If the decision-makers are determined to appoint only convenient officers, then why should the entire civil service bear the cross of carrying the disrepute?
Officers in the field have yet again demonstrated their commitment and efficacy in crisis management during the Covid-19 pandemic. There are many officers like Iqbal Singh Chahal in Mumbai andDr. Rajendra Bharud in a remote area of Nandurbar in Maharashtra who made us all proud withtheir visionary leadership. I had tweeted that the "challenge, however, is to keep this enthusiasm and commitment going amidst the 'dark woods'". Civil servants, unfortunately, are perceived differently. Why do civil servants enjoy the image they have? There are several officers who are doing a fabulous job on the ground but they go largely unnoticed.
Is it purely a problem of perception? Or is there something fundamentally wrong? Or is it a combination of both? Is there a way out?
The perception about civil services is determined by the experience of those who come into contact with them. Gurcharan Das was so put off that he wrote: "Today, our bureaucracy has become the single biggest obstacle to the country's development. Indians think of their bureaucrats as self-servers, rent-seekers, obstructive and corrupt." Many share this opinion of the bureaucracy. There arenot many who would concur with Montek Singh Ahluwalia: "People have a wrong impression. The top bureaucracy is highly disciplined, and it is not obstructive when there is clarity at the top."
Why is this perception so? I had raised this and other similar questions in my book, "Ethical Dilemmas of a Civil Servant" which was published last year. Why donot the deeds of officers like M N Buch, Julius Ribiero,Yogendra Narain, B K Chaturvedi and Anurag Goeldefine the civil servant? There is no doubt that civil servants do face dilemmas in decision-making throughout their careers. The tasks they have to perform, amidst rising expectations, are tough. On a number of occasions,the civil servant's side of the story never gets to be known. There are instances when the politicians disown decisions that are subsequently found to be unpleasant.
Bureaucracy, like any other segment of society, has its share of the good, the bad, and the ugly ones. What matters is who amongst these get recognised by the decision-makers. There are officers who are efficient and honest, but there are also thosewho are dishonest and inefficient. There is another category of dishonest but efficient officers. The choice rests with the decision-maker. If efficiency and integrity are the criteria to select officers, they will perform. However, if the choice is for a convenient and pliable officer, the civil servants will be perceived as those who bend over backward and are spineless. It is difficult to believe that honest and efficient police officers were not available when two such officers were being considered for the top posts in the CBI a couple of years ago. However, convenient officers were put in position and then dumped, giving a bad name to police officers in general, many of whom are doing commendable work. There are many such examples. It is generally believed that the background of such officersis thoroughly examined before they are assigned such positions. Who is messing up with these critical positions? Who has designed such a process, including the much-touted 360-degree assessment that still leaves so many angles uncovered? If the decision-makers are determined to get only convenient officers, then why should the entire civil service bear the cross of carrying the disrepute when these convenient officers turn into rogue officers or fall from grace?
It takes two to tango. The civil servants cannot be absolved of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. If the civil servant doesnot allow himself or herself to be used, he or she cannot be misused or abused. More often than not, there is a quid pro quo. It is the expectation of a reward from the politician that makes the civil servant weak. There is a price to be paid either way. Some civil servants choose immediate rewards. They end up paying a price subsequently. More than a personal price, it damages the institution of the civil service, bringing a bad name to the service as a whole. There are indeed a number of officers who would go any distance to provide necessary comforts to the political decision-maker. Unfortunately, they suit the politics of the politician.
How can this be corrected? It may be difficult to evolve a fool-proof mechanism for selection to regular posts in a democracy. However, a mechanism for selection to sensitive posts and post-retirement engagement can be devised. It is necessary to do so because officers manning such posts can make or mar the reputation of many. They can destroy institutions. Moreover, if a transparent and credible system is devised, the officers will not be lured into making 'sacrifices' to occupy such positions. It is perhaps incorrect to say that officers should not be given post-retirement engagement. Why should the talent and experience of officers be wasted just because they have reached a particular age? However, it would be unbecoming of an officer to apply for a position. His track record should be good enough for him to be considered for such positions. For this, there will need to be a transparent and credible way of selecting such an officer.Institutions like the UPSC could play a role. Officers will then get selected on merit and not on the basis of personal affiliation.
Civil servants are indeed confronted with huge dilemmas during their careers and they will continue to do so. However, the inspiration for a change, for any correction or improvement, will have to come from within. This inspiration can be sought from such officers as have managed to succeed and serve the country and its people despite these dilemmas. The onus lies on the civil servant to resolve these issues with his or her dignity and self-respect intact. The officers have to acquire self-control. They have to focus onthemselves. They have to evolve in a manner that those who want to corrupt them arenot able to muster the courage to do so. Their conscience and ethics must be their firewall. It is difficult but it has been done. Hence, it can be done.
(The author is a former IAS officer. The views expressed are personal.)