If India’s Babus does a good job, it’s dressing up flexibility as a policy. Example: The latest extensions of Sonia Narang and Abhishek Goyal, both senior IPS officers representing the Enforcement Bureau (ED). Their tenure has been extended in terms of “relaxation” of IPS term policy. Now, here’s what Babu said: “Yes, we made the rules. No, we are not always bound by them.”
Take Ms. Narang as an example. In early April, she was freed from her ED position and had no explanation for returning to Karnataka cadre. In this way, she returned to Delhi with a year of extension. Whipping, is anyone? During her ED she handled a whole high-profile case of letter soup – PFI, IFFCO, Vivo, Maoist, and even the growing Khan Market Cash Trail. Some people think she is too valuable to let go. But observers wonder why the earlier exit?
Mr. Goyal’s extension is also explained. He is also awarded a one-year bonus, currently leading HIU and handling the northern region (including the recently held Maharashtra election). Maybe helps to be where political action lies.
Don’t forget: Special Director’s position is the second highest ranking in the ED hierarchy. Nine of them. This is a lot of “special” and does not have much clarity.
So here, when power and convenience collide, we are watching the rules bend, twist and politely look. The ACC may call it relaxation. For many others, this is a masterclass in bureaucratic yoga.
When Babus Bicker: Kerala’s “Civil War” becomes public, Babudom, which seems to be experiencing its own reality show version, which includes public places, social media dramas and allegations, faster than the monsoon wind.
At the center of the storm is IAS official N. Prasanth, who affectionately calls the “collector brother” because of his social media shrewdness. Mr. Prasanth is currently suspended, accusing senior bureaucrats A. Jayathilak and K. Gopalakrishnan of corruption and conspiracy, and even dragging Malayalam into competition every day. He claimed his moratorium was in retaliation for reports of aggression of corruption and abuse of posts – serious allegations cannot be simply dismissed.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gopalakrishnan was suspended for allegedly creating a religion-based WhatsApp organization and was deemed to be a violation of service rules. Mr Prasant’s own suspension was a public criticism of Jayathilak on social media, which the government called a violation. Online Slugfest reveals cracks in the administrative setting of Kerala’s famous disciplinary action.
This bureaucratic fight is more than just a bruised self. It reflects deeper functional impairments within the administrative framework. The public airs such controversy, especially on social media, undermines the integrity of civil servants and erodes public trust. And don’t forget that this is also a lot of distractions about governance.
In an age where transparency is crucial, it may be time for Babs to embrace openness and resolve internal conflicts through the proper institutional channels. After all, the public should get a civil servant who is effective and not easily responsible for a drama worth a piece of work.
MP Babus Bear Bear transparency burden, not the minister in the Madhya Pradesh corridor of power, there is a silent displeased beer in Babus. Although IAS, IPS and IFS officials have requested annual disclosure of assets on their real estate, ministers have avoided this transparency for more than 15 years. This contrast is as distinct as it says, and although no one dares to say it out loud, this dissatisfaction is obvious.
The state general administration reiterates that all state employees must submit detailed property disclosures. This includes information about ancestors and self-acquisition properties, purchase dates, value and current market valuation. Noncompliance can lead to salary or stagnant promotions – just punishment for delays, not to mention violations.
Ministers, by contrast, avoided this scrutiny to a large extent. Despite previous commitments, including the 2016 announcement of assets online, many ministers have not always disclosed details of their property. Continuous governments have either quietly overlooked the issue or kicked the jar into the road, probably to avoid a fight against political feathers.
This difference promotes a sense of inequality among bureaucrats, with strict standards and relatively impunity from political leaders. The whispers in the government circle are not about whether this is unfair, but how long will this double standard continue.
Lack of ministerial transparency undermines the principles of accountability and good governance. For a truly transparent government, it is necessary to lead ministers by example and adopt the same disclosure standards imposed on bureaucrats.
Until then, Babus will continue to make disclosures in silent protests, watching their political bosses accountable, dry, untouched and unobtrusive responsibilities.
