TSR subramanian Former Cabinet Secretary of India
There are reports that the Government of India is considering the modalities of lateral entry of ‘specialists’, to the senior echelons of All India Services (AIS). It needs to be noted that over the past two decades or more, nearly half of the secretary-level posts in the Government of India was manned by non-AIS officers. There is nothing radically new in this idea. One needs to be clear as to the role of the specialist vs the generalist; the civil servant is frequently referred to, in derogatory term as a ‘generalist’.
The fact is that in every major field of activity, there are very large number of specialisations—no individual is ever likely to master more than five or six of these in a full career—it is a misnomer to call these ‘branch’ experts as ‘specialists’. In the medical field, for example, each specialist is so narrow in focusing on his area, he frequently loses sight of the totality of impact on the patient—often, it requires a general physician, with common sense, to reconcile the views of ‘specialists’. Note that the AIS officers, as a class, have come through severe competition and represent the best available of their generation; besides, in their chosen field of administration, many have 15 or 20 years of experience—it will be folly to treat them as amateurs. Many of them have experience of diverse sectors, and bring cross-sectoral understanding of issues and possible solutions. Except where very specialised technology or other work experience is required, there is no reason to assume that the ‘bureaucrat’ is unable to deliver the goods.
It is well acknowledged that the training undergone by the AIS officers in district/tehsil is among the best in the world, exposing him to a wide variety of issues. India is a unique country, where the policy work at the Centre/State Secretariat requires empathy for, and familiarity with the common man—it is imperative that policy-making be not divorced from consideration of welfare and impact on the citizen. Many lateral entrants, while being extraordinarily good in their special fields, may not carry such feel or empathy for the citizen. Indeed, for example, many of the blunders in the management of the economy in the past have arisen due to implicit trust on our economists, mostly trained in Harvard or Chicago, who mutatis mutandis apply American conditions to Indian rural issues—the country has paid heavily for such dependence.
There is one other element that needs to be taken into account with care. A technical manager, who has worked in a large business house, who joins a ministry at a senior level for a couple of years, can play havoc with national interest, promoting the interests of his erstwhile employer. Even when career civil servants are involved, A Raja colluding with a pliant IAS secretary, caused much harm in a major sector. Such instances will multiply, unless the official can be disciplined, in the normal line of control—India has not the same work ethos such as Japan. In a State administration, totally controlled by mafias, where the leadership is frequently venal, it could be a deadly combination to induct temporary administration, in the name of ‘efficiency’.
In our parliamentary system, with amateur ministers, it is essential to have a professional civil service for management backup. It is true that our Central and state governments are functioning in ‘presidential’ mode, in this ‘parliamentary democracy’—we can’t have a hybrid management system, which brings out the worst features of both. Surely, there are many areas where experts have a role in the government, as advisors; any lateral ‘induction’ should be thought through with care.
Over 300 administrative reforms commissions have made valuable recommendations in the past 50 years. It has been the uniform past practice that all the minor, trivial, tangential, and inconsequential suggestions have been seriously implemented, while the core recommendations, which diagnose accurately the malaise in our administration/governance, have been systematically and deliberately ignored. The solution is in political and electoral reform, and in attitudinal change in our civil services. The problems are fundamental. Such cosmetic, band-aid solutions may get media headlines, and may appear to be reforms—they may not do any good, indeed they may do much harm. At least the system is functioning today.
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com