| After 
              having spent nearly four decades as a "public servant", 
              he feels he has been used and abused. Worse, he has been made a 
              scapegoat and singled out for criticism by a committee of lawmakers 
              simply because it was the "safest thing to do".   Meet Ajit Kumar, a 1964 batch Indian Administrative 
              Service (IAS) officer, who retired as Secretary, Planning Commission, 
              in January 2002. He had been appointed to this post for barely three 
              months, having served as Finance Secretary for roughly one year 
              from November 2000. Earlier, he had been appointed Industry Secretary 
              after a controversial tenure as Defence Secretary between June 1997 
              and December 1998.  His move from South Block to Udyog Bhavan coincided 
              with the government's decision to unceremoniously remove Admiral 
              Vishnu Bhagwat as Chief of the Indian Navy. Kumar was ostensibly 
              moved because the government received a lot of flak from the media 
              not only for the manner in which Bhagwat was dismissed but also 
              because of the alleged attempts made by civilians (read bureaucrats 
              like Kumar) to dominate men in uniform.  
              Kumar says he was happy in his job as Industry Secretary. But the 
              then Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha had other ideas. He was reportedly 
              unhappy with his seniormost secretary-level officer, Piyush Mankad. 
              What made matters worse was the decision of E. A. S. Sarma, the 
              then Secretary, Economic Affairs, in the Finance Ministry, to resign 
              his post after being treated in a shoddy manner. A suitably senior 
              bureaucrat had to be found barely two months before the presentation 
              of the Union budget. Kumar thus came to occupy the second-largest 
              room in North Block.  His stay in the Finance Ministry "was 
              not exactly a happy experience". He did not endear himself 
              to some of his colleagues with his objections to the way public 
              sector banks were being regularly recapitalised using public funds 
              and the indiscriminate manner in which foreign loans were obtained. 
              Then came the fiasco involving the Unit Trust of India's Unit Scheme 
              of 1964.  According to Kumar, the weekend before the 
              UTI's board of trustees met on July 2, 2001, the then UTI Chairman 
              P.S. Subramanyam "sneaked" letters to the residences of 
              Finance Ministry officials informing them about what would be on 
              the agenda of the board meeting.   An important item on the board's agenda was 
              a proposal to freeze all transactions in us-64. The Joint Parliamentary 
              Committee, comprising 30 mps belonging to different political parties, 
              which inquired into the episode concluded that Kumar should have 
              discussed the matter "immediately" with Sinha and that 
              by not doing so, "the Secretary considered the problem in a 
              routine and casual manner that is not expected from an officer of 
              his rank."  Months before the JPC presented its report 
              in Parliament on December 19, 2001, copies of the draft report of 
              the panel had been leaked to journalists. After reading news reports, 
              on July 26, 2001, Kumar wrote to the JPC Chairman, Lt. Gen. Sri 
              Prakash Mani Tripathi, saying he was "shocked and greatly perturbed" 
              about the comments reportedly made against him. In that letter, 
              Kumar pointed out what Sinha had himself acknowledged in Parliament. 
              "...it may be an error of judgement, I don't know, but at that 
              point of time, that was the judgement that we made in the Ministry 
              of Finance-to intervene only after the UTI board took the decision..." 
              Sinha told the Rajya Sabha on August 1, 2001.  After the JPC report was made public, a Congress 
              member of the committee, Mani Shankar Aiyar, stated that Tripathi 
              had gone back on his assurance that Kumar's name would be deleted 
              from the final report. Tripathi then blamed unnamed junior officials 
              for the so-called goof-up. Not surprisingly, Kumar feels he has 
              been unfairly maligned. I hold no brief for him. Many consider him 
              to be a pliable bureaucrat. Still, one can't help but feel sorry 
              for a retired IAS officer, now shorn of pelf and power, who is aware 
              that he won't be appointed as a government consultant.  The author is Director, School 
              of Convergence at IMI, New Delhi, and a journalist. He can be contacted 
              at paranjoy@yahoo.com. |