The talent principle

Two years ago, South Korea’s politicians went gaga over Guus Hiddink, the Dutch coach who led the soccer team to unprecedented heights. I don’t think we need to go so far as to speak of a ‘‘Wright Method’’ but there is a case to be made for some length of tenure even off the cricket field. I don’t mean for ministers — though it is not a bad idea to give them enough time to prove themselves too — but for bureaucrats heading important organisations.

There are some exceptions, certain officers who, by executive fiat or judicial intervention, enjoy a measure of job security. The heads of the three armed services, for instance, are customarily granted time to grow into their job. The director of the Central Bureau of Investigation was smiled upon in a judgment given by the Supreme Court. And a cabinet secretary knows that he shall have at least two years in that post thanks to a decision taken by the Vajpayee ministry. But that is scarcely a comprehensive list. To name but two, shouldn’t the Government of India ensure that the Intelligence Bureau and the Life Insurance Corporation get the best men available as their heads? And once in, shouldn’t they get something more than a year?

We make much of seniority. I recall several ministers speaking in moving terms of reviving Nehruvian traditions when they came to office. Well, here is one example set by Jawaharlal Nehru that they would do well to follow. When India’s first prime minister had to choose someone to head the Intelligence Bureau he appointed Bhola Nath Mullick — even though it meant superseding several men who were his seniors. What is more, Pandit Nehru backed his horse by letting him have a long run. Indira Gandhi followed her father’s example this once when Rameshwar Nath Kao was given charge of RAW for several years.

The Vajpayee ministry had, as noted, tried to arrange for some degree of continuity by saying there should be a minimum tenure of two years for all the top jobs. The spirit of the declaration was, however, effectively sabotaged by mandarins wielding the letter of the mandate. They decided that this meant that only officers who had at least two years left of active service would even be invited for interviews.

How did this work? Let us say that there is a superbly qualified officer who deserves to rise to the top. However, he suffers from two handicaps — a senior officer who doesn’t like him and the fact that he is due to retire in eighteen months. As a last kick in the pants, the senior bureaucrat goes and tells the minister, “X is a wonderful man, but he can’t be given the full two years that the prime minister demands!” This leaves the minister with only two options — passing over the officer and recommending an extension. Most ministers would choose the safe option, and so poor X never gets the top post.

The path has now been inadvertently made smoother for would-be saboteurs by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision that no civil servant will be granted an extension. This was probably done with a view to deflecting any charge of ‘‘favouritism’’, but it runs the risk of tilting the scales against deserving talent. Purely as a matter of principle, if the cabinet secretary, the director of Central Bureau of Investigation, and the chiefs of staff of the army, the navy, and the air force can serve beyond their sixtieth birthday, shouldn’t the same privilege be extended to other sensitive posts?

Which offices? That is the prime minister’s call, but I think that the heads of the Intelligence Bureau and major financial institutions should definitely qualify. How difficult would it be for the prime minister and his trusted advisors to draw up a list of important offices? (That does not mean a blanket extension to one and all. But there is much to be said for the common sense solution preferred by the army, where a chief of staff’s rivals/colleagues retire while he continues till the end of his fixed term. This cuts out any heartburn about serving under a man who might initially have been your junior.)

May I also suggest that the Supreme Court arrange for a similar provision in judicial posts? There was an instance where someone was solemnly raised to the dignity of chief justice of a high court just one day before he retired. Barring an elevation to the Supreme Court itself, I think everyone would agree that the chief justice of a high court should be assured of a fixed term to leave his stamp. (That, of course, goes for chief justices of India too.)

The irresistible force of talent is poised to march upon the immovable object of impartiality. The prime minister must strike a balance between both highly desirable goals.