Not only Caezar’s wife but all those placed in position of supreme authority should be above suspicion. No action should be of such a nature as to cause the slightest amount either of irritation or suspicion. Of course unless substantiated, talks about unfair or unjustifiable acts become not only ineffective but also create an unnecessary rancour. But it also ought to be recognized that it is not always easy to procure documentary evidences to substantiate certain charges. Hence to brush aside all complaints as vague allegations, is not fair. Haridas Mundhra was having a free hand for a fairly long time, before allegations trickled down, and there might be scores of scandals undetected and hundreds of irregularities not yet found out. And so the best guarantee for purity in administration is to be assured in the form of a responsible and sympathetic approach to probe into the mater, whenever complaints, vague or based on solid foundations, are brought forward.

We would like a responsible government to go a step further by assuring the public that it would allow no step, that could be misconstrued even by an unsympathetic critic.

But the present regime seems to be guided, not by such motive, but by a sort of, ‘What if’ attitude. Instances are many, and occur frequently.

The other day, there was a discussion in the Lok Sabha, whether a government officer can take up any other service soon after his retirement. Many members expressed their disapproval and placed certain information at their disposal to prove that such a state of affairs kindles sparks of suspicion.

True, nothing substantial was presented to augment the argument—but in as far as a practice is involved, the issue raised on the floor of the Lok Sabha cannot be brushed aside.

It was stated during the discussion, that the Chairman of Railway Board joined a private firm, twenty-four hours after his retirement. That itself is amazing, but there could be no irregularity in this, for the officer concerned had the right to seek employment after retirement, even without getting the permission of he government and in this case, the officer did ask for and got the permission. So there was nothing out of the way in this, but still, it reads like a thriller! Twenty-four hours elapse, and the ex-Chairman of the Railway Board is found seated in a private firm. If that is amazing, the subsequent incidence is rather breath-taking.

Mr. V.C.Shukla, M.P. put this question:
“It is not a fact that after the ex-Chairman of the Railway Board joined a private firm, that firm was given valuable handling contracts running to several lakhs of rupees which no other contractor was given before?”

Mr. Jagjivan Ram, Minister for Railways, very naturally depreciated the insinuation couched in such a question but did not deny the fact.

Both these incidents are perfectly justifiable, —in theory!

Any officer has got the right of seeking employment in a private firm, after his retirement from government service.

And any firm has got a right to get a government contract through the proper channel.

But the amazement lies in the curious coincidence of these two incidents. Twenty four hours after his retirement, a person who was holding an influential post in the government, joins a private firm and that firm becomes the recipient of the government contract!

What if?—argues the minister.

There is nothing wrong technically. The mere fact that an ex-government servant is to be found on the staff does not mean that that private firm could be debarred from getting any government contract. Legal and logical! None disputes. But how would this appear to the man-on-the-street?

“The firm has got the knack of getting things done. It procured the services of the Chairman of the Railway Board,—that is a master-piece of practical common-sense! The officer adorns the chair, and instantly the government places a contract worth more than ten lakhs of rupees. The firm has got such business acumen!!”—so would the man on the street argue, if he is under the influence of decency and fair-mindedness. When moody and furious, he might talk in disparaging tones.

Mr.Thyagi, M.P., couching the sentiments of the man-on-the street, in the language of decency, said,
“The fact that this officer has joined the private firm on the very day he was relieved from service leads one to doubt whether he was not negotiating for his service with the firm prior to his retiring from the Railways.”

The man-on-the street cannot be expected to employ such a restraint as an M.P., who has to be responsible, cautious and never could get out of bounds. Hence, Mr.Thyagi, employed the harmless word, “doubt.” But the man-on-the-street would not rest content with that!

Mr. Thyagi, enquired “May I know whether the Minister was taken into confidence in regard to the negotiating for the new employment?”

Mr. Jagjivan Ram answered in the affirmative.

How much of importance was attached to this issue, can be gauged by the fact, that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr.Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, had to intervene to express his own remarks, thus:
“This is an important matter in that it concerns a matter of policy. If persons who are in charge of the administration of Railways and who have to place orders with various firms, get such jobs, immediately they retire, this House is anxious to know whether any consideration is behind it.”

Of course the Minister for Railways was ready with an answer—there was nothing wrong either in the transaction or in the officer getting an appointment in a private firm. True, those who raised the issue, had no fact in their possession to prove that the transaction leads one to doubt. But still, the whole affair is nauseating. The broad facts are enough for rumour-mongering! And no responsible government should place itself in such an awkward position.

But, the present regime, refuses to abide by such healthy principles; instead, whatever the issue raised, doubt expressed, or even allegations mooted, the government is ready with a sneer, ‘What if?’

Well, the present regime can well afford to sneer, because of its stupendous numerical strength. But the people cannot! They want that their rulers should be above suspicion—and they have a right to ask the rulers to be more refined and democratic in their approach, whenever an issue of importance—or as the Speaker very correctly pointed out, ‘an important matter of policy’ is raised. The opposition might be weak—it is so numerically, but that does not mean that all the cases that they present are weak. The people are becoming day by day, more and more vigilant, and also vocal. We would urge upon the powers-that-be, to give up this ‘What if attitude,’ if it wants to earn the encomium of the people of this land.

(Editorial - 14-12-1958)