Author: Uttam Sengupta 
Publication: Outlook India
Date: December 30, 2013
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288914

The former home secretary joins the BJP, declares it is the only political party to care about national interest

It was a ‘coup’ of sorts when Raj Kumar Singh joined the Bharatiya Janata Party last week. While another retired IAS officer, former petroleum secretary R.S. Pande, also joined the BJP the same day, it was Singh who hogged the limelight. The 1975 batch IAS officer of the Bihar cadre is possibly the first Union home secretary to take a plunge into politics. And it left several red faces around as the outspoken Singh declared that the BJP, to his mind, was the only political party to care about national interest. Uttam Sengupta interviews the man. Excerpts:

Q.: You are possibly the first Home Secretary to join a political party so soon after retirement. People are questioning the decision. Was it a sudden decision ?
A.: I had made up my mind to join politics full time while I was still in service. I shared my feeling with the Bihar chief minister also soon after my retirement. And he was kind enough to invite me to join his government as advisor with cabinet rank. He was also open to the idea of  taking me into the Janata Dal (U).  A large number of  bureaucrats all over the country have got into politics  soon after retirement and some of them have even taken premature retirement before doing so. To that extent, my decision is hardly unusual.

Q.: But shouldn’t there be a cooling off period?
A: As of now, no rule suggests a cooling off period for joining political parties. Several officers have taken premature retirement to contest elections in the past. Moreover, why should there be a bar on bureaucrats joining public life after retirement ?

Q.: So, why didn’t you  join JD(U) ?
A.: Because of the feedback I received. When I served under Nitishji during his first term in office, the situation was different. But now I was told  about runaway corruption in the state; I was informed that even senior district officials were securing postings after paying astronomical sums. I also felt that the Bihar government was not serious about dealing with Naxalites. Bihar is the only state which is not cooperating with the centre in fighting the Maoist menace. So, I communicated my inability to join him.

Q.: Why the BJP ?
A.: I am a bit of a hardliner on issues of national security and felt BJP to be the only party to take an uncompromising stand on the subject. Also, I was disillusioned with UPA’s corruption and the disconnect of senior UPA ministers with the people. They did not seem to have any understanding of how a police station or a tehsil works in this country. Finally, I could scarcely join a party which has put a family on a pedestal.

Q.: You mean the Congress ?
A.: Forget about the Congress. Take any party you like barring the mainstream Left. If you so much as differ with the leader’s favourite lackey, you would become a persona-non-grata.

Q.: So did the BJP approach you or was it the other way round ?
A.: Well,  I have known Shahnawaz Hussain of the BJP since childhood. Both of us hail from the same district and his ancestral house was just opposite mine at Supaul and the two families have been close. I discussed my dilemma with him and he suggested that I join the BJP.

Q.: But weren’t you hand picked as the home secretary by the then home minister P. Chidambaram ?
A.: I would like to think they had no choice in the matter. I had been the home secretary in Bihar and had also served as a joint secretary in the home ministry earlier. I had been the defence secretary too. So, I guess I was an automatic choice.

Q.: Is it true that home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde was unhappy with you as the home secretary ?
A.: The question should be put to the home minister. All that I know is that we had differences, some of them sharp enough for him to complain to the cabinet secretary. But I had differences with P Chidambaram also when he was HM but I don’t think he was unhappy with my performance.

Q.: Let me rephrase the question. Did you have an unhappy time under Mr Shinde as the home minister ?
A.: It will not be appropriate for me to comment. But if you must know, I did have strong reservations about many of his decisions and voiced them freely. It was also difficult for me to swallow his interference in the affairs of Delhi Police, to the extent of postings in police stations. Talk to retired police commissioners of Delhi and the truth will be out.

Q.: But you are perceived to have defended Mr Shinde, who had spoken of saffron terror. The RSS had threatened to even sue you and is said to be upset at BJP inducting you without consulting it.
A.: I never uttered the phrase ‘saffron terror’.  You cannot describe acts of terrorism as ‘Hindu terror’ or ‘Islamic terror’. Yes, there were a few Hindus who were part of the RSS at one time and against whom there were allegations, in some cases even evidence perhaps, of their involvement in acts of terror. That is all that I had confirmed when asked a specific question by the media.

Q.: You had drawn a lot of flak after praising the role of Delhi Police after last December’s gangrape and murder of  a young woman. In hindsight, do you regret it ? 
A.: Why should I ?  Delhi police did crack the case and arrested the culprits. The investigation was completed swiftly and chargesheets filed. The court sentenced the accused to death. I was merely stating facts and later events have vindicated my stand. Moreover what I said was in the context of the clamour to remove the Police Commissioner. The Delhi chief minister had even visited the home minister’s residence to make the demand. I felt this was unwarranted and unfair.

Q.: What about policemen collecting call data records of  BJP leader Arun Jaitley ? Was the government involved ?
A.: I had noted on the file that call data records should not be shared without the express permission of  the home secretary. As for Mr Jaitley’s calls,  a detective agency was paying some policemen for securing the records from the service providers and probably planned to sell the information to ‘clients’, who, however, escaped detection.

Q.: Could the government or a political party be the client ?
A.: No evidence has surfaced so far to the best of my knowledge. And I have never come across any home minister who has even evinced an interest in sharing such details. The information related to phone tapping remains confined to the home secretary and the ‘agency’ ( mostly the Intelligence Bureau, the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI).  The agency has to submit requests in writing and justify them before the home secretary can grant permission. And I think our agencies are very professional. I believe permission of the home secretary should be made mandatory even while asking for call records.