(This article was published as Editorial in the Punjab IAS Association Newsletter as a ‘couter point’ on the burning issue of unceremonial summary expulsion of Mr. V.K. Khanna from the membership of the Association in 1997)
**********
I combat the dilemma of putting my thoughts either to the test of spontaneous subjectivity or to that of the cold objectivity. I opt for the latter, because the editor has to do a fair job. While I start penning down the No sermons. No extracts from scriptures. No reproduction of edicts on governance. No panegyrics for e-governance either. I will talk only of us. Of us as members ‘of our Association. Plain talk. United We Fell. Most of us remember the high drama of 1997. One of us unleashed the C.B.I. against another few of us. We, as the Association, also staged a guest appearance. We met in unprecedented numbers, for those who felt a sudden but transient and thereafter vanishing faith in the utility of the Association. Vocal chords were flexed, for being heard by the right people. We charged one of us as a traitor. We decided not to listen to him or to look at his written defense. We hurried to pronounce an orchestrated verdict and guillotined him. What he had done to the others was certainly unethical or inappropriate or both; but what we did collectively may even have set many of us thinking. Even today. There was nothing to stop all of us from deciding the way we wished to. We were always known to be the patriarchs of reasonableness and fair-play and of natural justice. But we got swayed. Some by emotions and some by other considerations.
One of us had used the moral science fundamental of ‘purity and probity in civil services’ as a cloak to hide his dagger driven by feelings of personal acrimony. He indeed did it blatantly. Like many, he could better have been subtle in his lethal moves. Why were we scared of discussing the background, facts and rationale of the episode thread-bare? Why were we averse to looking at his written reply? Did we fear a lack of unanimity? On what? Certainly not on the issue of unethically pursuing personal vengeance to the extent it was. Though it was returned to him with full vengeance and retribution later. And, like many other instances, we kept mum.
The fears that drove us to rush through were not misplaced – there could perhaps be a word of caution amidst the din. Someone could have suggested against the hurried move to condemn a member completely unheard – even though he sought to put across his defence. The atmosphere was charged. Emotions ran high. Voices became shrill. ‘Unanimity’ empowered the Association to abdicate the fundamentals’ of being just, fair and reasonable. United we fell!
Recent judicial verdicts in this episode are a food for thought. We were substantially right in our own way. But we faltered even on a strong wicket. Right or wrong, only time will tell. Only if we wish to listen !
