MANDARIN MATTERS | civil services survey | analysis
In dismantling archaic percepts and constructs lies the challenge and opportunity for IAS reformers
In dismantling archaic percepts and constructs lies the challenge and opportunity for IAS reformers
link:www.gfilesindia.com
by MG DEVASAHAYAM
TWO surveys on the civil services have come out in quick succession. One is an online survey, with 340 responses, that gauged public perceptions of the Indian administrative system. It was conducted by professors from the University of Bahrain and the Institute of Management Technology, Dubai. The salient outcome of this survey was that over 90 per cent of the respondents felt that political pressure is the major constraint of the civil service system. An overwhelming 93.5 per cent feel that “the tendency is to serve their political masters more than the public”, which means they are more politicians’ servants and less public servants! These numbers may not be sacrosanct, but the perception is real. In the public domain, where the civil services are, “truth is not the truth, perception is the truth”! The other is the Civil Services Survey, conducted by the Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, to understand civil servants’ perceptions of themselves and their service. The survey covered 18,432 officers belonging to 10 select services (All-India and Central) both online and by post and had 4,808 (26 per cent) respondents. The survey is comprehensive and covers several dimensions of the civil services except the most important one – the issue of politicization of the civil services, acknowledged as the main reason for its decline and decay! This shows an ostrich-like delusion among the higher echelons of the government.
Nevertheless, 430 (9 per cent) of the respondents on their own cited this as the major source of corruption and inefficiency in the services and felt that political domination and interference affect officers’ contribution, motivation and initiative. They also expressed concern over the weakening of internal discipline in the services owing to the apparent powerlessness of senior officers to take punitive measures against subordinates backed by political leaders. An alarming trend of manipulating the departmental disciplinary system and criminal justice system through political influence to reinstate officers who had been suspended or dismissed was also recorded.
An interesting irony is that while only 13 per cent in the “public perception” survey expressed satisfaction with the service rendered by civil servants, in the “in-house” survey 73 per cent of civil service incumbents (IAS: 75.1 per cent) expressed satisfaction with their own service and the job! The perception in both surveys that the civil services have succumbed to political pressure and domination is worrisome. At the time of framing, the Constitution, the founding fathers apprehended an era of “convulsive politics” and “self-seeking politicians” ruling the country in the years following Independence. As a counter-balance, the higher civil services were expected to “give a fair and just administration to the country and manage it on an even keel”. To ensure this and to safeguard them from the “vicissitudes of political convulsions”, the IAS and IPS were given Constitutional protection. In fact, the Constituent Assembly resolved to establish the All-India Services for “attracting to the highest services the best material available in the country transgressing political boundaries”. If the public perception is to be believed, these “highest services” are now sub-serving the lowest political interests rather than performing the public service for which they were recruited and covenanted.
Six decades after Independence, precisely the opposite of what the founding fathers envisaged seems to have happened, clearly indicating an administrative collapse that needs to be squarely faced. Such collapse is already manifesting itself in the tribal belt of Dandakaranya. It is unfair to expect the nation and its people to bestow huge pay, perks and prestige on its “best human material” for functioning merely as “politicians’ servants”.
Two faces of IAS
Coming specifically to the IAS, one of the findings of the “public perception” survey is that “over-insured job security has made majority of them indolent and supremely arrogant”. This is too general and sweeping. Nevertheless, despite modern upbringing and liberal education, several IAS officials do suffer attitudinal and functional deficiencies. This is mainly because of the colonial system they have inherited which was marked by superciliousness, rigid hierarchy and servility to distant masters. Even after decades, democratic and free India has not reconfigured its civil services and the old culture of servitude, indolence and arrogance persists among many. THE crisis in the IAS started in the late 1950s when development replaced land revenue generation as the major goal of administration, with development posts enjoying high prestige. At that time India’s civil service system was widely seen as one of its assets. But the hierarchical layering of the system and IAS officials’ lack of in-depth knowledge in various fields turned out to be major constraints in development administration. Jobs in the whole range of new industrial and commercial activities the state was expanding into were also highly specialized and equally demanding of expertise. Though not qualified, IAS officials got themselves positioned in these posts. With the new jobs seducing upwardly mobile IAS officials, basic governance got neglected. Globalization and economic reforms in the 1990s brought in further change in the IAS. The FDI-GDP model of development became such a mania that a former Chief Secretary of “progressive” Tamil Nadu openly exhorted:
“Investors are coming to the state with lots of money. Our main job is to receive and facilitate them.” In the event, “facilitating” the amir aadmi arriving with millions and billions has become a higher priority for an IAS official in the reform era than basic governance and serving the aam aadmi living hand to mouth. These conflicting agendas have led to the IAS acquiring a split face. As a result, an administrative instrument conceived, designed and structured as a permanent civil service has virtually descended into being a “spoils system” absorbing the negative aspects of both.
The Reform Agenda
The IAS has two options – to continue as a permanent civil service or become a spoils system as in the US. By mixing up these two conflicting systems, governance in the country is getting severely skewed. If the choice is the former, as would in all probability be, the service must go through fundamental and holistic reforms to transform itself into a vibrant, transparent management cadre so that the unimaginative, acquiescing and egocentric civil servant can become an imaginative, un acquiescing and result-oriented manager. This cannot be achieved by bulky, repetitive ARC Reports or endless sermonizing. To make this happen, IAS reformers should become iconoclastic, take the bull by the horn and demolish pet theories, myths and mindsets that have crippled the dynamism of the service.
First is the “bureaucratic gagging”, as epitomized in “a civil servant should be seen, not heard”. Under this anachronistic arrangement, some of India’s best minds that constitute the IAS are being throttled and wasted as mere status quo time-servers. What is worse, by remaining silent and unable to speak up against corruption and misrule, the conscientious among the IAS officers are fast losing their principles and personality. This is unacceptable, particularly in the face of mounting corruption and venality in governance that is destroying the fibre of our democratic polity.
The notion of “subservience to political masters” envisages a meek role for IAS officials and is therefore self-defeating. The IAS has a Constitutional role to play in giving honest, fair and just governance to the people, particularly those the ruling politicians do not represent. In our skewed electoral system of first past-the-post and the reality of low voter turnout, ruling politicians hardly represent 25-30 per cent of the people. If the IAS officials strictly observe “political subservience” and surrender to the rulers-of-the-day who represent only about a quarter of the population and do their biddings without demur, where will the majority flee?
Too much protection can reduce a person to cowardice. This is what is happening to IAS officials – they willingly become cowards since they do not have the courage even to face a transfer or some minor inconvenience for upholding principles of good governance. Like a coward who dies a thousand deaths they are compromising and acquiescing every time just to keep their posts and positions safe. This is rank hypocrisy born out of an extreme phobia of losing security and protection, and must change.
The practice of Jack-of-all-trades, fitting round pegs in square holes and square pegs in round holes, is the villain of professionalism and probity in the civil service. By perpetrating non-professionalism and non-performance in governance, this feudal practice enables politicians to play favourites and gives them unbridled power to post anybody for any job, the main criteria being their pliability and “surrender ability”! In dismantling these archaic hangovers lies the challenge and opportunity for the IAS reformers.
Who should be the reformers?
Such fundamental reforms are for institutions like the Union Public Service Commission and the National Academy of Administration (NAA) that have the requisite synergy, inclination and expertise. The UPSC was established under Article 315 of the Constitution of India “to undertake recruitment functions as well as duties of a quasi-judicial character in connection with the discipline, control and protection of the services”. To train IAS officers, the NAA was set up. This institution represents an interesting confluence of academic rigour and intellectual freedom. There is a strong rationale for assigning the role of reforming the civil services to the UPSC and NAA.
It is time these institutions assume a leadership position, declare an administrative crisis, rally the legislature and executive, and come out with a comprehensive reform blueprint so that civil servants can give “fair and just administration to the country”, which is sadly lacking today.
by MG DEVASAHAYAM
TWO surveys on the civil services have come out in quick succession. One is an online survey, with 340 responses, that gauged public perceptions of the Indian administrative system. It was conducted by professors from the University of Bahrain and the Institute of Management Technology, Dubai. The salient outcome of this survey was that over 90 per cent of the respondents felt that political pressure is the major constraint of the civil service system. An overwhelming 93.5 per cent feel that “the tendency is to serve their political masters more than the public”, which means they are more politicians’ servants and less public servants! These numbers may not be sacrosanct, but the perception is real. In the public domain, where the civil services are, “truth is not the truth, perception is the truth”! The other is the Civil Services Survey, conducted by the Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, to understand civil servants’ perceptions of themselves and their service. The survey covered 18,432 officers belonging to 10 select services (All-India and Central) both online and by post and had 4,808 (26 per cent) respondents. The survey is comprehensive and covers several dimensions of the civil services except the most important one – the issue of politicization of the civil services, acknowledged as the main reason for its decline and decay! This shows an ostrich-like delusion among the higher echelons of the government.
Nevertheless, 430 (9 per cent) of the respondents on their own cited this as the major source of corruption and inefficiency in the services and felt that political domination and interference affect officers’ contribution, motivation and initiative. They also expressed concern over the weakening of internal discipline in the services owing to the apparent powerlessness of senior officers to take punitive measures against subordinates backed by political leaders. An alarming trend of manipulating the departmental disciplinary system and criminal justice system through political influence to reinstate officers who had been suspended or dismissed was also recorded. An interesting irony is that while only 13 per cent in the “public perception” survey expressed satisfaction with the service rendered by civil servants, in the “in-house” survey 73 per cent of civil service incumbents (IAS: 75.1 per cent) expressed satisfaction with their own service and the job! The perception in both surveys that the civil services have succumbed to political pressure and domination is worrisome. At the time of framing, the Constitution, the founding fathers apprehended an era of “convulsive politics” and “self-seeking politicians” ruling the country in the years following Independence. As a counter-balance, the higher civil services were expected to “give a fair and just administration to the country and manage it on an even keel”. To ensure this and to safeguard them from the “vicissitudes of political convulsions”, the IAS and IPS were given Constitutional protection. In fact, the Constituent Assembly resolved to establish the All-India Services for “attracting to the highest services the best material available in the country transgressing political boundaries”. If the public perception is to be believed, these “highest services” are now sub-serving the lowest political interests rather than performing the public service for which they were recruited and covenanted.
Politicization of the civil services is acknowledged as the reason for its decay, but there’s an ostrich-like delusion among the higher echelons of government.
Six decades after Independence, precisely the opposite of what the founding fathers envisaged seems to have happened, clearly indicating an administrative collapse that needs to be squarely faced. Such collapse is already manifesting itself in the tribal belt of Dandakaranya. It is unfair to expect the nation and its people to bestow huge pay, perks and prestige on its “best human material” for functioning merely as “politicians’ servants”.
Two faces of IAS
Coming specifically to the IAS, one of the findings of the “public perception” survey is that “over-insured job security has made majority of them indolent and supremely arrogant”. This is too general and sweeping. Nevertheless, despite modern upbringing and liberal education, several IAS officials do suffer attitudinal and functional deficiencies. This is mainly because of the colonial system they have inherited which was marked by superciliousness, rigid hierarchy and servility to distant masters. Even after decades, democratic and free India has not reconfigured its civil services and the old culture of servitude, indolence and arrogance persists among many. THE crisis in the IAS started in the late 1950s when development replaced land revenue generation as the major goal of administration, with development posts enjoying high prestige. At that time India’s civil service system was widely seen as one of its assets. But the hierarchical layering of the system and IAS officials’ lack of in-depth knowledge in various fields turned out to be major constraints in development administration. Jobs in the whole range of new industrial and commercial activities the state was expanding into were also highly specialized and equally demanding of expertise. Though not qualified, IAS officials got themselves positioned in these posts. With the new jobs seducing upwardly mobile IAS officials, basic governance got neglected. Globalization and economic reforms in the 1990s brought in further change in the IAS. The FDI-GDP model of development became such a mania that a former Chief Secretary of “progressive” Tamil Nadu openly exhorted:
“Investors are coming to the state with lots of money. Our main job is to receive and facilitate them.” In the event, “facilitating” the amir aadmi arriving with millions and billions has become a higher priority for an IAS official in the reform era than basic governance and serving the aam aadmi living hand to mouth. These conflicting agendas have led to the IAS acquiring a split face. As a result, an administrative instrument conceived, designed and structured as a permanent civil service has virtually descended into being a “spoils system” absorbing the negative aspects of both.
The Reform Agenda
The IAS has two options – to continue as a permanent civil service or become a spoils system as in the US. By mixing up these two conflicting systems, governance in the country is getting severely skewed. If the choice is the former, as would in all probability be, the service must go through fundamental and holistic reforms to transform itself into a vibrant, transparent management cadre so that the unimaginative, acquiescing and egocentric civil servant can become an imaginative, un acquiescing and result-oriented manager. This cannot be achieved by bulky, repetitive ARC Reports or endless sermonizing. To make this happen, IAS reformers should become iconoclastic, take the bull by the horn and demolish pet theories, myths and mindsets that have crippled the dynamism of the service.
First is the “bureaucratic gagging”, as epitomized in “a civil servant should be seen, not heard”. Under this anachronistic arrangement, some of India’s best minds that constitute the IAS are being throttled and wasted as mere status quo time-servers. What is worse, by remaining silent and unable to speak up against corruption and misrule, the conscientious among the IAS officers are fast losing their principles and personality. This is unacceptable, particularly in the face of mounting corruption and venality in governance that is destroying the fibre of our democratic polity.
The notion of “subservience to political masters” envisages a meek role for IAS officials and is therefore self-defeating. The IAS has a Constitutional role to play in giving honest, fair and just governance to the people, particularly those the ruling politicians do not represent. In our skewed electoral system of first past-the-post and the reality of low voter turnout, ruling politicians hardly represent 25-30 per cent of the people. If the IAS officials strictly observe “political subservience” and surrender to the rulers-of-the-day who represent only about a quarter of the population and do their biddings without demur, where will the majority flee? Too much protection can reduce a person to cowardice. This is what is happening to IAS officials – they willingly become cowards since they do not have the courage even to face a transfer or some minor inconvenience for upholding principles of good governance. Like a coward who dies a thousand deaths they are compromising and acquiescing every time just to keep their posts and positions safe. This is rank hypocrisy born out of an extreme phobia of losing security and protection, and must change.
Six decades after Independence, the opposite of what the founding fathers envisaged seems to have happened, indicating an administrative collapse.
The practice of Jack-of-all-trades, fitting round pegs in square holes and square pegs in round holes, is the villain of professionalism and probity in the civil service. By perpetrating non-professionalism and non-performance in governance, this feudal practice enables politicians to play favourites and gives them unbridled power to post anybody for any job, the main criteria being their pliability and “surrender ability”! In dismantling these archaic hangovers lies the challenge and opportunity for the IAS reformers.
Who should be the reformers?
Such fundamental reforms are for institutions like the Union Public Service Commission and the National Academy of Administration (NAA) that have the requisite synergy, inclination and expertise. The UPSC was established under Article 315 of the Constitution of India “to undertake recruitment functions as well as duties of a quasi-judicial character in connection with the discipline, control and protection of the services”. To train IAS officers, the NAA was set up. This institution represents an interesting confluence of academic rigour and intellectual freedom. There is a strong rationale for assigning the role of reforming the civil services to the UPSC and NAA.
It is time these institutions assume a leadership position, declare an administrative crisis, rally the legislature and executive, and come out with a comprehensive reform blueprint so that civil servants can give “fair and just administration to the country”, which is sadly lacking today.
