The Messy Tango Of EC’s ‘Three Musketeers’

For many observers, they could have been the three musketeers of Indian democracy, with their timeless motto, ‘all for one, and one for all”, as they aimed to be fiercely autonomous. Between them, the trio of the Election Commission of India (ECI), Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Vivek Joshi, are the three mandarins who decide which Indian gets to vote in the elections, and whose name remains on the electoral rolls. But recent events and revelations show that they stopped marching in unison, or in a formation. Mr Sandhu and Mr Joshi clashed with Mr Kumar. The former duo felt that Mr Kumar transgressed a do-not-cross, red “constitutional line” when the ECI denied registrations to 97 voters in Goa. It did seem like a fight that should have never happened. Mr Sandhu and Mr Joshi are believed to be the choices of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Mr Kumar is that of Home minister Amit Shah.

Gyanesh Kumar, a 1988-batch IAS officer from the Kerala cadre, entered the Home ministry’s Kashmir division in 2016 when Rajnath Singh held the Cabinet portfolio. Three years later, under HM Amit Shah, he joined the machinery that handled responsibilities related to Article 370 and Ayodhya Temple. The turning point in the career of another 1988-batch IAS from Uttar Pradesh Cadre, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, came when he fell out with then UP chief minister Mayawati in the late 1990s, and was transferred within a month of becoming the district magistrate of Noida. He shifted to Punjab on interstate deputation. He worked with chief ministers of Punjab (Parkash Singh Badal), and Uttarakhand (Pushkar Singh Dhami), and Cabinet minister Nitin Gadkari. Vivek Joshi is a junior, a 1989-batch IAS from Haryana Cadre, who was considered a “colourful” and an “interesting” bureaucrat on the state Secretariat’s fourth floor. Due to the imbroglio related to seniority issues among several 1990-batch IAS officers for the top post, Mr Joshi, a senior by a year, was appointed chief secretary, Haryana.

Now, for the major political twists that led the trio to the ECI. In March 2024, according to then Leader of Opposition Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Mr Shah proposed Mr Kumar’s name as election commissioner. As Uttarakhand chief secretary, Mr Sandhu pushed the uniform civil code, an issue close to Amit Shah’s heart. But he was possibly the PM’s choice. While becoming chief secretary, Haryana, Mr Joshi was reportedly assured by a senior PMO official of a later reward and, barely three-and-a-half months later, he became election commissioner. Consider some other possibilities. Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu are from the same batch, yet being batchmates did not stop their infighting. Vivek Joshi is from the 1989 batch, but being a junior did not stop him from taking on a senior. Among the civil servants, the 1988-batch WhatsApp group is silent on Mr Kumar but supportive of Mr Sandhu.

Gujarat: Politics Behind Political Power

Before Gujarat wakes up each morning, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is up-to-date with the previous day’s events. It is believed that the main Gujarati newspapers reach the PM around 6 am. He reads, makes calls, and seeks feedback. Gandhinagar, Gujarat’s Capital, begins its day knowing that New Delhi is watching. Bhupendra Patel is chief minister, and the BJP controls 162 of the 182 Assembly seats. Yet Mr Modi and Home minister Amit Shah are enormously influential in the state’s politics. The more intriguing question: who runs the administrative machinery? The state has an IAS cadre of 328 officers, but power rests with a smaller circle. Around chief secretary Manoj Kumar Das are Anju Sharma, ACS, general administration; Sanjeev Kumar, principal secretary, CMO; Vikrant Pandey, additional principal secretary, CMO, and; T. Natarajan, a senior bureaucrat with expertise in finance and economic policy. There is an existing governance model, a “KK system” built around Kuniyil Kailashnathan, who worked with several CMs, including Mr Modi until the latter became PM, spent 18 years around the CMO, and became a powerful gatekeeper. He retired, and the perplexing question is: Will the model survive?

As Delhi shifts, diplomats hedge

Something has unsettled Delhi’s political certainty. The Gen Z mobilisation, battle over Election Commission and combative Opposition changed the atmosphere. Foreign diplomats are unable to ignore the new realities. Couple these with a curious development: diplomats are deepening contacts with Congress’ Rahul Gandhi and Opposition leaders. One is not sure if the ambassadors wish to keep alternate channels open or feel that the political landscape may change. In this context, the meeting this May between Rahul Gandhi and the heads of mission of 27 European Union members was an unusual engagement. September witnessed separate meetings with the Australian high commissioner Philip Green and Russian Ambassador Denis Alipov. Mr Green has worked in intelligence, is an expert in Indo-Pacific strategy, and has worked as an adviser to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Alipov has spent years in New Delhi, and was part of Moscow’s Asia policy establishment. Add another diplomacy layer: the reported meeting between US Ambassador Sergio Gor and Rahul Gandhi. The Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim met Mr Gandhi. Remember, foreign missions consider relationships as insurance. Regimes change, alliances shift, and parliamentary arithmetic alters the direction of foreign policy. Diplomats need access to the present regime, and those who may matter in future political arrangements. Diplomatic access is rarely accidental.

The writer is a senior journalist and alumnus of the Delhi School of Economics. He is the editor of gfiles, India’s first magazine on civil services and governance. @AnilTyagilive.