Speaker / Gateway

Professionals are encouraged to provide their services free of charge, business and private enterprise are looked down upon, and the profit motive is criticised as evil. Such is the practice of socialism in India for over 40 years, bringing things to a pass where mediocrity rules over everything. Whenever the question of pension or higher salary to legislators, parliamentarians or government servants comes up, the media pounces on them and demands to know why they need higher salaries. Mr. Justice Mohit Shah, who was speaking at the last meeting on “The business world and the bureaucracy,” said “This attitude has cost us a lot. We must realise that simplicity is good when it is voluntary, but if you impose it on people, it does not help the society… We should be a little more pragmatic and allow public servants and MLAs to get more salaries; it is better that they get it honestly.

As a society, we need to change our mindset.” The socialist philosophy has brought about the present situation; yet, even though “socialism as a method may be defective, socialism as a goal is very important – to have compassion for others, to see that those who really need it get (part of) the resources of the society.” Mr. Justice Shah, who was introduced by Sherebanu Baldiwala, advocated a rational approach towards the bureaucracy. He would focus on facets such as rigidity, inflexibility and insensitivity, in short, its wooden-headed approach. Earlier, a businessman wanting to launch a building project had to apply for 70 permissions. It was only with the advent of the new government last year that the number had come down to 30. But it was no small feat to procure 30 permissions, sometimes from different departments under the same municipal corporation.

A person wanting to put up a hoarding at Marine Drive could win the tender and get the licence. But even after paying the licence fee he could not erect the hoarding because he needed environmental clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) which took two years to process the application. But for those two years the businessman had to pay the licence fees to the municipal corporation even without putting up the hoarding! When this case came before court, the bench told the MCZMA counsel that there had to be ease of doing business not just for foreign investors for the small man also. The court learnt that the MCZMA had to certify whether a site was within a distance of 100 metres or 500 metres from the coastline.

The court was surprised and asked why it did not prepare a map and give it to the municipal corporation for it to find a site’s distance from the coastline. The MCZMA agreed to the suggestion. Mr. Justice Shah next took up the attitude of factory inspectors who are supposed to see that the provisions of the Factories Act are implemented. One of these provisions is that the workers must get safety devices because they are exposed to many hazards. A factory owner revealed in court that he had shown the inspector the boots and masks required for workers’ safety. This was a statutory requirement. But he had kept them locked in a cupboard because the workers found them cumbersome and uncomfortable to use. He quoted the case of athletes from villages who preferred to run barefoot rather than wear shoes. The court had to tell both the parties that it would help if the owner gave two months to new workers to get accustomed to safety devices and paid them their regular salary even when their productivity was low.

As for the inspector, his job was to ensure that the provisions of the Factories Act were implemented in letter and spirit. Unfortunately, he did not implement them because he thought that his job was just to go and sign some registers. “I’m on the question of whether the bureaucrats are alive to their responsibilities, that whenever there are statutory duties for welfare of the workers or for the safety of passengers, do they really implement them?” The lawyer for the factory owner went on to become a judge. He revealed that when another factory inspector went to Tata Motors in Pune, he declared that its washroom did not comply with the rules. The rules stated that in washrooms there had to be tiles up to four feet from the floor. In the case of Tata Motors, the entire wall was covered with tiles! Another case of nonapplication of mind by bureaucrats involved Mr. Shashank Manohar, President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

During his earlier tenure (2008 to 2011), he and ten others were served showcause notices by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for opening bank accounts abroad and remitting Rs. 1,300 crores without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Manohar contended that the ED had proceeded with the hearings without considering his reply, without dealing with his case on merits and that he had no role to play in the opening or closing of bank accounts or getting RBI permission. Mr. Justice Shah said his court agreed that the (ED) “Director has failed in applying his mind to the reply given by Mr. Manohar.” Later, when the Director considered his defence on merit, he found that Mr. Manohar had no role to play in the opening of the bank Remove the Damocles’ Sword from over the bureaucrats’ heads, urges Mr. Justice Mohit Shah accounts or taking RBI permission. However, all bureaucrats were not the same. In every organisation there were two sets of people, one rigid and the other reasonable. Why had this state of affairs come about?

The Britishers, after ruling for about 200 years, had left five legacies – the Indian Civil Service, the Indian judiciary, the railways, the army and the postal department. The postal department had become obsolete because of technological advances. But what had happened to the civil service? After Independence, when Sardar Patel was the Home Minister, he had an ICS secretary. On one matter the secretary and the minister did not see eye-to-eye. Finally, when the secretary reiterated his view, Sardar Patel said, “I respect your view and will go by your view.” How many secretaries in government today can take such a stand and how many ministers will respect the view of the secretary who does not agree with him? One of the major reasons for this state of affairs is the rigid Wishing you a long, active life. President Dr. Sonya Mehta greets birthday boy Kirit Kamdar hierarchical system.

Even in this day and age, with communications at one’s fingertips, hierarchy reigns supreme and the very idea of judges speaking to subordinate officers on phone is considered anathema. Bureaucrats are also afraid of allegations made by auditors and the media. Transparency in governance is essential, but it does not mean that the bureaucracy has to be kept under a Damocles’ Sword. It is time to strike a balance between transparency and the need to trust the officers. Thirdly, the bureaucratic system does not encourage innovations or experiments. If someone does nothing, nobody criticises him for inaction. But if someone does attempt something new and fails, people criticise him and the system makes all kinds of allegations.

“This kind of attitude only encourages mediocrity. It stops people from innovating. It’s time that we change our mindset and see to it that bureaucrats are also allowed to innovate,” Mr. Justice Shah concluded.