Government servants in India cannot be allowed to belong to a political party committed to values that are the very opposite of parliamentary democracy and secularism
The recent decision of the government of Gujarat to lift the long–standing ban on government servants being members of the RSS has aroused much controversy. Many, already distressed by the policies of the state government of encouraging extremist Hindu parties, have seen it as yet another instance of a fanatical fascist group using its power to destroy the secular basis of our country. Others see nothing wrong in the decision; why not let civil servants belong to a party, they say, particularly as several ministers belong to, or are sympathetic to that very party?
A dispassionate discussion of this issue is called for. The issues involve a consideration of our Constitution, and the basic underlying principles of our parliamentary democracy.
Our Constitution declares that India is to be a secular republic. The Supreme Court has held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution which cannot be amended. What secularism means has been the discussed by the Supreme Court in the famous Bommai Case, when a large bench of the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of several BJP–controlled state governments after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Some observations in the judgements delivered in that case deserve to be quoted:
"Under our Constitution … religion cannot be mixed with any secular activities of the state. In fact, the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited."
"In matters of State, religion has no place."
"The Constitution does not recognise, does not permit, mixing religion and state power. Both must be kept apart."
The Constitution contains fundamental rights which include the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of association. These rights are not absolute, and can be curtailed in appropriate cases in the interests of public order or the integrity of India. The Constitution also contains Article 25 which confers on all citizens the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of their choice, and it is settled law that whilst conversions from one religion to another by threats or inducement can be prohibited, voluntary conversions cannot be restricted.
Our Constitution also contains a chapter on fundamental duties under which all citizens are under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, to uphold and protect the sovereignty, integrity and unity of India, and to promote the harmony and spirit of common brotherhood among the people of India transcending differences of religion, language, etc. These fundamental duties cannot be directly enforced, but are relevant in determining the legality and constitutionality of laws and restrictions on fundamental rights.
Government servants do not cease to be citizens, and have the right to enjoy fundamental rights, but restrictions can be imposed on their enjoyment of such rights which are necessary in the interests of the sovereignty or integrity of India.
We are a parliamentary democracy. This is also a basic feature of our Constitution. In a parliamentary democracy, power is enjoyed by a council of ministers which commands the majority support in the legislature. The ministers run the country with the assistance of the vast civil service which is permanent; the civil service does not change with a change in the government. It is expected to conscientiously discharge its duties, and execute the policies determined by the ministers. Parliamentary democracy cannot function efficiently unless the civil service is, and remains, wholly independent or impartial. The whole system would break down if members of the civil service get identified with political parties as they could not possibly execute the policies of another, rival, political party. Any identification of the civil service with a political party is also dangerous as there is then every likelihood of the politically inclined civil service using the machinery of the State, and its vast resources, to favour that political party.
A compromise has generally been struck between ensuring, on the one hand, an independent and impartial civil service, and ensuring that the civil servants themselves can enjoy the basic rights of citizens such as the right to vote, and the right even to belong to political parties. The right to belong to a political party enjoyed by civil servants is not, however, absolute, and must be restricted in the interests of parliamentary democracy and secularism.
The position in England is instructive. Civil servants generally cannot belong to organisations which are committed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy. Even as far as ordinary and democratic parties are concerned, a civil servant cannot publicly support any political party or its policies.
As we also are a parliamentary democracy, the principles followed in England are instructive. We also have to constantly bear in mind the basic principles of our Constitution and the fundamental duties imposed on all citizens. Obviously, government servants must discharge the same duties, and the obligation on them to do so is greater, as they occupy a pivotal position in the State.
Whilst government servants in India can undoubtedly belong to political parties which are committed to parliamentary democracy, and secularism, they cannot be allowed to belong to a political party which is committed to the very opposite. Let me give an illustration. Would the government of Gujarat allow its government servants to belong to an organisation, which recommends that Junagadh should be handed over to Pakistan, or the government of India allow its government servants to belong to organisations which recommend an independent Nagaland? Clearly not.
In fact any such political parties would be working against the integrity of India which it is the duties of all citizens, including government servants, to uphold. Any government which does not prohibit government servants from being in any way associated with such parties would be failing in its duty.
Suppose we have a political party, which proclaims that Hindus are bigoted and full of superstition, and should not be employed in public service. Surely, propagation of that point of view does the very opposite of what the Constitution enjoins as a fundamental duty on all citizens; not only does it not promote harmony amongst people belonging to different religions, it does its best to bring about discord and disharmony. If ordinary citizens do this, it is, to say the least, unfortunate. If, however, a government servant does it, it may well have calamitous consequences, as whatever he says would, at least in the minds of very many people, particularly those who are not well-educated, and live in rural areas, carry behind it the weight of official approval. Government servants must, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion. That is why there has to be imposed a much higher standard of care and circumspection on all government servants than on ordinary citizens. They cannot be permitted to be associated with any political party which is associated with any policy which destroys or threatens the integrity or unity of India or inter–religious harmony.
What is the RSS? It is not like other political parties. Historically, let us not forget, people of the RSS–mindset were responsible for the heinous murder of the greatest Indian of modern times, Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji has been, and is, revered all over the world, but many members of the RSS are still full of praise for those who murdered him. The RSS is a group of people who are fascist in their thinking, and openly recommend the substitution of our parliamentary democracy and secular republic. Many of their policies are violently anti–Muslim, and, of late, particularly in the state of Gujarat, viciously anti–Christian. It is impossible to be a member of the RSS and also abide by the fundamental duty of every citizen, that is, to abide by the Constitution, or to respect its ideals and institutions, or to promote harmony and brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians. Further, a member of the RSS, if also a government servant, cannot by reason of the very tenets of the RSS keep the Hindu religion and state power apart. The long-standing ban on membership of the RSS and other communal organisations, was, therefore, right.
For any state government to allow government servants to belong to the RSS or, indeed, to any communal or secessionist organisation, would be wrong. The ban has been in force for many years. For a government run by the BJP, which has close links with the RSS, to revoke the ban is doubly wrong. It is favouring its own party, and jeopardising the impartiality and independence of the civil service. It is sending a message to the whole State, and in particular, to the citizens belonging to the minorities, that the whole State government will be run as the RSS wants.
Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7 No, 56, Controversy