PUTTING THE IAS IN ITS PLACE

As India puts together an agenda for Amrit Kal, a central factor that is not getting commensurate constructive attention is its so-called ‘bloated’ bureaucracy. Undue attention is given to its size (which is small in terms of population as compared to many other countries), not to its morale, élan and competence.

As per a study in 2012 that ranked bureaucracies across Asia on a scale from one to 10, India scored 9.21, with 10 being the worst possible score. Many studies show that ‘there are no high income countries that have not also built effective bureaucracies’ and ‘meritocratic recruitment of bureaucrats was also associated with significantly higher economic growth.’ What is often ignored with regard to China is that its governance system has been an essential part of the so-called China development model, which includes “a unique blend of political centralization and decentralization of economic power…”

India has done precious little to streamline and stimulate its own governance system. ‘Mission Karma Yogi,’ designed to that end, hasn’t made the desired impact for a variety of reasons. That brings the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to the center-stage. It is useful to restate some critical facts. It was created in 1946 but its insertion in the Constitution needed Patel to make it personal, and make dire threats that without it the ‘union will go.’ Dr Ambedkar gave another reason, that such a service was necessary to give India what it needed, a constitutionally protected elite civil service with an ‘exclusivity of status’ to man what he called ‘strategic posts throughout the union.’ This is its dual rationale. In respect of its mission, this was best codified by Patel himself (1947): to serve the nation selflessly and imbued with the triad of ‘I-s’: integrity, impartiality and incorruptibility. .

PERFORMANCE

Seventy eight years thence, how is it doing? In regard to Patel rationale – to keep the union intact – it never performed such a role. No bureaucracy is created, intended to that end. In regard to Ambedkar justification – to fill the need for an exclusive service to man what he called ‘strategic posts’ – the verdict is mixed. Many officers who occupied such ‘posts’ performed with diligence and distinction. But the issue here is: should such posts, as Ambedkar stated, be held exclusively by IAS officers? Not necessarily. In actual practice, there have always been many distinguished exceptions.

The next question: how does the IAS fare in relation to Patel’s three I-s? We should focus on the first since it effectively subsumes the other two. The answer is not too good, to say the least. Here, too, there have been many exemplary exceptions. Although integrity deficit is a national disorder, it is more socially destructive here since its members are intelligent.

And that is affecting their dealings with the political class. Political corruption is now so closely intertwined with governance that IAS officers are being drawn into that maelstrom. Today’s politicians think that a bureaucrat’s role is to obey their command. The choice before them is to either stand their ground and risk being thrown into the dog house or become complicit, either passively or positively. What it comes down to is the unravelling of the long-held article of faith that an IAS officer is of a rare blend of idealism, integrity and intelligence and worthy of respect and trust.

WAY FORWARD

Up front, we must distinguish between what we might call ‘the idea of IAS’ and ‘the institution of IAS.’ The ‘idea’ is that for right policy and decision-making what is necessary is not only substantive knowledge and expertise but also the ability to weigh in of a multidimensional and inter-disciplinary dimensions. And that the latter is a specialty in its own right that needs to be spotted and nurtured and trained. For a country like India, which is so diverse not only in its composition but also its needs and priorities that often collide, such a skill is especially critical. Partly because the institution itself did not adequately fulfilled and the rise of specialisation and sectoral expertise this ‘idea’ got overshadowed. That is, until recently. It has found new relevance in the wake of the emergence of what is called knowledge economy which many countries including India aspire to become. While that does not necessarily have to be the IAS, it, too, can fill the niche if it is adequately rejuvenated.

It is good to keep this in mind as we consider the future of the institution of IAS. One, do away with it lock, stock and barrel. Second, retain but stem the rot in it and retool it to meet the new challenges. Third, just let it go and do nothing.

The last can be summarily dismissed as that is the most damaging and dangerous. Both the other options are worth considering seriously.

The argument for the first option was that it was in its very conception a continuance of an instrument of imperialism and colonial construct that should have been done away with much earlier. Patel himself said, ‘when the country is stabilized and when it is strong enough, then if you want to make any change, it would not be difficult…’ The country is ‘stabilized’ reasonably enough to fear any imminent dissolution. Further, instead of acting as a unifier, it has created a divide between a privileged few who monopolise all ‘strategic posts’ and consign the rest to the mundane work. Abolishing this service will also ‘facilitate optimal capitalization of the nation’s human capital, particularly technical and ensure better skill matching, a task of utmost importance.’

The second option requires proactive action from four fronts: Public; political; government; and IAS. One, public posture to the IAS is a motley mix, ranging from glorification to envy to sour grapes and to making scary statements like ‘effectively, it is the IAS that is sovereign in India, not the people.’ Fact is that although its members do occupy key positions, it is not that powerful nor was the ICS. The public must realise that these citizens, too, come from the same stock and society and that they shouldn’t expect them to remain islands of chastity when they live in a in a sea of sinfulness. While being critical where it is warranted, it should also applaud the good work, which often goes unnoticed in a society in which we are all glued to the bad. Two, any far-sighted politician in a democracy has to realise that his or her own enlightened self-interest is best served by encouraging the civil servants to exercise initiative and to ‘speak his mind’.

Tie relationship between the political executive and the permanent executive – which someone compared to ice-skating do – must be put back on its rails and properly institutionalised. The government, on its part, must initiate a comprehensive reappraisal of all the changes, extensions, relaxations and reservations across the board to make sure that they – although each was intended to serve a particular purpose – are not collectively impairing its very reason for being.

Four, the service and its membership must do an honest introspection. They must recognise that right or wrong, they no longer enjoy the benefit of doubt in the public mind and that needs to be restored.

Finally, whatever choice will be made must be not in isolation but in the backdrop of the absolute imperative of enabling the nation to have a high-quality, highly-motivated governance system. And make no mistake: otherwise, India will fall short of whatever it wants to accomplish.

(Writer is a retired IAS officer of 1958 batch)