Modi’s lateral entry U-turn shows he’s not a rigid politician. He listens to opposing views

The silver lining is that the uproar over lateral entry scheme will lead to a refined policy. With social justice added, it may now be more acceptable.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Parliament house | Praveen Jain, ThePrint

Why did Prime Minister Narendra Modi backtrack on the issue of lateral entry into the civil services? After inviting applications for 45 positions, the government abruptly canceled the recruitment process. Was it due to pressure from the Opposition and NDA allies, or was it simply pragmatism, focusing on practical consequences and real-world applications of the scheme?

I would argue that recalibrating the decision to induct domain experts into the government, while aligning it with the constitutional principle of social justice, once again demonstrates Modi’s flexibility. He has never been a stiff politician. And now, with the support of the lowered castes, it will be easier for the central government to attract talent from all spheres.

This decision also has its ideological roots in the Savarkarite idea of Virat Hindutva. 

Uproar and redressal 

In a letter to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) chairperson Preeti Sudan, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Minister Jitendra Singh emphasised the Modi government’s commitment to social justice. Singh directed the UPSC to withdraw its advertisement for recruitment, stressing the importance of ensuring that candidates from marginalised communities receive their rightful representation in government services. He highlighted that the Prime Minister believes lateral entry must align with the principles of equity and social justice, particularly regarding reservation.

First, I want to clarify two points: I support lateral recruitment as it provides an opportunity to the governments to attract talent and expertise from various sectors. Second, I support social justice and believe that diversity is good for business, governance and the nation as a whole. 

Coming back to the topic, the government’s decision to backtrack the process is significant. Lateral entry is not a new concept, it dates back to the time when India gained Independence. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, for example, was a career academician picked by the UPA government to join the civil services. Eventually, he became the Finance Secretary of India in 1976. Other prominent lateral entrants in the civil services are Nandan Nilekani, Bimal Jalan, Sam Pitroda, and Montek Singh Ahluwalia among others. 

The puzzle is why there was no uproar then, and why there is so much noise now, especially given that earlier such recruitments occurred at the top level, unlike this time. Moreover, there were no reservations for these vacancies in the past.

I have two explanations for this. First, the Opposition, especially the Congress, is desperate and latching on every entry point, which is good for democracy. Second, there is now a larger, more educated, aware and organised middle class of SC, ST, and OBC individuals. It’s largely due to the proliferation of social media. We witnessed this during the 2018 Bharat Bandh against the dilution of the SC/ST Act by a Supreme Court order, which was later overturned by another bench of the top court.

But the silver lining is that this time the uproar has led to a fine-tuning of the lateral entry policy. With the incorporation of social justice, this idea may now become more acceptable.

Regarding Modi not sticking to his decision, some analysts and the Opposition suggest that the government’s “poor” performance in recent elections has caused these flip-flops, but this argument doesn’t hold water. Even when Modi was ruling the nation with a strong majority, he listened to protests and contrarian views, refraining from forcing his decisions.

The first such instance was the Centre not pursuing the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2014. The Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Parliament, with almost the entire Opposition on board. Most state assemblies endorsed it. However, when a five-judge bench struck it down citing the amorphous idea of the Basic Structure Doctrine, Modi never pushed it again. With the majority he had at the time, he could have done so.

Similarly, in the case of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill 2015, when some Opposition parties opposed it. Even though they were in no position to stop the Bill, the government decided to send it to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, where it remained pending. It was an important piece of legislation that could have made land acquisition easier for industries, facilitating development and industrialisation. Yet, amid protests and political pressure, Modi listened.

A similar situation arose with the Indian agriculture acts of 2020, or Farm Bills. When farmers protested against the bills on the periphery of Delhi, the government listened.

Virat Hindutva 

The Prime Minister’s style of functioning, even when he had more than a full majority, can be illustrated by eight constitutional amendments that occurred during NDA 1 and 2:

1. The 2014 amendment to restore the original Constitution’s role in judges’ appointments.
2. The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017, which streamlined India’s indirect tax system.

1. Granting constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) in 2017.

1. The introduction of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation in 2019.

1. The 2019 amendment revising provisions related to the Finance Commission and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

1.  The extension of SC/ST reservation in the Lok Sabha and assemblies for 10 more years, passed in 2019.

1.  Empowering states and Union territories to change their own OBC lists in 2021.

1. The introduction of women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and assemblies in 2023.

All these amendments were passed with the support of the Congress, which was not required in most of the cases.

Here’s the most crucial part. The government had three options when the lateral entry controversy surfaced. It could have either pushed the decision with full force and sought allies among the Opposition—which is not particularly difficult—canceled the UPSC advertisement, or implemented the same scheme by incorporating the idea of social justice. 

The Modi government chose the third option, which originates from the Savarkarite idea of Virat (all-encompassing) Hindutva, which is the RSS’ core ideology. This approach is neither anti-scripture nor anti-caste; rather, it embodies Samarasata, or harmony with scripture-ordained structures. As VD Savarkar wrote in his book Hindutva:

“We feel that the same ancient blood that coursed through the veins of Ram and Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir, Nanak and Chaitanya, Basava and Madhava, of Rohidas and Tiruvalluvar, courses throughout Hindudom from vein to vein, pulsates from heart to heart. We feel we are a JATI, a race bound together by the dearest ties of blood and therefore it must be so… Thirty crores of people, with India for their basis of operation, for their Fatherland and for their Holyland, with such a history behind them, bound together by ties of a common blood and common culture, can dictate their terms to the whole world. A day will come when mankind will have to face the force.”

This idea of taking so many ideas and people along likely inspires Modi to be inclusive and uphold social justice.

Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.

(Edited by Ratan Priya)