Lateral entry into high profile jobs inappropriate
Hell bent upon saffronising every aspect of the public life and government machinery, the Narendra Modi headed NDA government has decided to open up lateral entry to various high profile posts in various fields such as Agriculture, economic sector and infrastructure among the others.
This has opened doors of opportunity to 10 posts of joint secretaries, to experts working in private sector. This has given rise to a lot of mixed reactions in political and social spaces. While some feel this is a good move, the others are not very comfortable with this idea.
The government has called applications for these posts through advertisements in staff and training advertisement manuals of central government on June 10. Experts over 40 years of age, with 15 years of work experience in private sector or MNCs can apply for the job of joint secretary.
The corporate sector has welcome this move with great enthusiasm stating this is one way of changing the dynamics of work ethics within government offices. This move of lateral entry is not a new one. The first administrative reforms committee had, in fact, recommended this way back in 1965. However, this was not implemented. Recruitments of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Vijay Kelkar, Arvind Subramanya among others were made under extraordinary and rare circumstances.
Defence for this kind of appointment is that this would help improve the style of administration in government offices, and that of government itself. This step has been taken owing to the fact that work is not progressing adequately enough by the current workforce to match pace with liberalization and the changes it has brought.
This decision of lateral entry has given rise to another controversy for Modi government especially at the time when the government is facing rumours of increasing saffronisation, and high interference by Sangh Parivar. The opposition parties have spared no time in criticizing this, without making a sound argument against it. There is no proper reasoning to this criticism and hence the central government is bound to ignore this. And this is a concerning factor. Hence, general public are not too convinced about the negativity of this measure.
The government has explained its case well, even if a bit far from the truth that there is no efficient workforce at the execution level of the government machinery. Hence professionalism needs to be brought in through various players from private sector who come with great work ethics. That does not necessarily mean all those who worked in private sector have shown exemplary commitment to work. Though the reason is not far from the truth, it is not entirely true either.
All those who showed great efficiency in their private sector role does not mean they will bring the same value when they enter the government set up. They may not even have same level of responsibility and security as those who have been appointed by the formal mode. However, one cannot ignore the undisclosed underlying plan in this step, that’s not evident right now.
These appointments may be as good as the negative effects of hasty and unplanned execution of demonetization and GST. It will not be a huge surprise if the government made these appointments to cover up its lacunae and resort to these gimmicks for the time being. Lateral entry recruitments are not a joke. They impact the lives of all 130 crore Indians.
Though we cannot be sure of all the administrative officers being totally pro-people through their works, they are a lot better than the experts from private sector who have no experience in public facing jobs. There is no guarantee about their work commitment either.
But having people occupy vantage positions in the government would mean the secrets of this government remain within the corridors of power. Except for science and technology, other government departments have been using the expertise of IAS or equivalent officers from centre and states. Though their power-asserting conduct has not been exactly desirable, their expertise has often helped people. They have been elevated on the basis of their work experience and they have contributed significantly to the administrative machinery during their tenure.
But, who will the private sector experts who enter the government machinery through lateral entry mechanism will have to pledge their loyalty to? Would they be loyal to the party that appoints them or to the company that gave them the expertise and growth during their stay in corridors of power? Among the appointments made by the Modi government to research institutions, higher education institutions and universities, the most common factor has been that all those people had shown unflinching dedication to their Sangh background. That was the sole qualifying factor too.
One need not be surprised about the same parameter in place to appoint people to high posts. Modi government is known for its capitalist favouring stances. It is rather obvious that those people who would be appointed to high offices will stay loyal to their bosses – Ambani, Adani among the ‘close ones’. All the decisions such officers make will be in the interest of capitalists and not the urban or poor or any other deserving category. The damage that would be meted out when people favoured by Advani/Adani etc sit in high offices. Ever since it came into power, the Modi government has made no bones about the preferences. This apart economic liberty has been long compromised with safeguarding corporate interests.
Every decision taken by this union government is aimed at protecting the interest if corporate companies. The same agenda may work in this condition too. Most of the experts appointed into high offices by Modi government would naturally nurse soft corner about the ruling party. Almost all of them will come from upper class/caste and will also share Sangh Parivar background. One needs to think about the impact of having such people occupy high offices. People and organisations with social concern need to oppose such lateral appointments.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
