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.
Inappropriate for MLAs seeking free IPL tickets, says D.K. Suresh
Bengaluru: Bengaluru Milk Union Ltd President D.K. Suresh on Monday said it is inappropriate for MLAs to seek free IPL tickets, adding that those interested in watching matches should pay for them personally.
Speaking to reporters near his residence in Sadashivanagar, he said, “IPL is a commercial tournament and does not represent the country. It is not right for public representatives to focus too much on such matters.”
Referring to the recent controversy during the RCB celebrations, he said, “let us find out who benefited the most from the statements made during the incident.” He also pointed out that BJP MLAs had received IPL tickets as well.
Responding to discussions about relocating the Chinnaswamy Stadium, Suresh said the government has already approved the construction of a new stadium at a location he had proposed.
“I had suggested building a stadium in Surya City and submitted a proposal for it. Bengaluru needs four stadiums in four directions to cater to its growing population and encourage youth participation in sports,” he said.
He noted that apart from Kanteerava Stadium, KSCA, and the Football Stadium, there are limited facilities in the city.
“When I was a Lok Sabha member, I had proposed allocating 100 acres in my constituency at Surya City. The land was later earmarked and the plan approved,” he added.
Suresh said he has discussed the project with Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan, Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Chairman Shivalingegowda, and Anekal MLA Shivanna.
“The Cabinet has now approved the project, and a stadium will be developed on around 50–60 acres,” he said.
He further added that he has requested the Deputy Chief Minister to build another stadium at Shivarama Karanth Layout through the BDA, where 40 acres have been allocated. Plans are also being discussed to develop a well-equipped stadium in Bidadi.
Commending state government's recent bilingual policy move, Suresh said forcing children to learn three languages could affect their comprehension.
“It is a good decision to make two languages compulsory. Learning a third language should be left to the choice of students and parents,” he said.
Responding to criticism from BJP leaders, he said their tendency is to oppose every decision of the government.
“To please their central leadership, they take a pro-Hindi stance. Instead, they should advocate for the adoption of Kannada in all states,” he said.
When asked about the earlier three-language policy under Congress, he said, “the situation is different now. Today, the focus should be on quality learning. Kannada should remain the primary language, while students and parents can choose an additional language.”
