|
|
|
|
|
Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 9, 2006
The revelation that trusts directly or indirectly controlled by Election Commissioner Navin Chawla solicited and accepted contributions from Congress MPs' local area development funds is extremely distressing. While it is true that the contributions were made while Mr Chawla was a serving officer of the Government of India and before his appointment as an Election Commissioner, this does not necessarily negate the Opposition's allegation that the Election Commission cannot afford to have on board a person with pronounced political bias or loyalties.
There is also the other issue of Mr Chawla's role, as a junior but remarkably enthusiastic civil servant, during Indira Gandhi's Emergency. The Shah Commission of Inquiry, in its report, highlighted how Mr Chawla (along with other 'committed' bureaucrats) "exercised enormous powers during the Emergency" because of his "easy access to the then Prime Minister's house". The Commission was scathing in its denunciation, stressing how Mr Chawla could not distinguish between "(the) moral or immoral, (the) legal or illegal".
Finding officers like Mr Chawla "unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others," the Commission said he and his ilk had "grossly misused their position and abused their powers". Such a severe indictment that provided a measure of Mr Chawla's inadequacy as a civil servant should have resulted in ignominious exit from service or, in the least, been an insurmountable hurdle in securing promotions.
In the event, nothing happened. And, it was not the Congress alone that facilitated Mr Chawla's career growth. The BJP, which is in the forefront of demanding Mr Chawla's resignation from the Election Commission after this week's damning exposé, needs to be reminded that not only was he brought back from Pondicherry and rehabilitated in Delhi's corridors of power by the NDA regime, he was promoted to the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. If "open and established proximity to a major political party" disqualifies Mr Chawla as an Election
Commissioner, as the BJP claims now, then being "unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others" definitely disqualified him from being promoted as a Secretary. Officers with greater integrity and ability have been denied promotion, while those with a questionable track record have been rewarded with post-retirement assignments.
The BJP is no stranger to this perversion that exists in our system and, to that extent, is as guilty as any other party, including the Congress, of failing to bring about correctives. If due diligence was not exercised by the Congress-led UPA Government while appointing Mr Chawla as an Election Commissioner, then due diligence was equally absent in the BJP-led NDA Government's decision to promote him. No less disquieting is the fact that it was the NDA Government which allowed Mr Chawla, by providing him with a unique exemption from service rules, to solicit and accept funds from politicians for trusts with which he and/or his family are involved.
By doing so, the NDA Government paved the way for bureaucrats to follow in the footsteps of Mr Chawla. Given the facts as they have emerged, Mr Chawla would do well to reconsider continuing with his current assignment as Election Commissioner. But unless checks and balances are introduced to curb the political proclivities of bureaucrats and serving officers are punished for cultivating links with politicians, Mr Chawla's exit from the Election Commission - as demanded by the BJP - or otherwise will make no difference.
 |
|
|
