The Ministry of Human Resource Development has instructed Ved Prakash, chairman of the University Grants Commission, to toe the ministry’s line on all policy matters. If he has another view, he must take prior permission from the ministry before airing it. The written instructions are being read as a reprimand. The chairman of the autonomous UGC, it seems, had the temerity to speak his mind on May 26 when invited to do so by the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Human Resource Development.
In a letter to Prakash, the higher education secretary asserted that there was a “set convention” to meetings with the standing committee. The set convention appears to be that "government's position including policy is articulated in unison and no discordant note is voiced". The Secretary says in his letter: "Any departure from the confirmed policy position of the government, if it is to be articulated, must be done with prior permission of the secretary." We can assume that such permission would not usually be granted.
Telling the chairman of an autonomous body what he can say to parliament would be considered extraordinary overreach by a civil servant, but for the fact that there is nothing out of the ordinary in this where the Indian civil service is concerned. A civil servant mindful of possible public scrutiny would not have written the letter (which is physical evidence of direct interference) and merely given the chairman a tongue-lashing. But no civil servant will accept that the UGC chairman is entitled to an autonomous opinion especially when responding to a parliamentary committee. Civil servants are not so concerned with the system of checks and balances created to make government answerable to parliament as they are with maintaining their control, as they see it, over the system.
In the satirical BBC TV series Yes Minister, where art seems to imitate life rather too closely, Sir Humphrey Appleby the Permanent Secretary gives us only a slightly exaggerated rendition of how its done.
Parliamentary Standing Committees relating to government departments were created in the 1990s. They have members from government and opposition benches. Essentially, the standing committee monitors the ministry (ministers and bureaucrats) to ensure that it works to implement the programme mandated by the legislature in the spirit in which it was intended. So, if Parliament has mandated budgetary expenditure for state universities to achieve a specific goal, it becomes the Standing Committee for Human Resource Development’s business to see that the money allocated for this purpose is spent in a manner that will help achieve that goal.
In reality, government does its best to evade parliamentary scrutiny. From ministers’ answers to parliamentary questions to responses to parliamentary committees, the goal is to give away as little as possible. The civil service, which by its nature is loath to share information or be held to account, is its able assistant. Sleight of hand and obfuscation are cultivated art forms in the civil service. These are elements of the set conventions they live by.
An exchange between Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey and his new boss, the just elected minister Jim Hacker, whom he had previously encountered as an opposition MP on a parliamentary Committee, is a near-perfect example of what the civil servant desires to achieve.
The UGC chairman’s view that the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan, a higher education programme, was undermining the work of his organisation and that it was turning state governments into “middlemen” is just the sort of thing that the standing committee might need to hear. However, the civil servants in the ministry, tasked with creating the mechanisms to implement government policy, were clearly not thrilled that the efficacy of their work was being questioned. Perhaps even more than this, they were incensed that the “set conventions” it had created to protect themselves were being challenged.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
In a letter to Prakash, the higher education secretary asserted that there was a “set convention” to meetings with the standing committee. The set convention appears to be that "government's position including policy is articulated in unison and no discordant note is voiced". The Secretary says in his letter: "Any departure from the confirmed policy position of the government, if it is to be articulated, must be done with prior permission of the secretary." We can assume that such permission would not usually be granted.
Telling the chairman of an autonomous body what he can say to parliament would be considered extraordinary overreach by a civil servant, but for the fact that there is nothing out of the ordinary in this where the Indian civil service is concerned. A civil servant mindful of possible public scrutiny would not have written the letter (which is physical evidence of direct interference) and merely given the chairman a tongue-lashing. But no civil servant will accept that the UGC chairman is entitled to an autonomous opinion especially when responding to a parliamentary committee. Civil servants are not so concerned with the system of checks and balances created to make government answerable to parliament as they are with maintaining their control, as they see it, over the system.
In the satirical BBC TV series Yes Minister, where art seems to imitate life rather too closely, Sir Humphrey Appleby the Permanent Secretary gives us only a slightly exaggerated rendition of how its done.
Parliamentary Standing Committees relating to government departments were created in the 1990s. They have members from government and opposition benches. Essentially, the standing committee monitors the ministry (ministers and bureaucrats) to ensure that it works to implement the programme mandated by the legislature in the spirit in which it was intended. So, if Parliament has mandated budgetary expenditure for state universities to achieve a specific goal, it becomes the Standing Committee for Human Resource Development’s business to see that the money allocated for this purpose is spent in a manner that will help achieve that goal.
In reality, government does its best to evade parliamentary scrutiny. From ministers’ answers to parliamentary questions to responses to parliamentary committees, the goal is to give away as little as possible. The civil service, which by its nature is loath to share information or be held to account, is its able assistant. Sleight of hand and obfuscation are cultivated art forms in the civil service. These are elements of the set conventions they live by.
An exchange between Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey and his new boss, the just elected minister Jim Hacker, whom he had previously encountered as an opposition MP on a parliamentary Committee, is a near-perfect example of what the civil servant desires to achieve.
Sir Humphrey (referring to their previous encounter): “You came up with all the questions I hoped nobody would ask."
Hacker: “Opposition is about asking awkward questions."
Sir Humphrey: “And government is about not answering them.”
Hacker: “Well …you answered all my questions anyway.”
Sir Humphrey (droll as always): “I am glad you thought so, minister.”
The UGC chairman’s view that the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan, a higher education programme, was undermining the work of his organisation and that it was turning state governments into “middlemen” is just the sort of thing that the standing committee might need to hear. However, the civil servants in the ministry, tasked with creating the mechanisms to implement government policy, were clearly not thrilled that the efficacy of their work was being questioned. Perhaps even more than this, they were incensed that the “set conventions” it had created to protect themselves were being challenged.
