ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Transfer That Bit Back

Perhaps lost in all the noisome noise from Delhi last week was one bit of good news. Of course, it may not have been so good to a remote controller and his fine friends. But it was certainly good news to a host of ordinary citizens, particularly in that essentially Maharashtrian city, Pune. And the best thing about the good news is that it was really no surprise at all.

Indeed, Arun Bhatia's reinstatement by the Bombay High Court was entirely as it should have been. It was the only possible verdict the court could have given. It is hard to imagine any government, let alone one as immensely venal as the one Maharashtra suffers, coming up with a credible explanation for treating Bhatia the way it did. Give it a thought: how would you explain transferring him hastily from Divisional Commissioner to Pune Municipal Commissioner -- a demotion -- and then transferring him to the Archives in Bombay only six days later?

How, except for lame attempts to obfuscate the truth? And yet, to its utter discredit, Maharashtra's remote-controlled government made just such a lame attempt. A little reminiscence will remind us quite nicely just what sorts of people we put in power, the wriggles they indulge themselves in.

As Pune's Commissioner, Bhatia quickly began demolishing illegally built structures owned by some very powerful people. Among those owners: Suresh Kalmadi, once of the Congress and now a sweetheart of the Sena-BJP rodeo, and Laxmikant Bhojwani of the Totem Pole Discotheque at the Holiday Inn Hotel. Among them too: Girish Vyas, son-in-law of a previous chief minister. Only a few weeks before, this very Vyas had failed to persuade the same court that moving a plot reservation 15 kilometres met the legal requirement of moving it less than 200 metres. If you can believe it.

Now demolishing illegal structures is fine, even encouraged -- if those structures belong to slum-dwellers and hawkers. If a posh restaurant expands unlawfully onto the street, as Kalmadi's did in Pune, then it must not be touched. Of course Bhatia could not be allowed to continue. The same government that transferred him for getting on some important nerves as divisional commissioner transferred him again, this time to the State Archives.

Unfortunately, the government had not reckoned with a Pune citizenry grown tired of encroachments on their space -- in all senses of the word -- by the politically well-heeled. They gathered on the streets, signed protest letters, held meetings. More important, they filed a total of six petitions in the Bombay High Court that asked for Bhatia's reinstatement. They were heard in early April.

Why, the court asked Chief Minister Rane and Chief Secretary Subrahmanyam, had they transferred Bhatia? Two reasons, these honourable gentlemen answered, and neither had anything to do with demolitions. One: Bhatia's "insubordination," left unspecified. Two: he leaked to the press his correspondence with Subrahmanyam about the Krishna Valley project, letters urging that the project move ahead quickly as the delays were hurting the state's interests.

These were such serious offences, the CM claimed, that he ordered an inquiry into them on March 9. In his post as Pune's commissioner, Bhatia might have "obstructed" this inquiry; so it was necessary to remove him.

Oddly, the CM didn't show much urgency about the inquiry. It was a full four days before Bhatia was told he was no longer commissioner, on March 13. But more lethargy followed. On April 12, no doubt aware of the way the legal winds were blowing, the government informed the court that the inquiry would be "initiated and completed" in 15 days. That is, in over a month since it was ordered, this inquiry that Bhatia might have "obstructed" hadn't so much as begun. That's how serious it was, how serious Bhatia's supposed offences were, how serious the government was about this mockery posing as an excuse for a transfer. Even the court noticed it: "It was not that the inquiry was starting forthwith. In fact, it has admittedly not started even till today. ... The presence of Bhatia in Pune has no nexus with the inquiry or with the leakage to the press."

In court, Rane's government also took every opportunity it could to smear Bhatia, to divert attention from the sole question of any import: why was he transferred? Bhatia's presence in the Pune Municipality would "hamper the functioning of the government", it said. Also, he had a "penchant for publicity." As head of the Pune Municipal Corporation, he would be "in constant touch" with the media.

Yes, in the twilight zone of Shivshahi, "constant touch" with the media is a crime. That's how scared this government is of the ordinary light of day.

The court responded to all this chicanery in the only way it could have. "It is difficult to accept the proposition of the CM," the Justices observed, "that there was no nexus between the transfer and the demolitions." In the arcane language of judicial verdicts, that's as close as you get to a statement that the CM was lying, period.

Naturally, the court reinstated Bhatia as Municipal Commissioner of Pune; the post, ironically, that the government had punished him with in the first place.

To those Pune citizens I mentioned, as indeed for a state and country yearning for governance beyond renaming things, the decision is like fresh air. For too long, we have had little option but to watch as government after government -- and this one in Maharashtra more than most -- has debased our institutions, scorned the rule of law, turned justice into a memory. From the vicious attack on the Srikrishna Report to renaming airports and cities, outrageous things happen all the time and we have no idea how to stop them. It is a helpless, angry impotence we feel.

That's why Bhatia's reinstatement may be remembered as a landmark. The Pune citizens who came together to fight for his return were quite clear about what they wanted, and it was far bigger than just one bureaucrat back in the job they wanted him doing. "This is not a short term agenda for Arun Bhatia's benefit," wrote one activist in a note he circulated. "We have indeed woken up and nothing less than [the] right to self-determination in [our] civic affairs and the right to know will appease [us] this time."

This captures perfectly the truly enormous public disenchantment with our politicians. In Pune, that mood was so infectious that it brought to the streets people of every political shade, every income level, to demand Bhatia back. Notoriously conservative Pune Brahmins joined hands with Dalit activists; women from slums shouted slogans as lustily as women from the wealthiest corners of the city. People gave up working to file petitions, attend court, organise protests. That's how much this issue meant.

If that level of interest and outrage can be sustained -- an admittedly big if -- it is bad news for our corrupt political circus. Good news, though, for hopes of good governance.

As Bhatia headed back to his job as municipal commissioner, CM Rane and his chief secretary fired some parting shots at him. First, they approached the Supreme Court with the truly ludicrous plea that Bhatia was "urgently required" at the Archives. The Supreme Court treated this as the smelly piece of trash it was: it got thrown out. Second, in a sterling display of vindictiveness, Rane announced that a yet-to-be-named judge would be appointed to a inquire into unspecified "charges of corruption" against Bhatia. Third, Subrahmanyam told Mid-Day that "Bhatia is a liar." Oh, and why is he a liar? "He applied for leave from March 18 to April 16. He is now telling us to deem that the leave is from March 13 to April 12." You can scratch your head over that. I already have.

Fourth, and most revealing, was Rane's reaction to the judgement: "Let the people know that a civil servant can hire a battery of top lawyers." Now Rane needs to know that there are thousands who will quite willingly contribute towards Bhatia's legal fees, besides dozens of lawyers who will willingly work for free anyway. But apart from that, this remark speaks most for the way Rane himself functions: by bluster and sly insinuation.

If we can see that, surely it is more good news for hopes of good governance.

Dilip D'Souza