OPINION

Those who study public administration would know there a major area of discussion on the interface of permanent and political executive in governance. This topic becomes very dominant especially in democracy, where the political executives come and go, whereas bureaucracy aka permanent executive remains in office all through and also held accountable for major decisions.

The political executive comes to power on popular votes and it’s always in the rush to get its manifesto implemented. The job of the permanent executive is to ensure that in the implementation of the agenda, the rules of governance are not compromised, so also the sovereignty of the Constitution.

This creates a challenge for both the permanent and the political executive for implementation of the popular manifesto without compromising on the rules. Here lies the genesis of the conflict between the Centre and the Delhi government on the control of the services department on which the Supreme Court has given the ruling.

The move made in 2015, soon after the Arvind Kejriwal government came to power, to bring the Services department under the Lieutenant Governor was to give protection to the bureaucracy from the ‘superintendence’ of the AAP leadership. Kejriwal’s ‘expectations’ from the bureaucracy after he became Chief Minister to support his agenda was met with resistance.

The first archaeological evidences of Delhi emerging as a capital of a kingdom are of around 12th century. The first citadel-city being Mehrauli built by the Slave dynasty. The dynasties which followed them too built their own fort cities and each of them moved a few kilometres east, getting farther from the Arvalli hills and closer to river Yamuna.

Getting closer to Yamuna meant not only overcoming paucity of water but also integrating the Sultanate with the Ganga-Yamuna river valley system for the purposes of both trade and territory expansion. The first citadel city along the river was built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq, which is today known as Kotla Firoz Shah and houses a world famous cricket stadium.

The next bastion along the river was built by Sher Shah Suri, who had usurped the Mughal rule for a while. This refuge is today known to the world as Purana Qila. After the Mughal Empire had found its firm footing, they too shifted their capital to Delhi, with Shahjahan building the Red Fort and the adjoining city, today together known as the walled city.

The British too built their first habitats close to the river, the Civil Lines and the Delhi University area. It was much later that the site of the new capital was shifted to the Raisina Hill, the area today known as New Delhi. This short narrative is an essential recall of the role which the Yamuna has played in the evolution of Delhi, not only as an administrative but also cultural and trade hub.

Come 20th century, the rise of Delhi as a modern metropolis came with the necessary evils of urbanisation – pollution of air and water. Worse, the need for drinking water for the ever burgeoning population ensured that the river was sucked into till the last drop to meet the ever increasing demand. Today not a drop of Yamunotri glacier flows into the city, and what we witness flowing in the river is the sewage water.

In the last phase of ‘achche din’ (good times) of Delhi Congress, the local party unit had two camps. The one led by then chief minister Sheila Dikshit and the other by then Union Minister Ajay Maken. Dikshit camp was much stronger and the role of the Maken camp was largely of spoil sport.

From an outsider in 1998 to a three-term chief minister, Dikshit had risen in stature both as a political leader and a fine administrator. This saw dwarfing of old-timers like Har Kishan Lal Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar as several from their camps came to join the Dikshit rank. Her detractors in the party high-command like Ahmed Patel, Ghulam Nabi Azad, P Chidambaram, Kamal Nath and several others resented this.

They tried propping dissidence in the party through Subhash Chopra, Chowdhary Prem Singh and Rambabu Sharma but none were successful. Dikshit-baiters finally found their wager in Ajay Maken, who had moved away from his erstwhile mentor and maintaining distance from the Dikshit camp. Maken possessed similar cultural and political finesse as Dikshit, which others lacked, thus he could measure up to her.

Following the exit of the Congress from Delhi government and also at Centre, with Dikshit moving into hibernation, Maken emerged as a powerful leader of Delhi Congress. The bitterness between the two grew manifolds with then All Indian Congress Committee in-charge for Delhi PC Chacko adding fuel to fire. Ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, Dikshit was recalled and made Delhi Congress president to revive the party.

Last week a sad news emerged from the Delhi University. A scholar who had been teaching at the prestigious Hindu College for almost six years committed suicide. He took the step allegedly after being rejected by interview panel which had assembled for making permanent appointments.

Identified as Samarveer, the deceased DU teacher came from a village in Rajasthan's Baran district. Though no suicide note was found, according to a cousin, with whom Samarveer shared a room, he was under depression after he lost the job as an ad hoc lecturer in the Hindu College in February.

This unfortunate incident has been followed by the teachers and students alleging that a sizable number of long-serving ad-hoc teachers, who otherwise fill all the eligibility criteria for teaching posts advertised by DU colleges, and have worked in particular institutions, were being displaced in the interviews being held for making regular appointments.

This has been contested by the Delhi University officially. Vice Chancellor Yogesh Singh recently presented a report before the Delhi University Court, the highest policy making body of the university, where he claimed that the rate of displacement was meagre and in single digit.

The high-powered committee appointed to look into an incident of harassment at the prestigious Indraprastha College for Women (ICFW) was expected to do a better job than making mere mundane suggestions. It has been alleged that some men scaled the college walls during a cultural festival in the last week of March and harassed several students.

Following initial lukewarm response in the matter, several rounds of protests were held by the students led by various groups but predominantly by those aligned to the Left. At the centre of their demand was resignation of college Principal Professor Poonam Kumaria. Incidentally Kumaria had joined as college principal just a week ahead of the festival and would not have been solely responsible for organisation of the event.

Given the ideological dye of the protesting student leaders, it can be believed that demanding Kumaria’s resignation had more to do with her right-wing alignment than much of her role in the incident. Nevertheless, good that the protests brought the unsavoury incident into public domain and finally DU was made to set-up a panel to look into the matter.