Implications of the M.S. Gill precedent statecraft09 Apr 2008 Share on:
Read an article with the same title on Hindu by Harish Khare. Here is my opinion on the issue.
Should the top bureacrats/cops/jugdes allowed to hold post of political significance? I understand that favourism is an issue but at the same time i feel that no one should be refrained from entering politics. Politics ideally is an institution where if you really want you can make difference and people who are knowledgeable and have guts to make differences should not be refrained. As one of my friend, Shailendra, argued that we need leaders and not experts, I would just say that how will you get leaders when you wont allow people who want to lead. Yes, most of the leaders who come the way many constitutional office bearers have reched the galleries of Parliament are not true leaders but are imposed as leaders as suggested by Shailendra, like Manmohan Singh. I think going somewhere else. Will share my discussion with Shailendra regarding this issue and others during a chat sometime. But I think I should return to the issue that I started with.
I understand that a bearer of a constitutional office might show favouritism if he is shown a path leading to a post-retirment benefits. However, I still maintain stopping these people from entering politics won't be correct. Surely there are other ways to contribute towards and enriching people or public life but politics is a better way to do so. At one point we talk that more learned people should enter politics and at the same time refrain the bureaucrats and heads of constitutional offices from entering politics. This won't be a right step for the democracy.
There is a deadlock here. I started to find a solution but it seems I am heading nowhere. It is important that people should show neutrality while holding an office and work with self-constraint. But the question of whether they should enter politics or not should be their personal choice. When actors can enter politics why not bureaucrats and constitutuinal office bearers. I know the comparison here is not correct. Most of the actors and most of the young generation politicians don't know and understand the dilemma and difficulties of grass-root. I know neither many bureucrat do understand. Atleast they have worked for the people and know how the system works. I don't say that they should be nominated to Rajya Sabha on recommendation of some party, but let them contest the Lok Sabha elections and that too as an independent candidate. If they have done some good for the people and have lead the people well they should win the election and represent the masses and not the Party as in Rajya Sabha.