Puja Khedkar case points to the disability within

A wise man once had this piece of advice for people who talk too much and out of turn: it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect that you are an ignoramus, rather than open it and confirm their suspicions.

It appears that this gem of wisdom applies very well to the likes of Mr Amitabh Kant, the over-burdened sherpa, and Ms Smita Sabharwal, considered by some YouTube channels to be the "most beautiful IAS officer" in India. Both belong to my erstwhile service, sadly.

Mr Kant has been in the hall of fame for some time now, with comments like "India has too much democracy", and the G20 conference stewarded by India last year issued "the strongest statement ever issued by the G20", never mind that democracy is in the ICU here and no one remembers what that G20 was all about, except perhaps a stepping stone for our 2024 elections.

Ms Sabharwal, on the other hand, had not uttered anything of equal import thus far, but has now decided to let the people know that she has brains as well as beauty, and should therefore be placed a notch above Mr Kant (on the brains scale, of course, not the beauty one).

My reference is to the recent public statements made by the two, post the shocking revelations about the misuse of the reserved quotas in the IAS by one Puja Khedkar under the aegis of a somnolent UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) and the department of personnel and training (DoPT).

Mr Kant has let it be known to the hoi polloi that he supports the SC/ST and OBC quotas but not the one for the physically handicapped, which should be "reviewed": he has not bothered to explain what he means by that laconic word, but presumably he wants it discontinued. For good measure, he has also voiced his opposition to the transgender quota.

Ms Sabharwal is more explicit: she wants the handicapped quota abolished as disabled persons cannot do the rigorous field work and put in the long hours required in the civil services. (She is, of course, wrong on both counts: the average IAS officer, after the first four-five years of field postings, spends the rest of his or her life in office jobs, as Ms Sabharwal herself is doing currently. As for long hours, my son, who is a paraplegic, puts in longer hours at his office table six days a week than I ever did.)

The lady then delivers the coup de grâce to the disabled by pointing out that there are no disabled pilots flying planes or surgeons performing operations for a very good reason! She is wrong again, and would be well advised to read an article by Satendra Singh of the University College of Medical Sciences, listing the contributions of some eminent disabled professionals, administrators and academics.

It demonstrates convincingly that disabled persons, if given a fair and equal opportunity, can do as well, if not better, than the able-bodied in most fields. This piece, titled 'People with Disabilities need Bureaucrats who are Allies, and not Adversaries', was published in The Long Cable on 26 July 2014.

The short point is that, with their crass comments, both these officers have exposed not only their insensitive and callous natures but also their ignorance and regressive tendencies. For equality and equal opportunities for the disabled are now enshrined in the social and legal framework of all countries, as is the goal of an inclusive society.

India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; part III of our Constitution provides for equality and dignity for the disabled; the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 41 enjoin the state to make effective provisions for securing the right to work for the disabled, among among other vulnerable sections of society.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) makes specific the obligations of the government, society, employers etc. The world is moving/has moved toward integrating the disabled in the mainstream of society, but these two bureaucrat-dinosaurs have not progressed beyond their heartless, able-bodied arrogance and anesthetised conscience. 

One would have understood, indeed applauded, if they had come out strongly against the misuse of all these quotas, as irrefutably demonstrated by the Puja Khedkar case, instead of attacking the disabled quota. One would have been delighted had they raised the following questions and demands:

1. How and why did DOPT issue Ms Khedkar's appointment letter when it had been opposed by the UPSC, and her case dismissed even by CAT?

2. How was she allowed to do forum shopping for four different disabilities (locomotor, visual, hearing, mental) from three different hospitals, at different times, in order to aggregate her disability to meet the 40 per cent requirement of the UPSC?

3. How did the UPSC/DOPT fail to notice that with each attempt at certification, she kept adding additional disabilities in order to reach the 40 per cent threshold? This itself should have raised red flags

4. Why was she even considered for appointment when she had refused to appear before the AIIMS, Delhi board six times?

5. Why has the UPSC chairman been allowed to resign precisely at a time when he is required to answer questions about his organisation's dubious role in this scandal?

6. Why are the DOPT and UPSC not taking any action to shut the many loopholes in the OBC and disability quota system, even though it is common knowledge that people with connections have been gaming the system all these years? Why are they not tightening the rules/ processes to prevent the adoption of strategies to get around the "creamy layer" provisions — such as paper adoptions, gifting of assets, taking premature retirement etc? 

7. What is the rationale behind not counting the candidates' own income (but only that of parents) to determine economic status vis-à-vis the creamy layer requirements? Surely it is obvious that the loophole here is as wide as one of Mr Gadkari's expressways?

8. Demand that all OBC/disability quota certificates submitted by successful candidates since 2010 be put through rigorous scrutiny so as to determine how far the rot has spread. Enough anecdotal evidence is available on social media to convince one that the Khedkar case is only the tip of the iceberg.

This gaming of the system adversely affects the calibre of the civil services in two ways — it allows induction of sub-standard people into the services, and does great harm to genuinely disabled/economically disadvantaged sections by depriving them of their rights to these jobs.

This, and what Ms Khedkar has done, could not be possible without collusion at various levels and friends in high places. It is quite clear now that some kind of a cover-up has been set in motion. Ms Khedkar's services shall be terminated, but the various cases filed against her shall be allowed to peter out into the arid sands of time and be forgotten.

The UPSC chairman has already been allowed to don monkhood and will no doubt take a vow of silence, a few minor bureaucrats and doctors shall be shuffled around and normal business shall (literally) resume.

I wish the Kant-Sabharwal duo, who appear to be so worked up about reservations and quotas, would apply their immense acumen to these issues instead of favouring us with their biases and lack of emotional and empathetic intelligence. They should be questioning why the bathwater is so dirty instead of wanting to throw out the baby in it. The laziest option is not usually the best.

Avay Shukla is a retired IAS officer and author of Disappearing Democracy: Dismantling of a Nation and other works. He blogs at avayshukla.blogspot.com