End Justifies Means?

In July, 1985, I was posted to Dhenkanal division for my range training and division attachment. On the very first day of joining, I called on the district Collector  Priyabrat Patnaik, an IAS officer of 1976 batch. I had gone to him with a request to allow me to stay in the Circuit House. When I entered his office chamber, a young man was already sitting there. Patnaik introduced him, “Meet Arun Panda, an IAS probationer of 1984 batch; he will have his district training here and he also has the same request as yours, a room in the Circuit House. If you both agree to share, I will allot a room for your entire period of stay in Dhenkanal.” Both of us were too happy to accept the offer and the foundations of our lifelong bonding as very good friends was laid in Room No. 4, Dhenkanal Circuit House.

We both had heard about Patnaik being a different kind of officer, who had a style of his own at work. We both were a bit apprehensive. But, on the very first day he invited us for dinner at his place and all our apprehensions were scotched in a matter of minutes. During the course of our chit-chat, he said: “If I think something is right and is in public interest, then it has to be done by any means, come what may. This is my style, but I don’t want you to follow my style, you develop your own. Your main job is to dispense justice, how you will do it, is up to you. But, always come up with solutions and not excuses, which are very easy to make. Remember you are directly recruited All India Service officers and people have lot of expectations and you must measure up to that.” He extended us an open invitation to come to his bungalow anytime we felt like. In fact, from that day onwards we almost spent every evening at his residence, or he would come down to the Circuit House to spend time with us. (Arun is an accomplished singer and Patnaik was an avid music lover. So, most of our leisure hours were spent listening to Arun singing, from Raghunath Panigrahi to Mehdi Hassan). Patnaik was very nice and extra caring for both of us. Yet, he was an extreme person, man of very strong likes and dislikes. People had extreme views him, some loved him and some loved to hate him. I would like to narrate two of many personal experiences.

One day, late in the evening he got a telephonic message that three notorious criminals (mainly timber smugglers) have been nabbed and were in police custody at Hindol Police Station. His eyes lit up, “What a pleasant surprise! I thought I will be leaving Dhenkanal with the disappointment that I couldn’t bring these scoundrels to book.” That morning these three were involved in a drunken brawl after illicitly felling teak trees, then molested girls in a school and in the evening were trying to forcibly take away the teak logs through a forest check gate. In the process, they badly thrashed a Forest Guard (FG) and a watcher and burnt down the check post. To their ill luck the truck in which they were carrying the logs broke down and the police nabbed them. “Let’s go,” he said, “You will get a live demo of deliverance of justice.”

It was already past 11pm, he called up the SP, Ashutosh Mishra, and he immediately agreed to accompany more with the intent of having a sobering impact on what action Patnaik might take. Thus, we four set off for Hindol. In the meantime, he had sent message to the FG and the watcher to report at the police station. We reached Hindol PS well after midnight. He got inside the cell and dragged the three out and asked them to lay prostrate before the FG and the watcher and apologize for beating them up. They were arrogant and hardened criminals, they instead started mocking and threatening the FG and watcher. Patnaik asked us to stay outside and took the three one by one inside the lock-up. Mishra made some futile attempts to dissuade him or at least to go slow. “Don’t worry SP Sa’ab I will only politely persuade them.” After 2 hours of “polite persuasion”, the three broke down and ultimately fell prostrate before the panicked forest staff. He explained to the dazed FG, “Why did I do it? First, it was for demonstrative purpose; if they beat up our staff the reprisal will be at least two-fold stronger. Second, our staff should know that the district administration is mightier than the mafia.” Next morning the three were produced in the court after the mandatory health checkup. The Sub Divisional Medical Officer certified that the three had minor bruises, possibly caused during scuffle with forest staff, vindicating that Patnaik had actually persuaded them politely. The Judicial Magistrate was too happy to remand them to custody. For the sake of completeness, I would like to mention that after trial the three were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

The second incident I would like to narrate, took place while Patnaik was attending to peoples’ grievance at Angul. A woman, about 35 years old, had lost her husband, an Army jawan, a few months back. The young widow and her only teenaged daughter were sharing a house with the family of the younger brother of the deceased. The grievance of the woman was that her brother-in-law was forcing her to sell part of the property where she lived at a throwaway price to him and leave the house. Obviously, the woman was not willing to become homeless. He was harassing them in all possible ways and had even constructed a wall, which the mother & daughter had to climb to enter the house. Patnaik called the brother in law, who was a locally influential person, in the afternoon. He very patiently tried to reason with him, “After all she is your own brother’s wife and you should rather be providing all support to her instead of harassing her.” But this man was adamant and kept on insisting, “This matter should be handled in a Civil Court and not by the Collector.” After a very long argument session, Patnaik said: “You know who I am and what I am capable of doing, not as Collector but as Priyabrat Patnaik. If you don’t demolish the wall by tomorrow evening and stop harassing your sister-in-law, I will break your both legs.” He continued to protest. Patnaik’s response: “It will become a criminal case matter if you do not heed and I am ready to fight you in a Criminal Court.” Needless to say, the man demolished the wall immediately and I understand the woman continued staying in that house with her daughter.

In both the cases, the apparent objectives were well meaning and just. But the question is, can any ‘means’ be adopted to achieve objectives which are justified? There is a very thin line between meticulous judgement and irrational discretion. There is every likelihood of individual whims and caprices being interpreted as discretion. Many a time what appears to be something could actually be otherwise in reality. On the other hand, many use laid down procedures, rules and regulations as excuses for their inaction, inefficiency and sometimes vested interests.

In my view, clarity of the solution with fair application of mind and adoption of rational means can lead to achievement of justified objectives.