Nexus between bureaucrats and politicians root cause of unrest in society: Former IGP Gopal Hosur
At the heart of any sustainable solution is good governance — one that is inclusive, transparent, just and not vindictive. Governance must rise above political expediency and resist exploiting social divisions for short-term gains. Instead, it should invest in long-term social cohesion, said former IGP Gopal B Hosur.
In an interaction with TNIE, he talked about coastal Karnataka, his experience working there, reasons for communal clashes and solutions too. He highlighted that governments have a tendency to withdraw cases, especially related to communal violence, saying it should not be done and the courts should decide these cases.
You were posted in coastal Karnataka. What was your experience?
Coastal Karnataka is unlike any other region in its geography, culture and especially its communal dynamics. When I was posted as Inspector General of Police for the Western Range nearly 15–16 years ago, I had never worked in the area before, but was aware of the tensions there. The region was tense with communal clashes, attacks and stabbings.
Despite its tensions, coastal Karnataka amazed me. It's one of the most vibrant and organised regions — Hindus, Muslims and Christians alike. Every festival or event is run better than most government functions — be it a temple fair, mosque celebration or church gathering. The people are highly enterprising and tech-savvy. However, there are deep divides, especially after the Babri Masjid incident, but the region also has immense potential — socially, economically and culturally.
Do you think the interference of politics in bureaucracy is the main cause of communal disharmony? Has it increased over the years?
If politics enters the administration system, it will lead to 'communal politics' which propagates violence. All parties are equally culpable. I place more blame on the bureaucracy than on the political establishment. Why don't even a few bureaucrats come together and say, 'We will uphold the rule of law'?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
22 minutes ago
- The Print
Beef being ‘weaponised' against Hindus; Assamese people must take ‘non-compromising stance': CM
Addressing a press conference at the BJP state office here, Sarma said, 'Earlier, if a couple of Muslim families lived in a Hindu neighbourhood, they would be careful not to create any problems for the Hindus. If they wanted to have beef, they would go to their people living in Muslim-majority areas.' 'But now, it has become such that they will throw away the leftovers and waste around so that the Hindus in the neighbourhood have to eventually leave that place,' he added. Stressing that Assamese people have to take a 'non-compromising' stance to push back illegal foreigners, he maintained that Assam was waging a struggle against forces which had 'sympathisers' across the globe. Guwahati, Jun 10 (PTI) Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Tuesday alleged that beef is being 'weaponised' against Hindus in the state, citing instances of pieces of the meat being purportedly thrown in public places after the Eid celebration last week. He cited the instances of beef being purportedly left in various places after Eid last week, including in front of Cotton University here. 'Someone can have it at Eid, but it cannot be weaponised against other people,' Sarma asserted. He rued that no protests were held against the act and maintained that the number of voices opposing such incidents are coming down. 'Good Muslims oppose such acts. They do not post photos on Facebook holding beef,' he said, adding that he received just three phone calls from Muslim persons after these incidents to say that they do not approve of it. The chief minister expressed apprehension that if things move as it is now, 'in 20 years, beef will be thrown in front of Kamakhya temple'. While police have a role in curtailing such incidents, support of the people behind the force is necessary for it to take decisive steps, Sarma added. He asserted that the Assamese people have to take a 'non-compromising stance to protect ourselves' and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government was willing to lend all its help. 'Modi ji is saying push back (illegal foreigners), but Assamese people are questioning why push back is happening. Most criticism of the push back is coming from Assamese people… Modi ji alone cannot protect us,' he said. He claimed that all foreigners were sent away from Gujarat by Modi and not a single one went to the court, whereas in Assam, cases are filed daily against action on illegal migrants by Assamese petitioners and lawyers. Sarma said that Congress and its legislative party head Debabrata Saikia had opposed the push back of foreigners in the assembly on Monday, but no organisation has protested their stand or media criticised the party for it. He also cited Saikia quoting in the assembly that then PM Jawaharlal Nehru had opposed the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, which empowers district commissioners to identify foreigners and remove them. 'This goes on to show that Nehru's pro-foreigner stance was from 1950 itself,' he said. 'Our struggle is against forces which have sympathisers everywhere in the world,' Sarma maintained. He said 2,895 Facebook accounts, originating from places like Islamabad, Dhaka and Riyadh are active which write or comment only on Palestine and Assam. 'We are a state surrounded by enemies… we have to do our research and hand over these details to Modi ji, so that he can take it further and enlist the help of agencies like Interpol,' Sarma said. He said that the 'interest' of Pakistan and Bangladesh in Assam was since the time of Independence as it was proposed to be included in erstwhile East Pakistan. 'It is nothing new. When there was friendly government in Bangladesh, anti-India sentiments had decreased, and when Younis came, these sentiments increased. In Pakistan, the anti-India sentiments were always there,' he maintained. 'If we take the initiative (to work against these forces), central government will help us,' he added. Mentioning of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), Sarma said that the state government, AASU and others are 'not satisfied' with it. He said the state government has approached the Supreme Court for re-verification of 20-10 per cent of the names in various categories, and though the apex court has not agreed to it yet, 'we believe the court will accept it'. He also cited an SC judgement which states that NRC and deportation of foreigners are not linked. Sarma said that the state government will use the 1950 Act for 'removing' foreigners from the state, with 35 identified illegal immigrants ready to be pushed back as soon as the flood situation improves. Admitting that sending them back will not completely solve the problem, he said that it will ensure that new immigrants will not try to enter. 'Arunachal Pradesh regularly sends back these people and hence, there have fear to go there. We also have to instill that fear,' he added. Sarma claimed that there was a section of lawyers trained by the Congress who helped ineligible people to get their names included in the NRC, though he did not take any names. He emphasised the need for lawyers to represent the 'people of the state' in the Supreme Court in cases on foreigners issue, maintaining that only the government advocates were not enough. 'Courts are for the people… if there are lawyers representing the interest of the people, the judiciary will have a better understanding of the people's problems,' he added. PTI SSG SSG ACD This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
After Letter From Rajya Sabha, SC Dropped Plan to Probe Allahabad HC Judge's Remarks at VHP Event
Law The Wire Staff Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. Allahabad high court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a VHP event. Photo: Special arrangement. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now New Delhi: While the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial remarks at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), it dropped the plan after a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat told the apex court that the matter is under its exclusive jurisdiction. Citing people aware of the matter, Hindustan Times reported that the move was halted after a letter from the Rajya Sabha in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. As a result, the letter stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav. Prior to this, following an adverse report from the chief justice of Allahabad high court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether Justice Yadav's conduct warranted scrutiny. The newspaper reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. 'Honourable members, I am seized of an undated notice for motion received on 13 December 2024, bearing 55 purported signatures of the members of the Rajya Sabha seeking removal from office of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the Chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and Honourable President,' Dhankhar had said. Dhankhar's remarks had come after a motion was submitted by 55 Opposition MPs citing Justice Yadav's alleged misconduct. On December 8 last year, while speaking at the event organised by VHP, Justice Yadav, had said that India would function only as per the wishes of the 'majority,' referring to the Hindu community. He even used the controversial term 'kathmulla' to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as 'fatal' to the nation. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Law 'Matter of Serious Concern': Court on Missing Inquiry File About Security of AugustaWestland Accused View More
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
