If there’s one thing India’s babus do well, it’s dressing up flexibility as policy. Case in point: the latest extensions given to Sonia Narang and Abhishek Goyal, both senior IPS officers on central deputation to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Their tenures have been extended in “relaxation” of the IPS tenure policy. Now that’s babu-speak for “Yes, we made rules. No, we’re not always bound by them.”
Take Narang. In early April, she was relieved from her ED post and sent back to the Karnataka cadre without explanation. And just like that, she’s back in Delhi with a one-year extension. Whiplash, anyone? In her time at ED, she’s handled a whole alphabet soup of high-profile cases — PFI, IFFCO, Vivo, Maoists, even the ever-glamorous Khan Market cash trail. Someone decided she’s too valuable to let go just yet. But observers are wondering why the unceremonious exit earlier?
Also Read
Goyal’s extension is equally telling. Currently leading the HIU and also handling the Northern Region (including the recently held Maharashtra elections), he, too, gets a one-year bonus round. Perhaps it helps to be where the political action is.
Let’s not forget: the post of Special Director is the second-highest rank in the ED hierarchy. There are nine of them. That’s a lot of “special” and not a lot of clarity.
So here we are watching the rules bend, twist, and politely look the other way when power and convenience collide. The ACC may call it relaxation. For many others, it’s a masterclass in bureaucratic yoga.
Kerala’s ‘civil war’ goes public
Kerala’s babudom seems to be experiencing its own version of a reality show, complete with public spats, social media drama, and allegations flying faster than monsoon winds.
At the centre of this storm is IAS officer N. Prasanth, affectionately dubbed ‘Collector Bro’ for his social media savvy. Currently suspended, Prasanth has accused senior bureaucrats A. Jayathilak and K. Gopalakrishnan of corruption and conspiracy, even dragging a Malayalam daily into the fray. He claims his suspension is retaliation for whistleblowing against entrenched corruption and misuse of office — serious charges that can’t just be brushed off.
Meanwhile, Gopalakrishnan was suspended for allegedly creating a religion-based WhatsApp group, seen as a violation of service rules. Prasanth’s own suspension followed his very public criticism of Jayathilak on social media, which the government called a breach of conduct. The online slugfest has exposed the cracks within Kerala’s famously disciplined administrative set-up.
This bureaucratic brawl isn’t just about bruised egos; it reflects deeper dysfunction within the administrative framework. The public airing of such disputes, especially on social media, undermines the integrity of the civil services and erodes public trust. And let’s not forget, it’s also a massive distraction from governance.
In an era where transparency is paramount, perhaps it’s time for the babus to embrace openness and address internal conflicts through proper institutional channels. After all, the public deserves a civil service that is as accountable as it is efficient and less prone to becoming an OTT-worthy drama.
Transparency burden
In the power corridors of Madhya Pradesh, a silent discontent brews among babus. While IAS, IPS, and IFS officers are mandated to disclose their immovable assets annually, ministers have sidestepped this transparency for over 15 years. The contrast is as stark as it is telling, and although no one dares say it out loud, the resentment is palpable.
The state’s General Administration Department has reiterated that all state employees must submit detailed property disclosures. This includes information on ancestral and self-acquired properties, purchase dates, values, and current market valuations. Non-compliance could result in withheld salaries or stalled promotions — a stiff penalty for mere delay, let alone defiance.
In contrast, ministers have largely avoided such scrutiny. Despite previous commitments, including a 2016 announcement to declare assets online, many ministers have not consistently disclosed their property details. Successive governments have either quietly ignored the issue or kicked the can down the road, possibly to avoid ruffling political feathers.
This discrepancy fosters a sense of inequity among bureaucrats, who are held to stringent standards while political leaders operate with relative impunity. The whisper in government circles is not about whether this is unfair but how long this double standard will continue.
The lack of ministerial transparency undermines the principles of accountability and good governance. For a truly transparent administration, it’s imperative that ministers lead by example, embracing the same disclosure standards imposed on bureaucrats.
Until then, babus will keep filing their disclosures under silent protest, watching their political bosses sail above the accountability tide, dry, untouched, and remarkably unbothered.
By Dilip Cherian
