Informed debate bedrock of democracy

Recently a book written by me, “Whose capital Amravathi” was released in Vijayawada. I have received both bouquets and brickbats for the work. While warmly acknowledging the bouquets, I would like to discuss about the brickbats received.

There are three main accusations made against me in the process. One that I’m living in Hyderabad and hence have no business to talk about Amaravathi. Second that having enjoyed the benefits and comforts of government, I have no right to criticise the government after retirement. The third was that why I did not raise these issues when I was the Chief Secretary of state.

Out of all the accusations, the first one that I live in Hyderabad and hence cannot criticise looked the silliest. On this count, one can say national media which lives in Delhi not in Amravathi had no right to write on Amravathi. Similarly, NRIs in other country belonging to Andhra Pradesh state have no right to discuss about issues specific to Andhra Pradesh state and Amravathi in particular. Coming from the highest authorities this, to say the least, sounded funny.

The institutional relationship between Hyderabad and the new state of Andhra Pradesh is still vibrant and strong. The High Court of Judicature functions from Hyderabad so also the Schedule 9 and Schedule 10 institutions which are yet to be divided. His Excellency the Governor of the state also functions from Hyderabad.

Leaving aside all this, the kind of a relationship that has been built between the area forming part of residuary state of Andhra Pradesh and the city of Hyderabad over the last 60 years is so strong it is difficult to separate. For a long time to come, Hyderabad is going to be relevant for the new state of Andhra Pradesh and the umbilical cord that binds Hyderabad to Andhra Pradesh is difficult to cut for a long time to come.

The reasoning seems to be that while the Council of ministers and the officers are functioning under difficult circumstances from Amravati, others residing in Hyderabad are commenting on the functioning of the government. But then once when one is discharging an executive function one may not have any choice regarding the place of stay other than the place from which the government functions.

Once out of office where the political leadership or the official functionaries would like to settle down is a matter of choice depending on number of considerations specific to individuals. To make virtue of a necessity of staying at the headquarters of the government and to say that others not staying there have no right to criticise may not stand to logic.

The second accusation is that since I was a beneficiary of the comforts and privileges of the government when I was in service, now when I am out of service have no right to criticise the government. This also to me looks equally silly as the earlier accusation. Those making this accusation seem to think the government, the party and the person are one and the same and government servant should always display his personal loyalty.

There is a vast difference between being loyal to the government and to the leader and the party. Loyal to government does not and should not mean being loyal to the party or the leader.

The third accusation is that as I did not raise my voice when I was the Chief Secretary and hence I’m precluded from questioning after retirement. To what extent administrators differ with the government on issues depends upon the administrative culture at a particular point of time and the space available for administrators to put forth their view. In this particular issue, the state government had already taken a decision and was not willing to give importance to the recommendations of the statutory body i.e., Sivaramakrishnan Committee.

Hence to think that my view would have changed the course of action may not be correct.
In debates when one runs out of ideas generally either they raise the voice and start shouting or bring in extraneous factors not directly related to the issue under debate.

Similar thing seems to be happening in terms of the response of some to the contents of the book. It would be better to analyse it and debate with facts and figures instead of bringing in extraneous factors. After all, in the end, it is such informed debate which is going to be the cornerstone of a liberal democracy.