We should begin with suitable downsizing of the IAS cadre and creation of separate specialised cadre of professionals to deal with specific technical issues such as energy, mining, agriculture, public health, highways, infrastructure
Revised pay scales recommended by Seventh Pay Commission have been implemented and arrears disbursed, bringing about a sense of general wellbeing among the large fraternity of Government officials. But a few issues remain to be resolved. While the bone of contention is a relatively small matter concerning two-year edge enjoyed by IAS officials in pay and promotions over other All India and Central Government Services, more fundamental issues at stake concern governance structure suited for our country at this stage of our developmental needs. In fact, this has reopened the debate in the country on “generalists vs technocrats”.
Panel Chairman Justice Ashok Mathur has emphatically argued for pay parity and functional autonomy among all Group A services. He is critical of the IAS cadre for having arrogated to itself all powers of governance and for “relegating all other services to secondary position” despite various services “discharging distinct and valuable functions in the overall governance” of the country. He has advocated that subject domain should be the criterion for senior appointments in the Government instead of those jobs being routinely earmarked for generalists from the IAS. Rather than gracefully accepting these recommendations, IAS associations chose to rubbish the “beaten down argument of parity between different services.” Describing IAS as “permanent executive”, they have sought the retention of their narrow advantages in pay and promotion by arguing that the role and responsibilities of the service had multiplied manifold and that it provided the “steel frame” for governance of the country. Moot point is whether we need to perpetuate this dreaded colonial legacy.
Super elite administrators from Britain initially constituted ICS, the precursor to IAS, whose sole mandate was to “protect” the interests of the colonial power and to ensure uninterrupted revenue collection in complete disregard of the welfare of our people and the country’s developmental needs. Surely our governance structure today needs to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of our masses by remaining connected with people rather than adopting the stance of distanced elitism.
A commentary in the Business Standard last year highlighted the ills of our overdependence on a generalist civil service. It noted that bureaucrats in India suffered from “complete and utter ignorance of the issues at hand” since despite proven intelligence the administrators just were not able to handle the transition from one department to another seamlessly. Someone having to deal with the potential foreign investors today may have been dealing with maintenance of law and order or water harvesting earlier! Can we afford “on-the-job training/familiarisation” for senior officials who are charged with the responsibility of policy formulation and implementation of key programmesIJ
Echoing similar sentiments and frustration, founder of Infosys Narayan Murthy has called for abolition of IAS and the system of generalist administrators and replacing that with cadre of specialists to deal with complex and highly technical governance issues. He laments that Indian bureaucrats are trapped in a colonial mindset, which makes the governance system antiquated. Murthy epitomises the enterprise and dynamism of a rising India and his advice cannot be dismissed lightly.
IAS had probably outlived its utility on the day we became Independent. Indeed it is a queer irony that it was allowed to continue unchanged because of the obsessive and perhaps misguided concern of our leadership then to ensure a seamless transition from the British rule. In my view and with the benefit of hindsight, we should have overhauled the prevailing governance structure at that time itself by rooting it to the ground to facilitate inclusive development. We needed helpful empathic administrators and not the “steel frame”.
In the developed countries, the merit model with focus on domain knowledge is in vogue. In some countries senior positions are held by party members or politicians, but that is fully understandable since in a democratic dispensation, people’s representatives must remain closely connected with the governance process and provide requisite guidance and direction at all levels. What is not acceptable, however, is that these political functions are arrogated by a super elite service. Political leadership needs to be directly supported by professional and technically sound inputs. Positioning of IAS in between these two layers is at best superfluous.
In these times when we are competing on the world stage because of rapid globalisation we have no option but to adopt international best practices designed to propel our country to the next level. Only the very best would do — no truck with mediocrity and “muddle through” attitude please!
We should begin with suitable downsizing of the IAS cadre and creation of separate specialised cadre of professionals to deal with specific technical issues such as power/energy, mining, agriculture, public health, highways, infrastructure development and renewables. Each of these areas is critical for our economic growth and wellbeing of our population. We have professional cadres to service our railways and tax collection; we have well trained professional armed forces which can match with the best in the world and which have made India proud by their contribution to the UN peacekeeping operations; and, we have a professional diplomatic service which is rated among the best in the world. We can create new cadres along these lines by requisite training for technical inputs and constant exposure to the subject domain.
But the IAS lobby continues to hanker after preservation of status quo which guarantees them a privileged position in the country’s governance. Several well meaning intellectuals have called for doing away with the system of hierarchy in Government services and bringing about parity in every respect; we do not need any pecking order. Members of specialised cadre must be enabled to reach the highest positions in their respective fields without any undue interference or imposition from any quarter for the sake of their empowerment. All services perform equally important functions and should be accorded equal treatment in terms of perks and opportunities. What we need is to build up the morale of our technical professionals in order to motivate them to deliver optimum output.
I have seen too many young people waiting for years to join the generalist civil services, particularly IAS. Many with professional degrees from IITs and reputed medical colleges leave lucrative high paying jobs to prepare for the civil services exams. It is a pity that they do not consider it worthwhile to pursue the technical jobs for which they have trained for years. Why should young people not pursue careers suited to their respective aptitudes and fields of expertiseIJ IAS is perceived to be the superior elite service affording higher status in the society and any young man would want to join that service. It is not his fault if he wants to be a generalist administrator after acquiring engineering or medical degree at considerable cost to the Government because of subsidised higher education. The Government needs to fix this problem urgently. There is need for a systemic correction which can only be brought about by ensuring a complete level playing field between different services and expanding the role and responsibility of the specialised cadre in the governance of the country.
(The writer retired from the Indian Foreign Service recently. He served as Indian ambassador to several countries, including South Africa)