Why we were weak
Why we were weak
In the earlier post we saw some of the reasons for being weak.
This post intends to explore another reason for the weakness of our Associations earlier. This applies to the Inspectors’ Association till a point of time (prior to 2003) and the Superintendents’ Association prior to May 2017.
Our cadres, unlike in other departments has had the habit of accepting the leadership which the Administration accepts or patronises.
It could be seen in the simple fact that those who are considered to be close to the higher ups are given too much of importance, whatever might be the personal reputation of such individuals. Persons who were given key posts or sensitive posts are revered. Even if the others despise them and foul mouth behind their back, in their presence, they show utmost reverence. People gather around them and make them feel happy and important. Those intermediaries in turn go into the cabins of the higher ups (or even their homes) and carry tales and make them feel happy and at the same time feed them with their own prejudices and opinions. In turn the higher ups will oblige them by considering a few of the requests put forth before them. This in turn is used by these intermediaries to enhance their circle of influence.
These intermediaries are handed over from one authority to another. They are certified loyalists and could be depended upon by the authorities for all their personal comforts and well being including that of their family.
Yes, this cosy arrangement remains in all departments. That is why it is popularly said that even if Indiras change, Indiranis do not.
But in our department there is a difference. The above said relationship and attitude had been carried over to the Association also.
The Office Bearers of the Association thrived by conveying to the members that they had the ear of the authority, that they were in their good books and could get things done for them. Out of such leaders, some of them took it as an opportunity to help at least some of those whom they knew.
Later came a leadership, which gave an impression that they were capable of putting forth before the authorities, the problems of the cadre, without mincing words and yet were able to have their ears and get things done. It was only after a generation of members who had knowledge of goings on in other departments came into this department and questions started arising regarding democratic methods of the Association and assertion of the rights of the members.
The former type of leadership which squarely depended upon only the good will of the authorities to gain the trust of the members was far more genuine in the sense that they were not hypocritical. But the later generation of leadership was dangerous.
They made the members believe that they were taking up their cause, but were effectively doing things as the authorities wanted them to do. They succeeded in making the members believe that what had been done by the administration was indeed an achievement for the cadres and that it was the demand of the cadre which was being met. They hyped demands to raise the hope of the members. Then when the administration did something far below the hyped target, they blamed the members for not being in a fit shape to fight the administration. They thus convinced the gullible membership that whatever was gained was only due to personal rapport or connections. (There however remained a small number of officers also who really gave proper consideration to the real representatives of the cadres, who did not go to them with personal requests.
The drama got revealed to the
majority of the members as years rolled by.
Yet a new leadership to build will take time since it is not the
question of one person. People of
similar wave length have to take up responsibilities of the Association in all
units or at least a majority of the units all over India. Only then such a change could happen.
Such a change happened in the case of the Superintendents' Association in May 2017 when the Convention was held at Chennai. Only due to the awakening among the members and leadership at the level of units/zones, it became possible that in spite of the administration openly giving a message that they were comfortable with a particular faction lead by a non member of the Superintendents’ Association who had no membership base also, units after units decided to stand by the body elected at the Chennai Convention, which really represented the interests and spirit of the cadre.
The administration declared that someone who is not a Superintendent cannot be a member of the Association representing that cadre let alone being an office bearer. Yet, the same administration gave credence to a false claim made by that very person in his capacity as an office bearer and continued to play a drama as if there were two Associations. The bias and intentions were very evident.
Even after the legitimate Association filed DDO Certificates evidencing membership strength of 48% (against the minimum requirement of 35%), the deadlock was continued.
I remember an instance when I was discussing this issue with one of our office bearers. I told him that the Board was clearly aware of where the membership strength lay. Yet they did not want to accept us because they wanted only someone amenable.
The other Office Bearer innocently told me that we can give an impression that we are also amenable.
“What after giving such an impression”, I asked.
“We can change our stand after we get recognition, after all we are only acting no?”, he said.
I laughed and asked him whether he had such a poor estimate about the intelligence of the Board that they will not know who is really amenable and who is acting.
The other point I did not feel was necessary to be told to him was that by such acting, we would lose credibility with our own membership.
Even if it could be sold to them as a strategy, they will start doubting each and every word of ours and start thinking whether there was any strategy in that.
There are many instances in other departments also where the authorities have deliberately delayed granting recognition to the leadership which really enjoys the support of the members. Where they could not delay it further, they have simultaneously engaged with splinter groups also, along with the recognised Associations.
Yet in those departments, the cadres were vigilant and had stood by the leaders ‘they chose’, and not whom the administration chose.
In our department, our cadres, particularly that of the Superintendents, have come of age in this regard only after May 2017. After that, the Association has stood by its stand, whether on Customs re-organisation, NR Parmar or CR or the victimisation of Com. A.S. Kundu for his Association activities (about each of which elaborate postings would be made later). In fact the suggestion of this Association for a Group B service, had most grudgingly been accepted as a Branch B Service only due to the efforts of this resurgent Association. However all ingredients of the scheme have not been incorporated to our knowledge.
The administration dangles the recognition issue to make the Association compromise on its stands on cadre issues.
Only on finding that they could not succeed in their methods to make the Association amenable ‘to their requirements’, did they decide to de-recognise the old name, which had been allowed to be used or misused for more than 5 years by someone who had not been able to properly prove even 35% membership support during his entire tenure (legitimately elected included) and even as we had been able to prove a strength of 48%.
Now our Association after renaming itself as the AIASCT has submitted evidence of membership support even to the extent of 53%. The membership strength would have been much more if only Gujarat and UP were not dormant and North East also could join our main stream activities. In other words, almost all the working units of the cadre throughout India are under the umbrella of AIASCT. This is no mean achievement for a cadre which has believed self-proclaimed messiahs all along for ages. The cadre is firmly on its foot in spite of the repeated indications of the administration that they would prefer an amenable Association.
The cadre has understood that it has nothing to lose. In fact, the cadre consisting of many members who joined as Inspectors and are retiring as Superintendents with only one promotion in their career and even the second promotion not likely in their life time, have really nothing more to lose. This realisation is also behind the present awakening.
Though it is only a matter of time before the Board will have to formally recognise AIASCT, a vigilant cadre should ensure that it is done before CR is taken up for Cabinet approval and that the Association is heard before the CR goes to the Cabinet.
Only then it will be ensured that the recognition does not remain a mere token.
What the cadre requires is not a token of loyalty but a badge of honour.
Comments
Post a Comment