By Pradeep S Mehta
Urgent and transformative
changes to the civil services are a must to enable
successful economic reforms
All secretaries to the
Government of India should have received ‘outstanding’
grading over their last five annual appraisals, by and
large, otherwise they won’t be eligible to claim the coveted
title. As one babu quipped, if all of them are
‘outstanding’, why is their performance so average as
evident from the poor results in many cases? Granted, truly
excellent officers have to work with average colleagues and
an archaic system, and cannot really work as lone rangers.
This babu friend had
unfortunately got ‘Very Good’ once and that meant his death
knell in terms of his dream of becoming a hallowed secretary
or even an additional secretary to the GoI. Usually, in
civil services, promotions happen automatically. Some
selection criterion does exist in the Central Government,
but merit is not considered in its proper dimensions.
There are counter arguments to
this — many say favouritism can allow sycophantic officers
to go higher than the deserving ones. In the armed forces,
it is said, promotions take place mainly on merit and
officers get weeded out even before they retire. Efforts to
bring in the same system in the civil services have not been
successful and that is needed if economic and governance
reforms have to succeed.
Perhaps the establishment is
inured to the Peter Principle, that a person reaches his
level of incompetence sooner or later.
Lacking a system
Consequently, we get an average
administration which is good at pushing files. Many babus
earn plaudits for not taking any decisions rather than for
taking decisions because of the fear of vilification and/or
punishment.
In my 30 years of public
advocacy, I have come across a variety of babus to
whom the Peter Principle applies without doubt, but the
system protects them from being weeded out. And many of
them, aided by a strong fraternity, end up in some sinecure
post for five more years after retirement. This makes a
mockery of the system and the nation has to bear the burden.
On the other hand, if one looks
at the armed forces, a person can rise to the level of
colonel or captain in the navy or group captain in the air
force after 23 years of service. But that may be at the end
of his career, unless he has successfully undergone training
and promotion tests for going up. Unlike the forces to which
people enter via specialised training centres, civil
servants can be from any discipline but have to qualify
through the UPSC exams. Thus we also find doctors,
scientists, engineers, management graduates and social
scientists who end up in the service that requires general
skills and a good IQ.
Misplaced skills
The investment in specialised
skills is lost to the society. Also, other aspirants to such
an education also lose the opportunity since the seats are
limited in good professional institutions.
Besides, the civil services have
always opposed the lateral entry of good professionals in
government. For example, in 1959, an industrial management
pool was created to engage successful private sector
executives in public enterprises. Many joined, sacrificing
their compensation packages, and have risen up in the
Government. But recruitment took place only for one year and
the system was pulled back, ostensibly to protect the civil
services.
Nearly 200 civil servants have
been occupying posts in public enterprises since then. This
is not to say that exceptional econocrats or even scientists
have not held senior positions in the Government but they
were exceptions. How does all this apply in Narendra Modi’s
push for Make in India? Hugely. Unless civil service reforms
are carried out, doing business in India will remain
difficult in spite of tomes of studies and reports, and
platitudes.
The Second Administrative
Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Veerappa Moily had gone
in depth into civil service reforms to make it more
efficient, but the recommendations are yet to be implemented
fully. Some simple steps have been taken but they have not
been able to address the structural issues.
Need urgent reform
Recommendations have been made
to mandate mid-career training as a promotion criterion. By
and large, civil servants having worked for nearly 25 years
are being sent, rather than phased out into 10, 15 and 20
years service.
Having interacted with many, one
does not find any significant change in them or their
attitudes after they have come back. Sometimes, one sees an
officer working in a particular discipline being sent abroad
for specialised training but coming back and spending the
rest of his career in jobs where that training will never
help.
The Second ARC had recommended
many armed forces-like changes in the civil services. This
included the establishment of a National Institute for
Public Administration to run specialised degree courses for
aspirants, but conceded that aspirants from other
disciplines may also be admissible after doing a bridge
course. Capacity building was also defined in depth and it
was suggested that for every promotion a mandatory training
was needed.
Most importantly, the Second ARC
also recommended that officers be put into specific domains,
based on their academic qualifications, experience and
aptitude, so that “the most suitable for the post is
selected”.
A similar practice was also
followed under the ICS. The Second ARC had also suggested
that there should be competition for senior positions, but
that has translated into jockeying rather than being done
through a logical process.
Among many sterling suggestions,
the Second ARC had also recommended lateral entry for
positions of additional secretary and above, which does not
exist in the armed forces. Another critical suggestion was
borrowing from the armed forces’ practice of weeding out
officers after 20 years of service and suggesting that
appointments should only be made for 20 years and their
continuation would depend on their performance.
The writer is the
secretary-general of CUTS International
This news can
also be viewed at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/
|