Every sector in the country has undergone an overhaul and so does the process of selecting our bureaucrats, says K Siddhartha
From the software industry to the milk revolution to space revolution, behind every successful idea and programme there were iconic people like V Kurien, Sam Pitroda, Nandan Nilekani, and E Sridharan rather than the bureaucrats. Many sectors have shown an improvement in spite of obstacles put by bureaucracy. It seems, if the bureaucracy had worked and not obstructed the work, the country would have been a better place to live in.
Ceteris paribus (other things equal), one of the reasons for lagging behind in our dreams is the wrong selection criterion. Bureaucrats are a product of a faulty selection and training process. They are labeled as the best talents we have, but, does talent alone is enough for the right attitude and right governance?
The present situation
The already selected candidates selected out of the present procedure need not be made to think that they are the most talented because they do not supplement it with their ability and attitude to administer. Civil Servants need to be learners not judgmental but must have a sense of judgment based on their capability of logical and emotional differentiation.
What is tested
There are two aspects to consider here, first, despite the prevalence of terrific talent, why do we lag behind in taking the best administrators? Second, after selection, why even the best become unfit for the country, unresponsive to the people, unfortunate for trade and commerce? To a large extent, the selection process has to be blamed. There are grave anomalies between traits required and traits received.
A trait that is required for selection into bureaucracy is attitude for administration but what is tested is exam technique, what is required for selection into bureaucracy is administration ability, and what is tested is information base; if the requirement is empathy for the people, the chosen candidates are trained to be arrogant, if the requirement is honesty, there are minimal ways of evaluating their ethical dimension, where the trait required is objectivity, the selection has no means to prevent students who have taken all their decisions on the basis of perception and rumours, when the selected people require to have an understanding for their country and feel for the people. The candidates who come out of academy are replica of their colonial masters.
Suggestions
It is in this light that the Government’s decision to accord with merit list, services, and cadre after their training in foundation course that holds some meaning and credence. It is a prudent idea provided the training at foundation course gets modified and is reformed to an extent as not to allow the trainees to have a paid holiday and does not become subjective. There are three stages of reform that are needed
Everything is fine at the Prelims except for the fact that it has been so unpredictable that no one is sure that even a single mistake can cost their attempt to help aspirants to restart an arduous journey for one more year. The quality of intake also leaves a lot to be desired. A good idea then will be the reintroduction of options to make three tests, instead of two, one for optional and two papers of CSAT. Optional will help good students who lack in test techniques, but with observational analytical skills to find their way. The significance of knowledge will be reinforced, and whichever way the student has academically lived until his graduation.
At the Mains, there has been a good number of innovations in the type of questions asked that are good and relevant, but what the students are doing is they are packing their facts in a sack and depositing it to get marks. The test of language, flow, and coherence of thoughts, analysis, and one’s ability to go deep is not tested.
The structure of the question paper needs to be changed to include not only 150-word answers but also one 600 words, two 400 words, three 300 words, and many 150 and 100 and 50 words. This will test many aspects of candidates and expose their ability as well. The examiners also had to be instructed and trained to check the language, analysis, coherence, and arrangement, and not only the facts arranged in a disarranged manner. The answer has to be checked in a manner that the students can’t be doctored in a coaching institute and masquerade themselves as knowledgeable students.
At the interview, a major reform is required. The interview at present by one single board doesn’t do justice to the selection procedure. A half-an-hour is not enough to test the personality of the candidate. There are two options; the best option is to make it in the form of CDS and NDA. Here a candidate is kept for five days and observed intricately, the other is making the personality test of two different stages conducted by two different boards with a greater allocation of marks with as much weightage as Mains marks.
At the training stage, it is imperative that the procedure should be revamped, extended and restructured. Three-month training may not be sufficient to assign services to candidates and to understand their administrative abilities, policing capabilities, diplomatic understandings and underpinning negotiation abilities.
The best solution is to recruit potential Civil Servants at the grassroot level after senior secondary exam, keeping them in field training for three years, and giving them a degree in administration in the same manner as graduation. This way, the chosen candidates can be trained and guided in a manner that the country requires them to be. They will be less arrogant, more flexible, more empathetic, and since they would have gone through the lowest hierarchy to the one hierarchy where they are recruited now, they will understand the problems better. They can be made to understand the country better and they will be better candidates to learn. They will also be more flexible and responsive.
— The writer is an educationist and a scientist