The recent comments by Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, DC, were seen, implicitly, as criticism of the government in which he serves — a consequence, perhaps, of initial reports, which had led observers to believe that he said that major reform was impossible until UPA-II was replaced in 2014 by another dispensation. When taken in context, however, it appears that Prof Basu said nothing more than many in similar positions have already remarked: that political consensus for many reforms is difficult to achieve. However, the furore that followed his statement is a useful pointer to not just the stored-up frustration at UPA-II’s policy paralysis. It also points to a deep-seated and widespread confusion as to what the code for public statements should be for members of the government. Is criticism of government policy, implicit or explicit, acceptable?
Prof Basu himself has indicated that the storm touched off by his comments is a natural by-product of democratic debate. Yet, inevitably, greater significance will be attached to apparent criticism of government policy, or even strong contrarian stands on it, if it emerges from those in a position to implement that policy. This is the reason for the long-standing convention that civil servants should not speak in their personal capacities about policies associated with the government of the day. A dissection of such policy in public — or even pre-judgment of policy decisions — could be interpreted in any of several different ways, all of them problematic. It could be seen as an attempt to lobby the government in the court of public opinion; it could be seen as a lack of enthusiasm for the implementation of policies that have democratic legitimacy; it could be seen as a symptom of a weak, divided, incoherent state. Part of the code of being in service to the state is to ensure that none of these perceptions gains ground.
Many members of the tenured civil services understand this. However, this is the age of instant news stars, and the pressures to respond quickly to policy debates is severe; not all members of the higher bureaucracy have been able to resist those pressures as they should. But the code extends beyond the tenured civil service, to those who could be classed as political appointees — advisors and those on special duty. And, of course, it applies doubly to those in the uniformed services, who have a special duty to ensure that civilian authority is being seen to be adhered to, and that government decisions are not headed off or second-guessed. Sadly, not all recent service chiefs have chosen to meet this high standard. This restraint, however, very notably does not apply to those who are accountable in a different way — members of the elected government, as opposed to those merely in administration. There is no reason for politicians not to debate policy in public. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar’s frequent interventions on food and agri-export policy, for example, are valuable. Those who are not democratically accountable, however, should remember that, while they serve, they must be silent.