Commentary/Vir Sanghvi

Last-minute decisions always seem arbitrary

This was fair enough. Except that it then belittled its new cabinet secretary by declaring that he had got the job because he was a Muslim and because there were so few Muslims in the IAS that it would take years for another Muslim to enter the reckoning. Even if the decision had to be taken on 'secular considerations', this was not the way to do it.

Worse was to follow. When Saifullah's term ended, some people wondered if he would get an extension. This speculation would have been restricted to the drawing rooms of Lutyens' Delhi if Narasimha Rao had not taken the extraordinary step of raising the issue at a public meeting.

"Some people say that the cabinet secretary should get an extension because he is a Muslim," he announced. "But this will depend on his ability and not on his religion."

When Saifullah was finally denied an extension at the last minute, this comment seemed unusually mean-spirited. What had Rao been trying to say? That Saifullah was without ability? Even if he believed this, it was hardly the kind of issue to raise outside of the cabinet secretariat, let alone at a public meeting. Nor was the show of high-handedness ("his ability, not his religion") terribly convincing given that the government had lost no opportunity to make it clear that Saifullah had only got the job because he was a Muslim.

There are numerous other recent instances. In recent years, the race for foreign secretary has been determined largely on the basis of seniority. It was quite clear when Mani Dixit stepped down that Kris Srinivasan would succeed him and as clear when Srinivasan left that Salman Haider (left) would take his job. Given this background, it was widely assumed that Vinod Grover would succeed Haider when his term expired earlier this year.

But then, at the last moment, when people were already lining up to congratulate Grover, Inder Gujral gave Haider an extension. The manner in which this was done caused avoidable ill-feeling. In principle, it is entirely legitimate to give the foreign secretary an extension. But to spring it on everyone right at the end is certain to breed resentment.

Poor Salman has had to endure endless ill-informed speculation in the press about how he 'swung' his extension while the unfortunate Vinod Grover is still baffled by the suddenness with which he was denied the prize that was already within his grasp.

The problem with making a last minute announcement is that any decision -- no matter how reasonable -- always seems arbitrary. By refusing to do what everybody regards as obvious, you convey the impression that anything might happen. You create hopes among people who assumed that they had no chance. And as inevitably, you set the stage for anger, resentment, betrayal, and envy.

There is no reason why the government should not be able to take a decision at least a month or two before the post falls vacant. Not only would that end the speculation but it would also give the incumbent an opportunity to acquaint his successor with the details of the job before the steps down.

But governments don't seem to recognise this. Take the recent case of choosing a successor to Chief Justice Ahmadi. Justice Verma is next in line and was the obvious choice. Nevertheless, there were rumours that he would be superseded. At the stage, the government should have denied these rumours and announced that Verma would be the next chief justice.

It did no such thing. Finally, Karan Thapar had to squeeze the decision out of Khalap on television.

Did the delay benefit Khalap? Did it benefit Verma? Did it benefit the Supreme Court? Did it benefit the country?

Clearly not.

But that, as they say, is the way things are with the government of India.