The just-concluded byelections in nine Assembly seats in Uttar Pradesh have attracted unusual media attention. This could perhaps be attributed to the fact that many see the byelections as a referendum on the future of Chief Minister Adityanath, whom many in the BJP consider the most popular leader after Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The outcome will also determine whether the 2024 Lok Sabha result, which saw the Samajwadi Party (SP) rising as a force to reckon with once again in Uttar Pradesh, marked a permanent shift in the State’s politics.

Political analyst Sharat Pradhan, who has followed Uttar Pradesh politics closely and co-authored the book Yogi Adityanath: Religion, Politics and Power, The Untold Story, told Frontline that no byelection has ever drawn as much attention from the ruling dispensation as these elections have.

“Thanks to Adityanath, these byelections have become a matter of prestige for both the BJP and the opposition, which is represented largely by the SP. The reason is not far to seek: BJP bigwigs in Delhi are believed to have linked Adityanath’s future to the byelections outcome. The Modi-Shah duo is known to have held him responsible for the party’s poor show in the Lok Sabha election, which left the BJP relegated to the number-two position in the country’s most populous State. Amit Shah is believed to have always perceived Adityanath as the biggest obstacle in the way of realising his dream of emerging as Modi’s ‘rightful’ successor, and BJP leaders in Delhi seemed quite inclined to move him out of Lucknow. But Adityanath managed to save his skin by seeking the good offices of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. It is widely believed that the final deal was that he would be given another chance to prove himself in the byelections,” Pradhan said. No wonder Adityanath moved heaven and earth to project himself as the “biggest Hindu Hriday Samrat”, he remarked.

Pradhan also pointed out that in the 2022 Assembly election, the BJP won only three of the 10 seats where byelections became necessary (byelections were held in nine of them), and its allies won two. The SP, on the other hand, had won five.

Also Read | Can the BJP recover in Uttar Pradesh?

Adityanath was indeed the most visible Chief Minister during the campaign for the byelections. No matter what his equations are with the party bosses in Delhi, the BJP clearly cannot afford to ignore him. He campaigned extensively in a number of NDA-ruled States, particularly where the chips were down for the saffron alliance, and his usual polarising tactics were on full display. In Maharashtra, where he addressed 11 public meetings, his “batenge toh katenge” (divided we fall) slogan aimed at consolidating Hindu votes raised hackles not only among the opposition parties but even within the BJP. In Jharkhand too, where he addressed 13 rallies, he stirred up a controversy with his provocative statements.

The spotlight, however, is on Uttar Pradesh, which sends 80 Members of Parliament (MPs) to the Lok Sabha, with the outcome expected to impact the political future of not only Adityanath but also that of his party.

Adityanath addressed 13 election rallies and held two roadshows—an unusual effort for just nine Assembly seats in a State with 403, especially since no byelection was announced for the Milkipur Assembly segment of Ayodhya. This seat fell vacant after Samajwadi Party MLA Awadhesh Prasad won the Ayodhya Lok Sabha seat, delivering a significant jolt to the BJP.

It was also not as if the outcome would impact the government’s majority in the Assembly, where the BJP had 255 members. The Congress had just two seats and the SP was a distant second with 105. Yet, the byelection outcome was expected to have a ripple effect for the State’s politics.

The Congress chose not to field candidates against the SP after seat-sharing talks fell through, making it a direct BJP versus SP contest. Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party fielded candidates in all nine seats. Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) tried its luck in three seats including Ghaziabad, which incidentally had the maximum number of candidates—14.

Blame on party leadership

The SP-Congress alliance walked away with 44 seats in the recent Lok Sabha election (the SP got 37; the Congress, seven). The saffron party got 33, marking a dramatic decline from the 71 seats it won in 2014 and 62 in 2019. Modi’s third term was robbed of the glow of the brute majority that marked his previous terms, making the government dependent on support from the Telugu Desam Party and the Janata Dal (United). Soon, a blame game followed with some pointing fingers at the party’s central leadership, which had apparently chosen the candidates.

“Adityanath’s hands were tied,” went the refrain as there were whispers of an intense tug of war between the Chief Minister and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who had allegedly thrown his weight behind some rebel State leaders. Though the party leadership dismissed all this as rumour-mongering, Adityanath reportedly faced an internal rebellion for months after the Lok Sabha results were out. But he got a free hand in picking candidates for the byelections and in the campaigning.

In August, he deployed 30 Ministers and 15 other senior party leaders as “caretakers” in the poll-bound seats and assigned cluster-wise responsibilities to them. The party organised “gram chaupals” for last-mile connection with the voters. Still betting on Hindu consolidation and the “Ayodhya effect”, it organised “Ayodhya Deepotsava” on October 30, lighting 25 lakh diyas along the Saryu river.

The seats where byelections were held were Ghaziabad in the National Capital Region, Sisamau in Kanpur, Meerapur in Muzaffarnagar, Phulpur in Prayagraj, Karhal in Mainpuri, Khair in Aligarh, Katehari in Ambedkar Nagar, Majhawan in Mirzapur, and Kundarki in Moradabad. Eight of these seats fell vacant as the sitting legislators got elected as MPs.

The SP won four of these in 2022—Karhal, Katehari, Kundarki and Sisamu; the BJP won Ghaziabad, Phulpur and Khair, and its ally NISHAD Party won Majhawan. Jayant Chaudhary’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), which had won Meerapur, is now with the NDA. So the NDA has to win at least five of the nine seats if it wants to claim to have retained all its seats.

A byelection for the Sisamau Assembly seat became a necessity after Irfan Solanki, the SP MLA, was convicted in a criminal case.

The BJP fielded candidates in eight seats, leaving one for its ally RLD. Adityanath has often faced criticism for allegedly ignoring Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Dalits, but this time he tried to counter the SP’s PDA pitch─pichchda (OBC), Dalit (Scheduled Castes), and alpsankhyak (minority). The BJP fielded four OBC and one Dalit candidate in the byelections, a move that also probably marked an attempt to silence dissenters within the party and create a parallel OBC leadership within the State unit.

Also Read | Why the BJP suffered a shocking defeat in Faizabad, the home of the Ram Mandir

This time, the BJP also depended on party veterans and their kin to win. Former MP Rajveer Diler’s son Surendra Diler contested from Khair and former MLA Deepak Patel (whose mother was a former MP) from Phulpur. In Katehari, the BJP fielded three-term MLA and former BSP leader Dharmraj Nishad.

Future strategies

The Assembly byelection outcome will indicate whether the BJP will change its course ahead of the 2027 Assembly election in the State, when it will seek a third straight term. It will also determine whether the party will stick to Adityanath as its chief ministerial face.

Political commentator and author Rasheed Kidwai told Frontline that the byelections were “a litmus test for Chief Minister Adityanath and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav”. “If the BJP fails to get six seats in the byelections, the clamour for Adityanath’s removal, currently spearheaded by Keshav Prasad Maurya, will continue. Behind the scenes, Adityanath also faces stiff opposition from a section of the BJP at the national level that views him as Modi’s possible successor in 2029 or earlier. According to this school of thought, if Adityanath retains Uttar Pradesh in 2027 and gets a third term as chief minister in the country’s most populous and politically significant State, his claim as Modi’s successor would become substantially stronger,” Kidwai said.

In recent weeks, the NDA government has selectively rolled back a few decisions, the most crucial one being the proposal to induct officers at the level of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Director through a “lateral entry” system. Other climbdowns include the withdrawal of the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill and the referral of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill to a joint parliamentary committee. These instances have led to the belief that the government has paid heed to the counsel of its coalition partners and the opposition, but the U-turn on lateral entry appointments indicates that this could be a misplaced perception.

The Annual Report (2022-23) of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) states that “lateral recruitment is an initiative of the government to achieve the twin objective of bringing in fresh talent as well as augmenting the availability of manpower at middle management levels by appointing persons, at the level of Joint Secretary, Director and Deputy Secretary, for specific assignments keeping in view their specialised knowledge and expertise in their domain area. A total of 36 officers comprising 09 Joint Secretaries, 18 Directors and 09 Deputy Secretaries, appointed through Lateral Recruitment, are in position in various Ministries/ Departments. The list includes 30 officers who were selected during 2021, comprising three Joint Secretaries, eighteen Directors and nine Deputy Secretaries.”

On August 17, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued a notification, for the second time in less than three months, inviting online applications for lateral recruitment to 45 posts in the three Group A categories of Central government jobs. The contract or deputation was for three to five years, and the deadline for submission was September 17. Candidates needed to have 15 years of work experience for the post of Joint Secretary, and 10 years and 7 years for the Director and Deputy Secretary posts, respectively. Those eligible to apply were officers of States/Union Territories working at equivalent levels and with the requisite experience and individuals in comparable levels in public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies, statutory organisations, universities, recognised research institutes, private sector companies, consultancy organisations, and international and multinational organisations. The advertisement did not provide for any reserved category posts.

Also Read | ‘We instil confidence in the aspirants’: Ved Prakash Gupta

The UPSC issued a similar notification in June for 17 posts in the Group A category. All were for recruitment of candidates belonging to the category of people with “Benchmark Disability”.

Although the government had inducted officers through a similar process in 2018, this was the first time the UPSC was notifying the positions and not the DoPT.

On the back foot

The government appeared to be on the back foot as opposition parties and the ruling party’s own allies, especially the Janata Dal (United) and the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), objected to it on the grounds that it militated against the principles of social justice.

Within four days of the notification, a letter from the office of Jitendra Singh, Minister of State, DoPT, was sent to UPSC chairperson Preeti Sudan asking her to cancel the advertisement. Before taking over as UPSC chairperson in July following the abrupt resignation of Manoj Soni, Sudan had officiated as Secretary, Health, and held other important portfolios.

Apart from implying that the UPSC had acted on its own, Singh’s letter went on to extol the Prime Minister’s deep resolve to adhere to the principles of equity and social justice. The process of “lateral entry must be aligned” to those principles, especially the provisions concerning reservation, the Minister’s letter said.

Obviously, the BJP could not afford to be seen as “anti-reservation” with elections to three State Assemblies and one Union Territory around the corner. The UPSC chairperson was just the fall guy. The letter reminded the UPSC chairperson that “reservation in public employment is a cornerstone of our social justice framework, aimed at addressing historical injustices and promoting inclusivity” and “it is important that the constitutional mandate towards social justice is upheld so that the deserving candidates from marginalised communities get their rightful representation in the government services”. The letter further reasoned that as these were single-cadre posts, there was no provision for reservation in these appointments, adding that “this aspect needs to be reviewed and reformed in the context of the Hon’ble Prime Minister’s focus on ensuring social justice”.

In a veiled attack on the Congress, the letter mentioned that lateral entry was endorsed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission constituted in 2005 and chaired by Veerappa Moily, implying that the NDA government was only carrying on something the previous government had initiated. The Sixth Pay Commission (2013) had also recommended the same, the letter pointed out, stating that “both before and after, there have been many high-profile cases of lateral entrants”. What the letter failed to mention, however, was that these high-profile cases were of people with distinguished careers in their fields who were appointed as secretaries or advisers to the government.

What senior bureaucrats say

A few senior bureaucrats Frontline spoke to were of the unanimous opinion that lateral entry at the levels of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or Director would make no value addition at all.

According to the retired bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma, successive governments adopted the lateral entry route to bypass reservation on the premise that it ran counter to the idea of “merit” and “expertise”. Other devious ways adopted, he told Frontline, include contract employment, outsourcing, public-private partnerships, and privatisation of Central Public Sector Enterprises. “Since 1991, in the guise of ‘reform’, successive governments have progressively shrunk the size of the public sector to circumvent reservation,” he said.

Sarma said that providing SC, ST, and OBC reservation was a constitutional obligation that both the United Progressive Alliance and NDA governments had violated. He explained that the role of a Joint Secretary in a ministry was different from the role of an “expert” recruited from outside. A person in that position was expected to ensure that a proposal processed in a ministry was consistent with the relevant laws, aligned with the government’s formally adopted policies for that sector, and upheld the values of the Constitution—tasks for which a specialist may not be particularly suitable. He added that lateral entry could be justified for certain key roles, such as Chief Economic Adviser, or advisers in ministries related to mining, petroleum, and chemicals, and in the NITI Aayog and other think tanks. Any first entry, he said, should be subject to reservation.

“Contextually, the recent moves on the part of the government to nominate civil services to function as rath prabharis [incharge] before elections to promote a personality cult, lifting the six-decade ban on civil servants joining the RSS and loading important public institutions with persons selected on the basis of their ideological bias, have rendered the move to recruit Joint Secretary-level officers laterally particularly dubious. I am glad the government dropped the proposal under pressure,” Sarma said.

M.G. Devasahayam, another retired civil servant and a former Army officer, said that the Indian Administrative Services was created with “the idea that the best talent, best brains must come up to hold the country together through a common interest. The IAS has no central cadre. Its officers are recruited and trained by the government of India and are sent to the States. They bring together the experiences of the entire country. They are expected to reflect the pulse of the country.” He cited how he, although belonging to Tamil Nadu, served as an officer in the Haryana cadre.

According to him, lateral entry was not always undesirable. He pointed to V. Krishnamurthy, former CEO of BHEL, SAIL, Maruti Udyog Ltd, and GAIL; the agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan; the technocrat R.V. Shahi; and the economists Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Manmohan Singh, all of whom joined at senior levels.

The trouble, said Devasahayam, started in 2018, when the DoPT put out an advertisement to recruit 10 Joint Secretaries and a few Deputy Secretaries. Despite opposition, the recruitment took place. In 2019, the DoPT began recruiting 450 officers at the levels of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Director; this was close to 60 per cent of the strength of the Central government personnel at that level. Despite opposition from within and outside, some 63 people were inducted. “Now they want to bring in 45 more. This has reduced direct recruitment from the IAS,” he said.

According to Devasahayam, if specialists are required they can be recruited from within the cadre. There are highly technical people in the IAS with specialisations. Any person in the corporate sector with similar years of experience might not know enough about governance, he said. There was a worry that private sector people inducted through lateral recruitment would initiate policies favourable to certain corporate entities. The second danger, Devasahayam said, was the induction of a large number of people from the RSS, more so after the ban had been lifted on government servants joining the organisation.

While there is no harm in bringing specialists, there are brilliant IIT and IIM graduates in the IAS, and the government could create a special cadre from within. “Have specialisations but do not dilute,” he said. “How can one expect a person coming from the corporate sector to coordinate with the States? There is no gain in this kind of lateral entry.”

According to Devasahayam, lateral entry at a certain level is fine, but it cannot be a regular recruitment process. “Is it so difficult for the government to find a few persons from the reserved categories? It will find a few names aligned to its ideology and may not even fill the posts as is the case already with the Central government. The opposition parties have not seen through the game. The advertisement will be issued again; this time with provisions for reservation. But the posts will remain vacant,” he said.

Officers on deputation

The other issue is to get commitment from such lateral appointees. An officer on deputation or contract might not have a stake in the job; three years is too short a time. “I think the idea is to recruit their favourite corporate people and those who missed the bus for the IAS,” said Devasahayam. “They will be ‘conferred IAS’ just as State service officers are done. Only 60 per cent are direct recruits in the IAS; others are ‘conferred IAS’. Those recruited from the pool of State Administrative Officers and State Public Service Commissions are ‘conferred IAS’. Lateral entry will be for those who can’t come in through the front door.”

Also Read | The 3G teacher of Namo Jamdoba

K. Sujatha Rao, former Union Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, agreed. “The government should have proposed lateral entry at very senior policy levels, the way Manmohan Singh or Montek Singh Ahluwalia were inducted. But such eminent people have to be invited, not recruited through the UPSC.” Rao added that to make up for shortage of personnel, the government should increase the intake at the UPSC entrance level and, in the short run, use contractual appointments, which is already being done.

Rao was sceptical about the government gaining anything. “Someone from the private sector will get a complete inside view of policymaking and make good contacts; their market value will be high when they leave. I doubt whether the government can gain much. It’s a different matter if it’s a permanent recruitment. No harm in providing for reservation, but why such recruitments are being made in the first place needs to be clarified,” she said.

Whether the U-turn on lateral appointments is really a climbdown for the government is doubtful.

The government has made it clear that it will institutionalise lateral entry through the UPSC and provide for reservation against lateral entry posts in Group A posts.

The opposition parties may actually have made it easier for the government to do exactly what it wants. Not only has the number of jobs in the Central government shrunk (see tables), there are fewer people from reserved categories in Group A and B jobs, and there is a disproportionate representation of them in Groups C and D. In all likelihood, the posts will be left vacant citing the “non-availability” of reserved category candidates.