The Vice Chancellor, insisting that there is no provision for this advised the students to seek recourse in court. The decision of the college and university comes despite the Chief Minister’s intervention in the matter, when he had sought that the results of these students be declared despite them failing to meet the minimum required attendance.
Sometime last month, Goa had learnt that the Chief Minister had picked up the phone and told the head of the Panjim-based institution of higher education that the students whose results had been withheld for lack of attendance be released. The Chief Minister’s reasoning was that the students could take the ‘extreme step’ if their results were not released. He even went on to say that as Education Minister, he would stand by the principal. The telephonic conversation was held in the presence of the students who had met him with their grievance. The college had in fact sought permission from the Goa University to declare the results, after taking into consideration the students’ attendance in remedial classes.
While Goa University has decided to abide by the rules, the question to be asked here is what sort of message is the Chief Minister sending to the youth of the State when he asks their institution head to be lenient with those who have not met the minimum attendance required to sit for the exam? Also, should students who have not adhered to the rules, of which they were aware at the start of the academic year, go to the highest elected official in the State with their demands?
These are questions that need to be debated, but then such behaviour from our elected representatives and the people is hardly new or surprising. It happens often with bureaucrats being pressured by the politicians to undertake certain tasks or even take certain decisions in favour of certain people and this has been happening even in the past.
In his book ‘Public Matters’ released last week, former Union Minister of State for External Affairs, Eduardo Faleiro, tells an interesting story, which he narrated in the Assembly. The book is a compilation of his speeches and interventions in the Goa, Daman and Diu Legislative Assembly and in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The following passage is taken from a speech made in the year 1975 in the Legislative Assembly when Goa was still a Union Territory and Faleiro was MLA of Curtorim sitting on the Opposition benches.
“There is a provision in any dispute to be decided under the Mundkar Bill, the powers are vested in administrative authorities Mamlatdar, Collector and so on. It is a bad provision, in as much as these authorities being subordinate to government they are at the whim and fancies of the authorities. Do you know what was the reasoning given by the Mamlatdar in one case? “The Chief Minister phoned to me” he writes in his judgment. There was an appeal to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector said in view of the direction of the Chief Minister I cannot do anything. There was a revision application to the Revenue Secretary. The latter said in view of the Chief Minister’s order I cannot say anything. They went to Judicial Commissioner’s Court. Justice Rao said this is perverse. Facts of the case are published in AIR 1970, Goa pp 94.”
So, political interference is not new in Goa. It has been happening – given the above passage – since the 1970s for certain and bureaucrats have been doing the bidding of their political masters. It is, however, surprising in this case as the officers in question were acting a quasi-judicial authorities, yet they preferred to adhere to the CM’s telephone call, rather than the facts of the case in taking their decision.
For long an MLA has become a source of doling out largesse and keeping his constituents happy by ironing out their difficulties. That appears to be his first duty, rather than legislating, which is the job that he is elected to do. Former Chief Minister, the late Dr Wilfred de Souza during a stint in the opposition had said that the only right of an MLA is to speak in the Assembly. An MLA does not have the right to dictate to the bureaucracy what is to be done, and definitely not when it comes to circumventing the existing laws and rules. But it happens and regularly.
In April last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing bureaucrats on Civil Services Day had cautioned them on political intervention. He had been quoted as having said, “In a democracy, bureaucracy and political intervention go hand in hand. This is the speciality of democracy. If we have to run this country, we do not require political interference. But political intervention is necessary and inevitable, otherwise democracy will not work. Political intervention is required in a democracy as legislators are elected by the people. Political interference destroys.” Differentiating between the two would be a difficult task. No doubt, there will always be political supervision over the bureaucracy, but this should be limited to ensuring that the policies of the government are fulfilled and not overstep this limit.
This change can come only if a new set of politicians is elected to power – men and women – who will not allow the bureaucracy to be a caged parrot, as the CBI was referred to by the Supreme Court in the coal gate scam. For the bureaucratic caged parrot to develop wings and fly, the change has to come through the political masters. Goa has the opportunity to change its political masters with an election coming up within the next nine months. It is for the electorate to decide whether it wants to continue with what it has or move forward and seek a change.
(Alexandre Moniz Barbosa is Executive Editor, Herald)
