reform

            REFORMS FOR THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE

(Some Comments)

            The need for the reforms in the IAS have been due for quite some time. Hardly any one is satisfied with its present performance and status. The workshop called by the National Academy of Administration is a timely exercise. The background paper prepared by the Academy is a very well drafted paper presenting the different aspects with clarity and in totality.

            But I am in disagreement with the fundamentals of the approach. The entire thesis proceeds on the basis that this is the age of reforms and hence specialisation. That this is the age of the specialisation cannot be gainsaid. But is this really relevant for the Government Service. This question has not been considered at all. The answer has been assumed that this is so. But in my view this point should be decided first because such assumptions lead to the wrong questions which can only beget wrong answer. I would like to give some examples.

            In para 4.12, it is said that there is 'unwillingness of the IAS officers to work on such "condemned" posts'. The posts referred to are the Welfare of the Weaker Sections, Watershed Development, Reforms, Animal Husbandry. This assumption is incorrect. Actually the posts which are now shrugged off are those which involve routine administration, where pure regulatory work is involved. Unfortunately it appears that excessive concern for the catchwords 'weaker sections', 'development', 'reforms' have clouded the real issues. In the free economy that we are entering, development is not expected to be ushered in by the bureaucrats (or for that matter by the government technocrats). It is going to be the job of the entrepreneurs. Gone are the days when Prime Ministers Nehru could call upon the Government to give lead to the people in the matter of establishing industry or the days when Prime Minister Smt Gandhi could direct that the entire banking industry should be pegged to the programme of the relief of poverty. Today Finance Minister Manmohan Singh is asking the banks to have their own interest rates and their own priorities and inviting the multinationals with promise of non-interference and positively taking steps for the privatisation of the Government undertakings.

            Under the circumstances, the administrators must concentrate on the regulatory aspect of the administration. This may be laughed at in these days of the laissez faire but the recent judgement of the Supreme Court directing the closure of the polluting industries to be closed down in Calcutta and more recently in Delhi must make us aware of the importance of the regulatory mechanism. It must not be forgotten that after all is said and done, the responsibility of the greatest industrial tragedy in Bhopal Gas Tragedy must be ascribed to the failure of the regulatory mechanism. Unfortunately the word regulation is normally used in the derogatory sense of creating hurdles in the way of the entrepreneurs. The politicians also are irked by this word which seems to them to be limiting their discretion. Many would recall immediately the 'law and order' approach of the British days and call it a reversal to the black days of the British rule. Regulatory mechanism is much more than that. It ensures that the society is getting what is its due. The 'law and order' is no doubt part of it because the least that the citizen is expecting is the safety of their life and life style. But I need not labour this point.

            Given this basic wrong assumption, some of the other statements are automatically suspect. In para 4.14, it is said that 'the IAS officer is not so much worried of a transfer per se, as he is worried of being transferred to a job which everyone considers to be an unimportant one.' This is only partly true and only at a higher level when the officer considers himself as being capable of judging his own performance. The fact should not be ignored that at the lower level when he is at the cutting edge of the administration, the reasons are very different. The officers are really worried about the disruption of the studies of their wards who are at this stage in the formative years of their lives. Gone are the days when the senior officers were all expected to send their wards to a famous residential school in India or abroad while they pursued their own careers. Also gone are the days when all that the wives had to do was to observe the social niceties and to control the servants. The wives (or rather the spouses) have their own careers to pursue and their is anxiety to stay at a place where both can fulfil their aspirations. Too quick transfers play havoc with their plans and this is what, many times, lead to the manoeuvring to get out of transfer syndrome.

            Of course the need to specialise grips the officer when he is just out of the district postings. The survival in the bureaucratic jungle depends upon specialisation else he is liable to be called a rolling stone and barred from the higher positions. Those who decry the craze for staying in a job at any cost are the first to condemn an officer if he is pushed out early calling it `tactlessness, non - flexibility et al'. It is the hypocrisy which gets him to conform to `specialise or parish' thesis.

            Now I come to another basic fallacy with the arguments. It is said, in para 4.15, that '(The IAS officer) is supposed to be accountable to the people'. It assumes a position for the officer which he does not possess. It assumes that they have a different identity than that of the executive as envisaged in the Constitution. It assumes that the politicians are not accountable to the people. It is a difficult preposition to give up the notions that the Civil Servant is more than an instrument. But in a democracy there can be no other possibility. Whether there are sectarian politicians or not is besides the point. Granting that there are, the Civil Servant is in no position to counter their activities. Most of the clashes in the field arises from the assumption that the officers know more than the politicians as to what is good for the people. It is assumed that the officers make the policy and that the politicians are just nuisance or, at best, an instrument to get the policy statement through the legislative. It is also incorrect to say that 'if the IAS is no longer able to ensure good governance, politicians are forced to populism'. The officers, IAS or otherwise, were never the cause of good governance. It was the policy of the British Government to maintain the peace and order so as to ensure their continuance. When it suited the British, they organised large scale communal riots, notwithstanding the so called steel frame at the helm of the affairs and the districts. Nor can the officers, IAS or otherwise, be the change agents. As the article itself stipulates that is the domain of the NGOs and the activists, belonging to the political parties or out of them. And please get out of the syndrome of the advent of the twenty-first century. At least we Indians should not indulge in these cheap phrases. Time is a continuum and cannot be divided into compartments. May  I remind the participants that the official calendar of India is Saka Era and we are using the Gregorian Calendar only for convenience. We are a good 83 years away from the twenty-first century. Let us solve the problem here and now and that would be good for future too.

            I would also plead that the accountability aspect should not be unduly stressed. I find in para 5.16, the following words 'A study of the 1984 riots by the eminent sociologist, Veena Das, shows that insecurity of unemployment and lack of transparency about laws (building laws, issue of passports etc.) was an important factor which led people to take to streets'. So far as I remember, the 1984 riots were anti-sikh riots. What had they to do with transparency? It is simply going too far in the concept of accountability. Let the accountability be towards the higher authorities and not directly to the public. Let us resume our role of being nameless administrators. The craze for publicity is doing harm to the organisation. It is the bid to outshine each other that is creating rivalry between the officers and leading to bad blood and even conniving with the politicians to lower each other in the eyes of the public.

            So what are my solution to the decreasing importance of the services. Basically one that we should ensure the giving up the notions of specialisation. IAS is a generalist service and should remain generalist. In India the basic malady is that everyone wants to do others' job. The politicians want to administer instead of being the policy makers; the judiciary is framing laws which the constitution expected the legislature to do; doctors want to manage the office when they should be in the operation rooms; CEC is on a reforming spree which is the domain of the spiritual leaders and the officers want to be the change agents. I believe that the things would be much better if we all stuck to our own jobs. And the job of the administrators is to administer not to govern or to reform or to ensure social justice. We should be professionals no doubt but we should not be the specialists i.e. the economists, scientists, businessmen and entrepreneurs. Administration itself is a specialised area and we should specialise in it rather than go in for other specialisation and forget this basic need also. This does not mean that the higher reaches would be or should be barred to IAS. Rather it is the other way round. It is my contention that the policy making cannot be left to the specialists. It is not right for the tax collector to lay down the tax laws. It is not correct to ask the judges to draft the laws. More than half of our problems come from the complicated Constitution and the Laws that have been drafted by the lawyers. The substance is lost because of the details. The atomic scientist is an expert in his field and no specialisation can prepare an IAS officer for this field but the atomic policy is not the concern or should not be the concern of the atomic scientist. The UGC started with the avowed aim of the upkeep and improvement of educational standards but was given the task of policy making and has degenerated into being just a pay commission for the teachers. Let the policy making be handled by the generalists who should be properly trained for this onerous responsibility.

            Galbraith has listed five stages of human development. The first is where the prime motivation is `physical needs'. This is succeeded by the stage where `fear of reprisals' become dominant motivational factor. The security considerations are dominant. The next stage is where the attraction of the rewards, monetary rewards, predominate. Indian society is now in this stage. No matter how much we talk of the higher values of life and the need for self realisation, the basic nature of present era wedded to fiscal matters would claim its due. It is what attracts the young men to the services - jobs with money and security. So we should ensure the minimum comforts of life to the administrators if we want the better citizens to join the administration. At the same time I do not believe that there is any limit to the expectations. Comparisons are odious and should be avoided. Just ensure the basic requirements in keeping with the times and the need to look after the families. If one is still not satisfied, one should seek greener pastures elsewhere.

            Equally important is the job environment. If we have to deliver the goods we should also be given the tools to work with and the power to control these tools. Responsibility without power generates apathy. Power without responsibility generates arrogance. The extraordinary safeguards that the government servants enjoy should be diluted. Let there be no complicated legal proceedings before we can get rid of the person not doing his job and let there be no reinstatements on mere technical grounds. Let those who administer justice be also those who have to answer for their deeds. The need to share information is aright and should be an ingredient of the open society but more important than doing  away  with the Official Secrets Act is doing away with the Contempt of Court Act. The public can then point out where the justice went wrong without the fear of reprisals. The freedom of information and discussion should be all pervasive. 

            Another point I would like to urge is the need for cultivation of principle of collective responsibility. It is not only in the political parties  that it is necessary. It is equally so in the administration. The jobs are all inter related and can be best done by groups. Starting at the lowest level i.e. the section, it should be a joint venture. The appraisal should not be that of a person but of a group and the targets should also be set for the groups as a whole. This will also ensure continuity. While it will not take away the sting of transfer from the individual,  it will cease to matter for the organisation.

            Last but not the least, I would plead for the adoption of minimum number of resolutions.  Just two or three will do. Do not fritter away the energies in endless number of resolutions. As the member secretary of a commission, I was a party to a report in which the enterprising officers in the government counted 489 recommendations. 19 were rejected; 60 were accepted in principle and forgotten; and remaining were accepted in toto. I only wish it were the other way round. What was rejected was the crux. What was accepted, in toto, was of no consequence in overall improvement. Let us avoid giving this opportunity to the statistically oriented officers and the politicians.

(K.K.Sethi)