By Soma Banerjee & Avinash Celestine
GK Pillai , home secretary, and Sudha Pillai, member-secretary of the Planning Commission , could well be bureaucracy's No. 1 power couple. They had a candid chat with Sunday ET on their work and their life together. Excerpts:
On the agitation led by Anna Hazare and the joint committee
Sudha: I would refer to the Hindi muhavra: Jiska kaam usiko saajhe...
GK: I agree with the objectives. But I do have concerns on his inflexibility-take it or leave it.
That is not democratic. We have to consider all points of view and see to the practical side too.
On how bureaucrats should conduct their lives
GK : Individuals have to choose the life they want. A bureaucrat with a government scale salary can only do so much.
You can't get into a five-star lifestyle and if you do, in a way, it is a compromise. We took some hard decisions when we entered this field. For example, I don't own a single share of any company. Several bureaucrats have invested in stocks.
I am not saying it's right or wrong. I made a choice not to buy stocks because they could interfere with my decisions. I worked with departments like commerce and shipping and was taking decisions that affected companies in these industries. What if Reliance sent a proposal and I owned shares of the company?
I would be aware of the impact of my decisions on the company and its stock price. There would be a conflict of interest. So Sudha and I try to be as neutral as possible.
On whether bureaucrats should speak their minds
Sudha: I haven't suffered for being outspoken. In fact, the people I worked for encouraged me to speak my mind. For instance, in the late '80s I was with the industry ministry where major economic decisions were being taken. Mistakes could lead to huge problems so we had to point them out. If we had a gut feeling there was something amiss, we would probe a little more and find the missing piece of the puzzle. If I didn't speak up then, my intellectual honesty would be compromised. It is the job of the bureaucrat to work harder to ensure maximum information is available and that due diligence is done.
If you have taken a decision in good faith, then it is your background and reputation that protect you. Say, it is known you are not fond of the good life. Automatically, there is some protection.
In this system, you have to be lucky not to encounter too many such situations. But if you do, it is best to speak your mind. Not pointing out something you know can backfire later. A public servant's life should be open. You cannot have skeletons in the cupboard.
On whether PJ Thomas should have been appointed as CVC at all
GK: Almost everybody in the bureaucracy agrees that the choice was bad. I believe the CVC must be appointed unanimously by the prime minister, home minister and the leader of the opposition, not by a simple majority.
This bolsters the CVC's credibility. He can claim to be chosen by all and is not a Congress or Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP )) candidate. Then every decision will be above board and no one can say he is partisan. There are several officers who could have been a unanimous choice. As for Thomas, he should have quit the moment the scandal broke.
On Sudha Pillai not being made cabinet secretary
GK: I can't think of any reason for ignoring her. Sudha was the senior-most officer next in line so her appointment did not require a special favour. It is the government's loss.
Sudha: I don't know what worked against me. Maybe it was because I don't have an identity-Malayali, Punjabi and the like. I honestly didn't care enough to find out. I have never been a controversial officer. I have been very measured: working within the system, not making waves. I do not know and it is not for me to think. It's the prerogative of the decision-makers.
On gender bias and bureaucracy
Sudha: When I was appointed as principal secretary finance, government of Kerala and then labour secretary, everybody said I was the first woman to occupy those positions. Today they say I am the first woman member secretary of the Planning Commission. I don't take these remarks seriously. My happiest stint was in the labour ministry. We took a lot of gutsy decisions because the minister trusted us absolutely.
On whether they have different views on Naxalism, given their different jobs
GK: No. There is a need for development but it requires a secure environment. In the absence of security, officers won't go to the places they are posted to and roads, schools and panchayat buildings won't be built. Security and development must go hand in hand. It is taking time because we are acutely undermanned. The biggest mistake after 1991 was to follow the Geeta Krishnan report which advised downsizing the government. Half the districts in the country don't have collectors. For every three people who retire, we replace one. It's the same with school teachers.
Sudha: Development and security are two sides of the same coin. They are tied together. The big problem is the money required in getting systems in place. Almost `25,000 crore is needed for just meeting basic infrastructure requirement in 60 integrated action plan districts in the country. Reviews have to be done. Almost like what I did as a collector-reviewing how the government funds are allocated, where it is used, in building schools, drinking water facilities, etc.
The toughest jobs of their career
GK: My posting in the North-east. I did not know much about their culture. I read 65 books just on Nagaland, and I was told there are 83 books on the state.
Once there, I realised how important it is to understand the tribal psyche. For instance, every answer for them is a yes or a no, there are no blurred lines. You have to be very careful about what you say. If you say 'we will think about it', they will interpret it as a yes. Later, if you say it cannot be done, they will assume you have not kept your word.
Similarly, their tribal council is either for or against something-there is no in between. The tribals are honest and they listen attentively. If you interrupt them, they assume you are not listening. He would have prepared for that speech and if you interrupt you have lost them. And they respect you for your decision, even if the answer is a 'no'.
Sudha: I am like that so I must be a tribal. Jokes apart, I had quite a few difficult assignments. But most exacting was the eight months I worked with Chief Justice Pathak, the inquiry authority on the Volcker report on the food for oil issue and Natwar Singh's role in it.
I was unprepared for the assignment-it was not what I typically do. The miracle is that we finished the probe in eight months. It could have dragged on for eight years. Just doing what had to be done was a great learning experience.
0 comments:
Post a Comment