news details |
|
|
| Troubles of Shivraj Patil | | | P.C. Alexander
Home minister Shivraj Patil must have been taken aback by the vehemence of the attacks on him from all sides — the Opposition parties, the media and even a section of his own party — during the last few weeks. Epithets like "inefficient", "inadequate", "incompetent", "inept" etc. are being hurled at him and demands are being made that he be sacked. The latest to join in demanding his scalp is the Samajwadi Party, the new UPA ally.
Let us examine how an otherwise endearing personality like Shivraj Patil could fall so steeply in the esteem of so many people in the fifth year of his tenure as the home minister. I can mention three reasons which I believe contributed the most towards his present uncomfortable position. They are: (a) His personal inadequacies for this highly demanding job, acknowledged as the second-most important post in the Cabinet; (b) The circumstances and the manner in which he was selected for this post and; (c) The relatively low priority which the subject of internal security has been receiving from the UPA government.
Let me begin with Patil’s own inadequacies for the home portfolio in the Central Cabinet. A home minister to be successful in a country of India’s size and problems has to be one with two essential qualities namely, sound political judgment and very high leadership credentials. The home minister has to keep his finger constantly on the pulse of the people and should be able to react quickly and effectively to all emerging situations. He also must remain in continuous contact with the chief ministers and governors of the states and the leaders of all political parties, besides himself being a leader in his own right at the top level of his own party. If Sardar Patel is acknowledged by his admirers and adversaries alike as the most successful home minister of Independent India, it is because there was a harmonious combination of these qualities in him.
Unfortunately many of his successors such as Brahmananda Reddy, Mufty Mohammed Sayeed, Zail Singh, P.C. Sethi, Buta Singh, Shivraj Patil et al fell far short of the high standards. Some of them had brought to their office the experience of having been chief ministers, but that was not enough to make them successful as home minister at the Centre. This is because it is essential that this functionary be a person with high national level leadership and the capacity for correct assessment of changing situations.
The second factor which contributed towards the devaluation of the home minister’s office and which, thereby, had made the task of the home minister difficult was the manner in which Shivraj Patil was chosen for this appointment. Some of the important conventions, which used to be observed in such appointments, had been ignored by those who selected him for the post. Patil had to start his new innings with this disadvantage, though the fault was not entirely his. In the normal course, a person defeated in election is not appointed immediately thereafter as a minister. Also, the home minister is generally chosen from among the eligible members elected to the House. Those defeated in elections usually go through a waiting period before they are given any public office. But Shivraj Patil, who had lost the election, did not have to wait. He was appointed as home minister immediately after his defeat in the election and was given a Rajya Sabha seat. This smacked of favouritism causing many an eyebrow to be raised in political circles.
Perhaps the most important factor which caused dissatisfaction, if not anger, among the people was the manner of Patil’s handling the challenges of militancy and anarchy posed by the Maoist and Naxalite groups, terrorists motivated by religious fanaticism and insurrectionists in the northeastern region running parallel governments in the territories under their control.
Finding that the states, particularly those in the long and disturbed corridor "from Pasupathi to Tirupati", were incapable of handling this grave danger, many MPs and a section of the press have been demanding that the Centre take on the direct responsibility of dealing with this problem in close co-operation with the state governments concerned. However, the home minister has been persistently taking the stand that under the provisions of the Constitution, no direct role by the Centre is possible and that in such situations the Centre’s role is limited to giving infrastructural and financial support to the states. People started becoming impatient at what they saw as a "passive" policy of the government in dealing with a serious threat. They blamed Shivraj Patil for the steadily deteriorating security situation. Many of Patil’s critics claim that he had failed to convince his senior Cabinet colleagues to bring in appropriate policy changes. Whether it was because of Patil’s lack of conviction or his lack of clout to secure the support of his Cabinet colleagues, the subject of internal security had not been receiving the high priority attention it deserved from the UPA leadership. But the head that may roll may be that of Patil.
Finally, I would like to point out the danger involved in the suggestion — frequently being made by the media and some politicians — that a competent minister of state (MoS) should be appointed in the home ministry with the responsibility of all internal security matters. The home minister already has three ministers of state to assist him, and the present suggestion tantamounts to having a new "super MoS" who will function as de-facto home minister for internal security. Examples of some ministers of state in the past, exercising such powers, have been cited to prove the feasibility of such an arrangement. I would like to say that if such an arrangement is made, it will prove to be the proverbial case of the remedy becoming worse than the disease.
If the Prime Minister is satisfied that the Cabinet minister is not properly discharging the responsibilities expected of him, whatever the reason may be, the right course is to appoint somebody else in his place and not to tinker with the principle of accountability of the Cabinet minister to Parliament for all subjects falling within his ministry’s jurisdiction.
Dr P.C. Alexander was the Governor of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
