarnish the power and importance of mass opinion, but I am merely trying to show the dynamics of what happens and how)
Based on this understanding and acceptance, it becomes clear that the demands to ban books and other creative works do not stem always from a reasonable, informed and logical demand but a mass opinion. So the demand is not against artistic freedom but against hurt to their beliefs and we all know that in India and elsewhere in the world, religion is an emotional subject which can get out of control. In the interest of maintaining law and order and protecting society from such out of control interests, the government has had to act at times. Only administrators and government can take a whole view of the situation and come to a decision. Only a generalist can come to such a decision and that is why they are important to any administration as it deals with multitudes of divergent interests that can come into conflict with each other, which if not contained or settled at the earliest, can spread causing widespread chaos and uncertainty. The basic purpose of any administration is to maintain law and order in the country and it is merely fulfilling its duties while taking such decisions on sensitive issues.
Yet, I must add that such decisions must only be sparingly be used in situations like the one I mentioned. Frequently conceding to such demands would give the impression of a weak administration that has little authority over the country or state. It must be used only when situations can spread out of control over an area beyond the capacity of our law enforcement agencies. Politically twisting such situations for petty gains are also common, as we saw when Salman Rushdie had to withdraw from Jaipur Literary Festival as a death threat was purported to have been issued against him by some religious factions. This was merely done to avoid a law and order issue, which although could be interpreted as a smart way to avert a crisis. It was the threat of violence that prohibited the screening of the movie 'Dam 999' in Tamil Nadu, whereas the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case related to prohibition of the screening of the movie 'Oru Gramathinte Katha' had said that possibility of law and order issues is not a valid reason for such bans. Such ad hoc measures would not do, the government must assert its authority over such issues and should be able to control law and order issues and not be held hostage by threats of violence, law and order and politics.
This is a justification as well as an explanation for the need for generalist administrators in our country. Administrators are in a position to take a neutral view of issues only because of their generalist specialisation and this is absolutely important in a country as diverse geographically, culturally and linguistically as ours. But there definitely is a need to overcome politics, vulnerabilities in enforcing the rule of law and authority over mob mentality and all the facts on the ground must be considered while taking a balanced decision which is what the IAS is meant to do and has been doing (albeit with a few exceptions and individual misfits) in its history.
http://economictimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment