Preserve democratic values

Gagging critics weakens democratic credentials

Barely a month after Prime Minister Narendra Modi eloquently talked in the US of “deeply rooted democratic values ingrained in the Indian populace”, two developments suggest a partial understanding of its implications among Indian politicians. On July 7, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which is headed by the PM, amended service rules for retired civil servants by lowering the bar for withholding pensions. Last week, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture tabled a report suggesting that artistes accepting Sahitya Akademi awards should sign an undertaking that they would not return their awards to protest any political incident. Both initiatives suggest implicit attempts to discourage two groups that play an influential role in critiquing public policy and shaping public opinion. It is significant that both initiatives come ahead of consequential Assembly elections this year and, in the latter case, it cuts across party lines.    

The change in the service rules for civil servants builds on a 2021 change to central civil service pension rules that prohibited retired intelligence and security officials from communicating to the public or publishing an article or book that falls within the domain of the organisation they represented without prior clearance. This change in the rules dealing with “Pension Subject to Future Good Conduct” widened the ambit of a 2008 amendment restricting the publication of “sensitive information” under the Official Secrets Act and ordinary criminal law that would be prejudicial to the interests of the Indian state. Now, any perceived violation of the guideline would jeopardise a retired security/intelligence officer’s pension. The latest amendment seeks to impose similar limits on all civil servants. This has been done by altering the language of the relevant rule. Earlier, pensions of civil servants could be withheld for misconduct or a crime only on reference by the state government. The rule has been amended to state that the decision to suspend pension could be done “either” on state government reference “or otherwise”, considerably expanding central influence.

Though governments are within their rights to expect discretion from former civil servants, the term “good conduct” has not been defined. Beyond obvious transgressions — such as divulging state secrets or committing a crime— the latest guideline leaves wide scope for interpretation, of the kind that marks the recent application of sedition law. The new rule has, predictably, raised fears that any critique of public policy that the government does not like can result in punitive measures. This much is clear from the parliamentary committee’s strictures on future Sahitya Akademi award recipients. Notably, this committee is headed by a member of Parliament from a non-ruling party and has members from all parties. The recommendations are a response to the return of awards by 39 writers to protest against the murder, allegedly by right-wing activists, of Sahitya Akademi winner M M Kalburgi. But it is unclear how the government can impose such a condition since the Sahitya Akademi is an autonomous institution. Second, the awards are peer-to-peer and conferred for proficiency in the arts, not for state service, unlike, say, the Padma series. Certainly, neither rule can be described as a good example of the upholding of democratic values by political leaders.