scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeOpinionWhat is Ayush Sinha's crime? The blame in Karnal goes deeper

What is Ayush Sinha’s crime? The blame in Karnal goes deeper

More than his words, what's most offensive is his body language. It reflects a deep nexus between political leaders and their favourite bureaucrats.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Poor little Ayush ‘sar phod’ Sinha! What is his crime? He was a little over-enthusiastic in doing what most officers in his position do every day. He did something himself that more discrete officers would have got some junior to do. He blurted out, in so many words, what other smart officers would have said through hints or a wink. Worst of all, he allowed himself to be filmed in doing so, while others would have got rid of the cameraperson first or smashed the camera there and then. He was plain unlucky that he got caught in the act and that its images went viral while most others would have gone scot-free.

Hypocrisy defines our national indignation on this issue. No doubt, what he did was unpardonable. It is necessary to award him an exemplary punishment. But is that sufficient? I fear not. I suspect that righteous condemnation of his video has become an elaborate exercise in absolving the entire system of its guilt. Blaming this young officer is an easy option to wish away what connects his conduct to his superiors. The focus on this scandal is a perfect way to forget that this is not an aberration. Just as the whole world is using the barbarity of the Taliban to award itself certificates of humanity, we are using Ayush ‘sar phod’ Sinha to perpetuate the myth that civil service has anything to do with civility or service.


Multiple violations

Let us not forget that the young officer was not the only or even the prime offender in the multiple violations of the rule of law that took place in Karnal last Saturday. His infamous ‘sar phodo’ order was of course illegal, both in procedure and substance. The duty magistrate is not supposed to issue direct orders to the police. And a competent police officer can order lathi-charge, not the breaking of skulls. He was, of course, stupid in announcing the order the way he did. But did the orders come from him? Could a young officer posted in Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar’s own constituency issue such an order without the CM’s confidence?

Consider other events that led to this. According to the first-hand accounts of people in my organisation, the government had refused to give farmers any sites to register their protest. The evening before, farmers had accepted the local police proposal to wave black flags up to Ghantaghar Chowk, at a safe distance from the CM’s meeting. But on Saturday morning, the police went back on their word and barricaded the entire city, leading to the avoidable confrontation. Could this have happened in the Chief Minister’s city without a go-ahead from his office?

Or consider the unprovoked and brutal lathi-charge at Bastara Toll Plaza near Gharonda. The police attacked protesting farmers thrice, defied all the protocols of lathi-charge, and allegedly damaged the vehicles belonging to protesters as videos shared on social media show. In its defence, the administration pointed out that the lathi-charge incident took place 15 km away from the place where Sinha’s video was shot. They perhaps don’t realise that this fact is even more damning for them. If the police at the toll plaza did exactly what a duty magistrate far from them was caught ordering, it would lead to only one conclusion: the ‘sar phodo’ orders were issued everywhere. The problem did not lie with the orders of the duty magistrate but with the one who was ordering them.

If there was any need for proof, the CM’s reaction, or rather non-reaction, nails the complicity of his government. CM Khattar said that the officer’s “choice of words” was “inappropriate” but the “strictness” was justified. He did not specify what would have been an appropriate way of saying the same thing. Perhaps it would have sounded something like this — “May I request you to kindly greet the venerable farmers by caressing their forehead with your stick?” The real scandal is not that the sub-divisional magistrate said what he did but what the CM said about it. The CM’s refusal to carry out even the most routine administrative action — suspension and inquiry — reveals something deeper. The presumption is that the CM cannot punish the SDM because it’s his orders.


Also Read: Voters’ whip, not party whip. Farmers are birthing new experiments in democracy


A reflection of the system

The more we go into the conduct of the young officer, the more it reflects on the system that shapes such conduct. What allows a magistrate to contemplate such a violation of basic administrative procedures? This question invites you to wonder if anyone cares about procedural propriety anymore. If the Chief Justice of India can set up a bench to examine allegations of sexual misconduct against himself, sit on the same bench, and pontificate to the nation, then blaming a young IAS officer for procedural impropriety looks like a joke. How do we inculcate a culture of procedural ethics in our institutions?

More than his words, what is most offensive, almost obscene, is the body language of the SDM. His swagger, as he turns back after delivering the filmi dialogues, defines the hubris of power. It reminded me of what I heard from an ex-IAS officer: “when we are in the district, we are like lords of the place”. You don’t have to go to Haryana to look for these specimens drunk with power. The city of Delhi is full of such civil servants — serving and retired. Such hubris reflects a deep nexus between political leaders and their favourite bureaucrats. These blue-eyed boys can do no wrong, they can get away with murder, literally. Very often some of these bureaucrats make a smooth switch to politics. Can we do something to break this nexus of absolute power and introduce greater professionalism in civil services?

There is a need to do something about the semi-feudal, semi-colonial institution of the ‘collector’ itself. Now known as District Collector or district magistrate in most parts of the country, this institution involves a young (or senior “promotee”) IAS officer managing an entire district. There is something odd about an inexperienced twenty-something taking decisions that affect the lives of some one million people that reside within a district. Sometimes these young collectors can be very dynamic, creative, and sensitive. So can feudal lords or kings. But this institution is inherently undemocratic. There is a case for abolishing the post of a collector and replacing it with an elected and fully-empowered district government. Today’s collector could serve as chief secretary to that government

Are there any takers for such reforms? Or shall we blame it all on Ayush Sinha?

Yogendra Yadav is a political activist with Swaraj India. He tweets @_YogendraYadav. Views are personal.

(Edited by Srinjoy Dey)

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular