Communalism in the services

WE cannot help thinking that the pronouncement made by the Home Member in the Council of State on Monday regarding the representation of communities in the public services is open to serious exception from more than one point of view. In the first place, the Home Member said emphatically that “Indianisation will not be by the door of supersession,” an absolutely safe proposition in itself, but which the actual circumstances of the case can only be interpreted as an expression of the government’s unwillingness to accelerate the pace of Indianisation. “What was offered to new recruits, whether Indian or European or of whatever race,” he said, “was a career open to talent, and once admitted to public service, his fortunes lay in his own hands. He must not rely for advancement on favour or favouritism but on his own industry, energy and capacity. Promotion must go by merit and selection for posts requiring special qualifications must be determined by strict regard for the necessary qualifications and general public interest.” How faultless is all this on paper, and yet in actual practice how admirably it serves the purpose of perpetuating vested interests and existing monopoly! A man of such outstanding merit as the late Ramesh Chandra Dutt was not considered fit for being made permanent in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, and Sir KG Gupta was sent out on a “fishing” errand so that a European member of the Civil Service who was junior to him might be appointed Lieutenant-Governor of his province.

Advertisement