The recent, heinous murder of Shri Santosh Deshmukh, the Sarpanch of Massajog village in Beed district, has cast a profound shadow over humanity. This atrocity has sent shockwaves throughout the state, prompting widespread discourse on the escalating violence in Beed. Comparisons have arisen, questioning whether Beed is descending into lawlessness akin to that historically associated with Bihar, though such negative parallels are inherently unfair. Nevertheless, the gravity of these discussions cannot be dismissed.

There is a fervent and widespread demand from all quarters for the perpetrators to face the severest punishment, ensuring justice for Shri Deshmukh. The government has assured the public that no leniency will be afforded to the criminals involved. However, concerns have been raised about political machinations intertwined with this case, particularly regarding the alleged connections between the criminals and the district’s political leadership. Such affiliations are believed to have fostered the proliferation of crime in Beed.

In response to the outcry, the Maharashtra government has constituted a ten-member Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by Deputy Inspector General of the Crime Investigation Department, Basavraj Teli, to probe the murder. This move aims to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation, addressing the public’s demand for swift justice.

The anguish endured by Shri Deshmukh in his final moments is a poignant reminder of the human cost of such brutality. This incident has garnered extensive media attention, with reports indicating that over 500 murders have occurred in Beed district in recent times, underscoring the deplorable state of affairs. It is imperative that the authorities not only bring the culprits to justice but also address the underlying issues contributing to this surge in violence, restoring peace and security to the region.

Nestled in the heart of Maharashtra, Beed district epitomizes the quintessential Maharashtrian ethos, mirroring the state’s cultural and social tapestry. Historically, it has been a bastion of agrarian communities—diligent farmers and industrious laborers—who embody the resilient spirit of Maharashtra. Despite its central location, Beed’s agronomic potential has been hampered by its climatic adversities. Positioned within a perennial rain shadow zone, the district endures scant rainfall, rendering it less conducive to intensive agriculture. Unlike its neighboring districts, such as Ahilyanagar and the more developed Baramati taluka, Beed has struggled with inadequate irrigation infrastructure and industrial development, leading to its designation as a drought-prone region.

In the latter half of the 20th century, a distinct identity emerged for Beed: a community of seasonal sugarcane harvesters and a populace seeking employment opportunities in urban centers like Mumbai and Pune. Regrettably, over time, this identity has been marred by the rise of gangsterism, oppression, autocracy, and escalating crime rates. The transformation from a peaceful society to one grappling with such challenges has been alarming.

The governmental apparatus has endeavored to trace the root causes of this surge in criminality within such a traditionally serene community. However, tangible outcomes of these investigations remain elusive. Drawing upon publicly available information, this discourse seeks to elucidate, albeit briefly, the factors contributing to the district’s current plight. Although I have not had the privilege of direct administrative engagement in Beed, my familiarity with its political, administrative, social, and commercial dynamics dates back to 1965. Notably, during a visit to Solapur in 1999, the then Deputy Chief Minister, Shri Gopinath Munde, intimated to me the prospect of my appointment as the District Collector of Beed. However, the announcement of assembly elections precluded this opportunity.

The pressing question arises: Is the situation in Beed district genuinely dire? Affirmatively, yes. Yet, it would be an overstatement to assert that other districts are faring well, as, regrettably, many are gradually treading the path that Beed has taken. Maharashtra, a state renowned for its progressiveness, advancement, industrialization, and rapid urbanization, coupled with commendable social harmony, must introspect on the emergence of such circumstances in regions like Beed. Failure to do so may portend a challenging future for subsequent generations. Alarmingly, this malaise is manifesting in varied forms, even in culturally rich cities like Pune, exemplified by the recent phenomenon of the ‘Koyata Gang’.

In the pursuit of national, state, and district development, the onus of upholding social and economic conditions, as well as ensuring harmony and peace, rests with the government, in accordance with the Constitution and its attendant laws and regulations. The Constitution delineates a specific framework to achieve these objectives, employing the robust mechanism of bureaucracy, funded by citizens’ taxes. Ideally, in a democratic governance structure, this system functions seamlessly. However, the emergence of issues such as errors, laxity, corruption, gangsterism, and monopolistic attitudes can lead to social maladies, with Beed serving as a vivid exemplar.

While the constitutional system may occasionally be breached in exceptional circumstances, widespread violations precipitate grave social challenges. State administration operates under the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business, 1975, promulgated pursuant to Article 166 of the Constitution, or is legally mandated to do so. Accordingly, distinct departments have been established at the governmental level for various subjects, each assigned a specific portfolio. Each department is headed by a minister and an administrative secretary, both accountable to the Legislative Assembly and the populace for their respective domains. It is incumbent upon these ministers and secretaries to ensure that each department’s administration is conducted in a citizen-centric manner. For instance, in matters concerning windmills, the Secretary of Energy is responsible; regarding windmill lands, it is the Revenue Department; and in criminal affairs, the Minister and Secretary of the Home Department bear responsibility for proper administration through their respective hierarchies. Should any discrepancies arise, the pertinent ministers and secretaries are held accountable and must answer to both the Legislative Assembly and the citizenry. Historical precedents, such as the resignation of Health Minister Bhai Sawant following fatalities caused by adulterated medicines, and the cases of former Chief Ministers, Antule and Nilangekar-Patil, are well-documented. Generally, ministers and secretaries engage in daily operations to formulate policy decisions and periodically amend them. The state’s economic and social conditions, development, peace, and crime rates are contingent upon the efficacy of this system. Maharashtra’s administrative tradition has historically been commendable compared to other states; regrettably, it has deteriorated over recent decades. Numerous factors contribute to this decline, but paramount is the deviation from the Constitution’s prescribed provisions and systems, often due to self-interest, leading to deteriorating conditions exemplified by Beed district. Although Beed represents an extreme case, it is imperative to acknowledge that similar situations prevail, to varying degrees, across many districts in Maharashtra.

Despite the presence of a Chief Minister, along with ministers and secretaries for each subject, the concept of a Guardian Minister for each district emerged to coordinate all departmental activities within the district. This position attained legal status as the Chairman of the District Planning Committee (DPC). With the incorporation of the District Planning Committee into the Constitution in 1993, it became the responsibility of the DPC and its Guardian Minister to collate development plans from Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zilla Parishads, Municipal Councils, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, and other local bodies, thereby formulating a comprehensive development plan for the district to be submitted to the government. In preparing this plan, emphasis is placed on the judicious and balanced utilisation of the district’s physical and financial resources. Additionally, the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) to address the needs of rapidly urbanising areas.

Under the law, the Guardian Minister, serving as the chairman of the District Planning Committee (DPC), is entrusted with the responsibility of consolidating development plans prepared by local self-government institutions and submitting them to the state government. This role primarily involves coordinating and forwarding these plans to facilitate district development. In essence, the Guardian Minister’s position is designed to harmonize development efforts within the district.

However, the contemporary reality reveals a significant deviation from this intended function. The role has evolved into a position of considerable influence, prompting strong personal ambitions and intense competition among ministers, particularly concerning specific districts. Regrettably, this ambition extends beyond individual aspirations, permeating party dynamics, with political entities striving to secure the Guardian Minister post in numerous, especially pivotal, districts. In coalition or alliance governments, this competition intensifies notably.

The underlying motivations for this fervent contest are twofold. Firstly, the position allows for de facto, albeit unconstitutional, control over the district’s administrative machinery. Secondly, it enables the respective party to bolster its presence within the district, leveraging this influence to achieve electoral success. Consequently, the Guardian Minister post has transcended its original mandate, morphing into a quasi-district-level Chief Ministership, serving as a potent power center without any responsibilities!

The augmented authority associated with this role facilitates the appointment of key officials aligned with the Guardian Minister’s preferences, thereby exerting administrative dominance over the district’s apparatus. This evolution represents an unconstitutional autocracy. Officials, swayed by the Guardian Minister’s inclinations, may prioritize these over directives from their Department’s designated ministers or secretaries. Consequently, Guardian Ministers can compel officials to make questionable decisions; should issues arise from such actions, the accountability falls upon the respective departmental ministers, not the Guardian Minister. This paradigm shift over the past two to three decades has engendered a scenario where power is wielded without corresponding responsibility. Such a construct is incongruent with democratic principles and deviates from the procedural framework mandated under Article 166 of the Constitution.

In certain districts, this situation deteriorates further, with the Guardian Minister’s position being exploited to manipulate administrative machinery, thereby undermining political adversaries. This reality is well-recognized in Maharashtra, as evidenced by the fervent competition for the Guardian Minister post.

Among the myriad factors contributing to the Massajog issue, a salient example is the prevailing influence of the Guardian Minister’s office over the district’s administrative framework. This dominance enables the appointment of officials aligned with the Guardian Minister’s preferences, fostering an administrative culture where district officials become accountable primarily to the Guardian Minister, rather than to their respective ministers or secretaries. Consequently, officers who do not conform to the Guardian Minister’s directives face the threat of transfer. While certain Guardian Ministers leverage their authority to uphold social harmony and drive developmental initiatives within the district, such outcomes are neither uniform nor assured.

A closer examination of the Massajog case reveals pertinent insights. Typically, ash produced at the Parli Thermal Power Plant, akin to other such facilities, is mandated to be auctioned, with revenues accruing to the Maharashtra Power Generation Company (MahaGenco). Oversight of this process resides with the company’s senior local officers, the IAS Managing Director, the Secretary of Energy, and the Energy Minister. It remains unclear whether the ash from Parli was auctioned appropriately and whether the government company received a fair price. However, media reports suggest the emergence of an extensive criminal network surrounding the ash, leading to a parallel illegal economy that adversely impacts local societal and political dynamics. Notably, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) issued a notice to the Parli Thermal Power Station over alleged mismanagement of ash, highlighting environmental concerns.

In such scenarios, it is incumbent upon the Energy Secretary to elucidate the facts, a responsibility that appears unfulfilled. This omission lends credence to the narratives portrayed in the media. Should these accounts hold true, the Managing Director of MahaGenco, the Secretary of Energy, and the Energy Minister bear direct legal responsibility. Their actions, or lack thereof, may have inadvertently fostered an illegal economy and associated local crimes. While it would be presumptive to assert that the Guardian Minister of Beed district was either unaware of these developments or complicit, constitutionally and legally, the Guardian Minister cannot be held accountable for such matters. Mere media reportage of these criminal activities is insufficient; a robust democracy necessitates thorough investigations, accountability measures against those implicated, and proactive steps to prevent future occurrences.

Reflecting on the 1980s, the central government regulated the trade of sugarcane and molasses, during which similar malpractices occurred on a smaller scale. Sugar factories were required to maintain records of molasses production, its conversion into alcohol, and sales for other purposes. The administrative system was tasked with verifying these records. However, due to inadequate cross-checks, the administration often relied solely on data provided by the factories. To address this, during my tenure in the Home Department, I initiated a system to cross-verify molasses production by correlating the amount of sugarcane crushed with the expected molasses yield, identifying discrepancies where they existed. A similar methodology could be applied to ash management. Calculating the expected ash yield based on the quantity of coal consumed for power generation is feasible. Implementing such verification processes is essential in Maharashtra’s current context. Specifically, assessing how many tons of ash were scientifically expected from the Parli Thermal Power Station, determining the officially recorded sales, and evaluating the revenue generated are critical steps. If these processes adhere to established regulations, there would be no basis to associate them with the criminal activities reported in Parli.

Furthermore, it is imperative for the public to understand that electricity tariffs encompass generation costs, from which revenues from ash sales are expected to be deducted. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) must ascertain whether such considerations have been factored into tariff determinations. Notably, MERC has been proactive in addressing issues related to fly ash management and its impact on electricity tariffs. Ensuring transparency and accountability in these processes is vital for maintaining public trust and promoting equitable economic practices.

Certain regions within Beed district have been scientifically identified as suitable for the establishment of wind energy projects. The acquisition of land for these windmills often leads to a substantial appreciation in land value. This phenomenon is not confined to Beed alone; districts such as Satara and Dhule in Maharashtra have previously experienced similar developments, with numerous windmills already operational and associated land transactions completed. While disputes did arise during these transactions, effective coordination among the local revenue administration, the Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (Mahaurja), the involved companies, and the police ensured that tensions remained manageable and did not escalate into criminal activities.

In the context of Beed, reports have emerged linking land disputes over windmill acquisitions to the tragic murder of Massajog’s sarpanch, Santosh Deshmukh. Deshmukh, 45, who was abducted and murdered on December 9, had reportedly been at the center of disputes around windmill operations in the region. This incident underscores the necessity of scrutinizing the roles played by the revenue administration, Mahaurja, the companies involved, and the police over the past decade to decade and a half. Given that these matters intersect with the government’s revenue, energy, and home departments, it is imperative to assess how these departments have addressed such issues at the ministerial level during this period. Notably, the statutory involvement of the Guardian Minister in these affairs is negligible, absolving them of direct responsibility. This situation reflects broader challenges in India’s renewable energy sector, where land acquisition disputes frequently impede progress. In light of these developments, it is crucial for authorities to ensure transparent and equitable land acquisition processes, fostering collaboration among all stakeholders to mitigate conflicts and promote sustainable energy projects.

Upon examining the aforementioned instances, it becomes evident that the factors previously discussed, among others, have contributed to the environmental degradation in Beed district. A significant aspect is the administrative culture that the incumbent guardian minister has illicitly fostered over the past three decades. Concurrently, the pertinent governmental department has neglected its statutory obligations, marking a regrettable chapter in Beed’s history.

Media reports attribute the surge in criminal activities within Beed to the disproportionately high number of officials from a particular community. This claim warrants thorough investigation to ascertain its veracity. For any department or district administration to function effectively, it is imperative that the administrative machinery operates with the neutrality envisioned by our Constitution. Deviation from this principle, especially under the undue influence of a guardian minister, undermines democratic ideals. However, legally implicating the guardian minister is complex, as the authority to transfer officials resides with the respective secretary, minister, or the Chief Minister, with secretarial roles being pivotal.

In 2013, the Supreme Court mandated that officers’ appointments should be proposed impartially, ensuring neutrality in administrative changes—a policy that predates the ruling. Appointments influenced solely by a guardian minister’s preferences compromise democratic principles. If the newspaper’s statistics are accurate, it is crucial to scrutinize the senior administrative leadership’s role and, if discrepancies are found, to implement corrective measures to prevent future occurrences.

Traditionally, a Guardian Minister serves as the district’s coordinator, overseeing developmental projects. Ideally, competent ministers and secretaries ensure uniform implementation of programs, schemes, and laws across all districts. Reliance solely on a Guardian Minister’s efficiency can lead to disparities in policy execution, causing state-wide imbalances. Notably, no comprehensive study has evaluated the effectiveness of Guardian Ministers in achieving coordination, highlighting the need for such research.

The Guardian Secretary institution was introduced to complement the Guardian Minister. If irregularities persist in Beed, it is imperative to assess the Guardian Secretary’s contributions to avoid rendering the initiative ineffective. The assumption that Guardian Ministers’ appointments lead to effective scheme implementation is debatable. For instance, during the 2016 session, MLA Shri Bhaskarrao Jadhav highlighted the inadequate execution of government schemes in Konkan. In response, then-Chief Minister Shri Devendra Fadnavis pledged to appoint an officer to oversee proper implementation. This raises concerns, especially when Guardian Ministers and Secretaries are already in place, necessitating a reevaluation of the administrative framework.

This scenario exemplifies potential administrative inefficiencies. Following the Chief Minister’s 2016 assurance, a straightforward order to assign this additional responsibility to senior functionaries like Divisional Commissioner or some departmental Secretary was delayed for two years due to departmental indecision. This procrastination, involving senior officials debating which department is responsible for issuing the order, reflects poorly on the state’s top administration. Such delays undermine the Chief Minister’s commitments and hinder regional development. During my tenure as Principal Secretary in 2018, I addressed this issue, recommending action against those responsible for the delay. The outcome of this recommendation remains unknown. If the state’s administrative system is in such disarray, it is unsurprising that districts like Beed face challenges.

To ameliorate the state’s condition and prevent other districts from experiencing the plight of Beed, it is imperative to reevaluate the role of the Guardian Minister. While the concept holds merit, establishing safeguards against potential misuse is essential. More critically, it is incumbent upon the respective departmental ministers and secretaries to vigilantly oversee district-level operations within their purview, ensuring administrative practices align with democratic principles and address the needs of the state’s populace. Neglecting this responsibility portends a dismal future, with the likelihood of unfortunate and humiliating incidents, akin to that of Santosh Deshmukh, not only persisting but escalating.

Sir, may I humbly request you to consider this in a holistic manner and reorient the entire system to prevent such incidents.

लोकसत्ता दि 18/2/2025

लोकप्रतिनिधी व नोकरशाही यांची अभद्र युती वाढत चालली असून ती सक्षम होत आहे. ही युती थांबविता येईल हे नागरिकांनी पाहिले पाहिजे. त्याच बरोबर नागरिकांनी संविधानिक जबाबदाऱ्या जाणून घेतल्या पाहिजेत, असे मत राज्याचे माजी प्रधान सचिव महेश झगडे यांनी व्यक्त केले.
शिवजयंतीनिमित्त शिरूर येथील छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज जयंती उत्सव समिती यांचा वतीने धनराज महाराज व्याख्यानमालेत ‘ लोकप्रतिनिधी आणि नोकरशाही : संविधानिक जबाबदा-या आणि वास्तव’ या विषयावर झगडे यांचे व्याख्यान झाले. त्यावेळी ते बोलत होते. कार्यक्रमाच्या अध्यक्षस्थानी प्रा .डॉ . दीपक गायकवाड होते. उत्सव समितीचे अध्यक्ष रवींद्र धनक , रमेश कर्नावट , पांडुरंग थोरात , विजेंद्र गद्रे , आदी याप्रसंगी उपस्थित होते .

झगडे म्हणाले, ‘ लोकप्रतिनिधी हे नागरिकांचे प्रतिनिधी आहेत. लोकशाहीत नोकरशाहीची गरज आहे . ही नोकरशाही प्रगल्भ , निस्पृह व कोण्याचाही दबावाला बळी पडणारी नसावी. नोकरशाहीला कर्णापेक्षा आधिक कवचकुंडले दिली आहेत. राजकारणींकडून चुकीचे होऊ नये हे पाहण्याची जबाबदारी नोकरशाहीची आहे. ही जबाबदारी मागील ७० वर्षांत नोकरशाहीने पाळली का असा प्रश्न आहे’.
‘आधिकारी जनतेला , कायदाला अपेक्षित काम करु शकतो; पण कोणी म्हणत असेल की मला काम करू दिले जात नाही तर हा पळपुटेपणा आहे. नोकरशाही कांगावा करतात की आम्हाला काम करू दिले जात नाही. नोकरशाहीचा कांगावा नागरिकांसमोर आणला पाहिजे.’ असे झगडे म्हणाले.
एखादे चुकीचे काम करण्यासंदर्भात कोणी दबाव आणत असेल तर प्रांजळपणे काम करणार नाही असे सांगितले पाहिजे. बदलीस घाबरुन कांगावाखोरी करू नये. बदलीस घाबरू नये. ज्या आधिका-यांच्या बदल्या होतात ते आधिकारी लोकांना हिरो का वाटतात? असा प्रश्नही झगडे यांनी उपस्थित केला.
कृत्रिम बुध्दिमत्ता व चौथ्या औद्योगिक क्रांतीमुळे नोकरी व व्यवसाय यावर परिणाम होणार आहेत.सध्या नऊ लाख औषधांची दुकाने असून कोट्यवधी रुपयेची औषध विक्री या दुकानातून होते. ऑनलाइन औषध विक्री सुरू झाल्यावर औषध विक्रेत्यांचा रोजगारावर गदा येणार नाही का, असेही ते म्हणाले.
छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज हे रयतेचे राजे होते . आता रयत राजा झाली आहे. लोकप्रतिनिधी व नोकरशाही यांची जबाबदारी व कर्तव्ये जाणून घेवून रयतेने लोकप्रतिनिधी व नोकरशाही कोठे चुकतात हे ठामपणे विचारले पाहिजे.नोकरशाही म्हणजे सरकार नाही. लोकप्रतिनिधी व त्यांनी केलेली व्यवस्था म्हणजे सरकार, खासदार व आमदारांना लोकशाही आहे का ते त्याचे मत व्यक्त करू शकतात का? एखाद्या कायदा त्यांना पसंत नसेल तर त्या विरोधात ते मतदान करु शकतात का ? व्हिपप्रमाणे त्यांना मतदान करावे लागते .तिथे लोकशाही थांबते. तेथे सत्ताधारी व विरोधी पक्षाला वाटते तेच ठरते . तुमच्या लोकप्रतिनिधी जर तुमचे मत मांडू शकत नाही ती लोकशाही आहे का असे झगडे म्हणाले .
कार्यक्रमाचे प्रास्ताविक मोहम्मद पटेल यांनी केले. पाहुण्याचा परिचय बाबाजी गलांडे यांनी करुन दिला. सूत्रसंचालन शहाजी पवार यांनी केले. किरण आंबेकर यांनी आभार मानले .

https://www.loksatta.com/pune/former-chief-secretary-mahesh-zagade-criticize-about-indecent-alliance-of-representatives-and-bureaucracy-pune-print-news-asj-82-4898744/