The genesis of the practice dates back to the British colonial regime, when the colonial establishment used this approach because they wanted to ascertain whether they were going to recruit someone among the natives who might pose a threat to the British regime. That they needed for their colonial purposes. However, why we still retain this colonial legacy, and more importantly, how much the process impacts on the mindset of the future officials of the republic, both merit discussion.

This verification process gets its prominence especially during the recruitment of the civil service officers. Officials are recruited to run the administration of the government through the very competitive civil service examination (however low the salary might be). Presently, the verification process in connection with the 24th BCS is running.

I would like to put forth two fundamental issues for the thinking of the government policy makers: the first one is that it is meaningless to continue with this colonial practice.

To no-one's surprise, the whole process is so corrupt and vulgar that hardly does it provide any premise to examine one's dossier from a law and order point of view, even if the higher authorities very sincerely expects this.

To the best of our knowledge, no candidate could escape giving bribe to the agencies concerned (any interested researcher -- particularly TIB can launch a research program on it). So in effect, the situation is: "no bribe, no clearance certificate" and "with bribe, no one is a bad element."

Now who we are giving the clearance to is a very big question. The professional track records of our law and order agencies, the DB, and NSI are so bleak that it hardy requires any interpretation. It's really bizarre that still the government can afford to put its trust in them! It's like enquiring into corruption by the so called anti-corruption officers.

Now it really necessary to check the past of the qualified candidates? If someone really is in trouble with the law, then the law will take its course. And in service, if the service rules are stringently applied, then what would be the harm without having a so-called clearance certificate?

More importantly, in the private sector thousands if not millions of people are working without this sort of clearance, and people are getting several times better salary than that of the public sector. How can the private sector afford to do without this verification -- is this not a good question?

Can't we think about emulating the best practices of the private sector to minimise unnecessary suffering of the best of our young people? Indeed, the process of police verification has worsened in the so-called golden era of democracy after the collapse of the Ershad regime.

Now the concerned agencies know what works more for their earnings: so accordingly during BNP regime, they very confidently approach the candidates to either pay money or be tagged as attached to AL, and vice versa, and the candidates need not be brilliant researchers to realise the resultant impact of being (by the agencies, please mind) tagged AL or BNP. The result is the loss of the opportunity to be a civil servant -- a prestigious position even in the face of the onslaughts of huge private sector salaries.

The second issue is the impact of the process on the candidates. In fact the impact is what leads me to write this piece. Almost all candidates are exposed to the corrupt practice of giving bribe for a safe enquiry report and the amount of the bribe ranges from several hundred to several thousand depending on the vulnerability of the candidates. If the candidate belongs to a very nominal family from the rural area, he or she must pay for sure the highest amount.

I request the readers to take a few seconds and think of the issue this way: one is selected by virtue of his or her own quality and ability, and is expected to make a career in service to the nation. But the very first experience is that you are paying money for no valid reason to get there.

Is it not a traumatic exposure before joining the service? Might this experience not effect the way these candidates think of work in the public sector? If the process thus creates a tendency to be corrupt, then who is to be held responsible and what punishment is to be given? How could the government heal their trauma?

Compelling the candidates to bribe the authorities ultimately erodes the trust they have rendered in their motherland, and the very spirit of serving the nation gets dashed.

In conclusion, we request the thoughtful elements of the government to ponder over the issue objectively and dispassionately. I do not believe that the verification process as it exists today merits continuance.

The author is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.