The Tug of War: Modi Vs Mamata

 

 

 

 

The Tug of War: Modi Vs Mamata

The episode concerning the Chief Secretary of West Bengal Alapan Bandyopadhyay is an indication that while the electoral battle for Bengal is over with a massive mandate for Mamata, the war continues. It is a virtual war straining the relation between the Centre and the State, seriously eroding the constitutional federal structure.

The chronology of the events:

Narendra Modi calls a cyclone review meeting on 28th May. Mamata Banerjee alleges that the meeting was altered at the last minute to include Suvedu Adhikari- her close  aide  now turned a bitter rival- when the meeting was supposed to be between the PM and the CM. She along with her Chief Secretary attended Modi’s meeting and handed him a report giving the details of the damage caused by the Cyclone YAAS and the relief sought and then took his permission to leave the meeting to attend the pre-scheduled meetings. And later in the day the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in an order asked the Chief Secretary to report to the DoPT by 10.00 A.M, 31st May, without giving any reason and assigning him any position. It was unprecedented. He was, due for retirement on 31st May, granted three months extension by the Centre only on 24th May, on the request of the CM. The Chief Secretary of a State is a senior most IAS Officer and, like the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre, is the Administrative Head of the State Secretariat.

If an IAS Officer, belonging to All India Service, is to be deputed to the Centre from a State, the concurrence of the concerned State is required. The Rule 6(1) of the India Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 reads: “A cadre officer with concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government.”The Central government didn’t consult the West Bengal Government before ordering its Chief Secretary to report to the Centre.

The Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee wrote a letter on 31^st May to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, giving reasons why her Chief Secretary could not be relieved. The letter, which is self-explanatory, raises several pertinent questions. The excerpts:

“I must confess that I have been shocked and stunned by the unilateral order dated 28th May, 2021…asking us to release Sri Alapan Bandyopadhyay IAS, Chief Secretary, West Bengal…The unilateral order comes without any prior consultation whatsoever with the Government of West Bengal…Only a few days back, on my request, you had kindly allowed, and the Government of India had issued an order to extend his service for 3 months as Chief Secretary, beyond 31st May, 2021, for the purpose that he could serve the State severely affected by the second wave of the pandemic of CCOVID-19…which has further been devastated by an extremely severe cyclone… If a Chief Secretary of a State can be asked to be relieved like this, how the lower bureaucracy can take, obey and implement orders in their letter or spirit from State Chief Minister, other Ministers and officers…The unilateral order also does not provide any details, reasons and/or particulars as to why central deputation of...Chief Secretary…is required suddenly by you only few days after granting an order of extension following due consultation process. Does it have something to do with our meeting at Kalaikunda on 28th May, 2021?

…to recall the correct facts, you had visited Kalaikunda, after an aerial survey of the cyclone-affected areas, to have a meeting with me on 28^th May, 2021. I had pre-scheduled aerial surveys and review meetings in the affected areas myself, but I re-scheduled everything to rush to Kalaikunda to attend the meeting with you, accompanied by the Chief Secretary...

I wanted to have a quiet word with you, a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister as usual.

You, however, revised the structure of the meeting to include a local MLA from your party and I am of the view (based on my knowledge of the affairs of the State for about 40 years) that he had no locus to be present in a PM-CM meeting.…an individual MLA, having no locus, attending the meeting was unacceptable. The Chief Secretary of my State had continually sent messages to a senior officer accompanying you for either getting this issue sorted out, or to arrange a meeting between PM and CM before that meeting. Despite a series of messages, we got no positive result or response. Finally, keeping aside my legitimate reservations, I entered the meeting with the Chief Secretary to hand over our report to you. You personally took the report from my hand, and then I specifically and expressly sought your permission from you for us to leave for Digha, our next cyclone ravaged destination, where a meeting was due and participants were waiting. You expressly permitted us to take our leave. The matter must and ought to end there.

However, in the evening, suddenly, like a bolt from the blue came the order seeking reversion of the Chief Secretary to Delhi…the whole episode appears to be suggestive of arbitrariness, unseemly haste, in violation of the Constitutional scheme and the applicable laws…The Government of West Bengal cannot release, and is not releasing,its Chief Secretary at this critical hour...

I thus humbly appeal to your conscience and good sense, on behalf of the people of West Bengal, and request you to rescind the latest order"

It is important to read the letter to draw the right inferences about the unfortunate episode. The letter tells a different story, while the impression created is Mamata and her Chief Secretary chose to boycott the meeting and thus  'insulted' the PM.  The PMO must explain why the CM’s letter was not answered.

In the meantime, Bandyopadhyay had chosen not to accept the extension and opted to retire on the day of superannuation, 31st May. And he was appointed as the Chief Adviser to the Chief Minister the same day. What followed is inexplicable. The DoPT wrote him another letter on 31st May evening asking him to report at 10.00 AM the next day at the North Block, New Delhi. And late in the night the same day the Home Ministry served him a show cause notice, under the Disaster Management Act, asking him to explain within three days why action should not be taken against him for ‘abstaining’ from the PM’s meeting on 28th May. If Modi didn’t permit Mamata and her Chief Secretary to leave the meeting,he should have said so.

And the show cause notice issued to the Chief Secretary by the Home  Ministry, three days after the PM's meeting and that too after the DoPT sent him two 'orders' asking him to report to the Centre, is an afterthought, betrays vengefulness. Bandyopadhyay has replied the show cause notice denying  he ‘abstained’ from the PM’s meeting,  stating  that he attended the meeting and “ taken leave of the Prime Minster before proceeding with Ms. Banerjee to visit cyclone affected areas on May 28”(The Hindu 4/6).

P.K.Basu, former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, writes:“No doubt should prevail in anyone’s mind about the precedence the Prime Minister occupies in our Constitutional scheme vis-a-vis a Chief Minister” and asks “When the Chief Minister left the meeting, why did Bandyopadhyay go with her?” (IE 4/6). Obviously, he has not read Mamata’s letter to Modi. This, coming from a retired Secretary-level official, is unpalatable. Can a Chief Secretary defy his CM and still continue in the post, without inviting wrath and disciplinary action? Isn’t it incumbent on the part of a Prime Minster to respect the authority of  a Chief Minister who is the Constitutional Head of a State Government? It may be recalled here that Narendra Modi in 2013, as the Chief Minister of Gujarat, had skipped the National Integration Council meeting called by the PM Manmohan Singh. Basu, in an identical post on WhatsApp the previous day (3/6), made deplorable remarks against Bandyopadhyay: “apart from selling his brawn and brain, he has sold his soul to his political boss. He had become a bonded labor.”

Some retired bureaucrats slammed the Centre for its action against Bandyopadhyay. According to former Home Secretary G.K Pillai:"This is the first time in the history of independent India that a Secretary-level officer is being posted at the Centre one day before retirement. The order is totally irregular. And to say that a Secretary-level officer must report to Delhi by 10 am is just unheard of...That the DoPT Secretary agreed to issue such an order says a lot about the state Indian bureaucracy is in.”  And expressing surprise over the show cause notice, he said: "In my long career I did not come across any such precedence...Both the orders are bizarre.”  Ex-Cabinet Secretary B.K. Chaturvedi says, “It takes away the faith of the civil service in the rule of law. The PM has not been advised properly in this matter.”  Why victimize a bureaucrat and downgrade the PM’s exalted position in the ego battle between the two political constitutional authorities?

The tug of war between Modi and Mamata has put the state BJP unit in a fix; its leaders are wary of joining issue over the Bandyopadhyay episode for fear of being seen as going against the interest of the state.