Dismissal decorum

Govt should take greater care when removing bureaucrats

This weekend, the Defence Research and Development Organisation, or DRDO, successfully test-fired the Agni-5 missile. The head of the DRDO, Avinash Chander, was carried around on the shoulders of his colleagues in celebration - though that was described as a somewhat poignant sight, given that it was also his last day in office. Last month, Mr Chander was summarily dismissed by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who said it was time for younger people to take over. The haste was puzzling, given that Mr Chander leaves office with no successor chosen as yet - the defence secretary will run the DRDO directly. Even more oddly, Mr Chander says he was informed of his dismissal by news reports. The last few days also saw the departure of Sujatha Singh as foreign secretary. Her replacement by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, formerly ambassador to the United States, had been expected for some time - and the timetable was presumably decided by the fact that Mr Jaishankar was due to retire on the last day of January unless appointed foreign secretary. Still, Ms Singh's removal was handled with surprising gracelessness. By her account, rather than being allowed to resign, the government removed her - because of her unwillingness to delete from her resignation letter a clause saying that she was resigning on the instructions of the prime minister.

Any civil servant serves at the pleasure of the president - that is, as long as she has the confidence of the prime minister and the Cabinet. But wise administrations try and minimise such noise as surrounded the departure of Mr Chander and Ms Singh. It is not that high-handedness begins with this government. This Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has not scaled the level of autocratic behaviour that was on display on occasion when Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were in power. The latter, remember, announced at a press conference his intention to have a new foreign secretary in place, which left the incumbent with no option other than submitting his resignation after that public humiliation. But the current government's model of administration depends in many ways on the civil service being particularly loyal and creative. It is likely that such incidents will add to the fear of the PMO, but not to the loyalty and the creativity. There have been occasions even earlier in the government's term where tenures have been cut short - the head of the Special Protection Group, responsible for the security of the prime minister and his family, was fired in end-November. And former finance secretary Arvind Mayaram, who was thought to have the trust of the political leadership, nevertheless found himself replaced at short notice a few months ago - not once but twice in quick succession. In the first round, he was appointed the secretary of the tourism ministry and in less than a fortnight he was shifted to the ministry for minority affairs.

The Narendra Modi government would do well to not repeat the mistakes of earlier dispensations. It came into power with considerable goodwill among the bureaucracy, and Mr Modi's willingness to work with them has been widely remarked upon. Abandoning the decorum that should accompany senior appointments might be tempting, as it has been for governments in the past, but it would not just be a bad idea in terms of institutional strength - it might also backfire on the government's agenda.