Lateral Entry into Higher Bureaucracy: Concerns and Implications

Criticism

The reactions were largely on predictable lines. The serving officers, mostly from the middle level of the IAS, saw this move as threatening their hegemony. Many senior officers appeared to be apprehensive. Some retired ones considered this initiative as the beginning of the end of ‘neutral and impartial’ civil service with the purported induction of individuals ideologically loyal to the current dispensation—a concern shared by certain political leaders. It was also argued that this move marked the ‘privatisation of the IAS’. Doubts were expressed whether truly outstanding experts from the private sector would be interested in joining such posts for a short period of time, and whether large private business houses would take this opportunity to ‘plant’ their persons in order to influence government policies. A few suggested that the Government job reservation policy should apply to these inductees also. But the fact was that except the serving and some retired civil servants, those too from the IAS, most others thought that it was a bold decision of the Indian Government that should be given a fair trial.

How the Secretariat Functions

Since much of the criticism was based on perception and an inadequate appreciation of how the Government functions, that too at the Secretariat level, a reality check is called for. In our cabinet system with collective responsibility, the Secretariat plays a crucial role. The framework of a ‘generalist’ higher civil service can be appreciated in the context of technical/specialist bodies on the one side and the lay political executive on top. Political scientists like Prof M.A. Muttalib have studied this context in their works on public administration.

The function of the higher bureaucracy in the Secretariat is often to examine the proposals received from specialised departments (say, the Central Public Works department, the Central Water Commission, various central public sector under-takings and the like which are largely manned by technical experts), and in consultation with other ministries/departments like those of Finance, Personnel and Law prepare a concise and cohesive note to facilitate the minister concerned to take a final view on the matter. This is a complex consultative process for which detailed rules and procedures have been formulated. How to steer a proposal through this labyrinth requires both expertise and experience. A final government decision is obtained, after the file having moved through this long internal and hierarchical process, when the cabinet or its designated committee or the minister concerned, as the case may be, gives its seal of approval. The key officials in the central secretariat, from the joint secretary to the secretary, are the pointsmen guiding this consultative process and advising the political executive at the highest level to take a final call. How an idea, say in the form of a party manifesto, is to be given a concrete, implementable shape in the form of a government order is one main function of such officers. Joint Secretaries also play an equally, if not more, important role in guiding and supervising the implementation of official policies.

Although the original proposal is often prepared by technical experts and sent to the Government, the final decision-making process lies with the joint secretary/additional secretary, the secretary and finally the minister/cabinet. In fact, joint secretaries, not exceeding about half a dozen under one secretary (varying from two to three in some ministries/departments to over a dozen in larger ones), are expected to take an impartial view on proposals prepared by experts, keeping the overall public interest in mind and ensuring that such proposals meet the budgetary/financial, personnel, legal and other requirements. (Please see Allocation of Business Rules at https://cabsec.gov.in).

Since joint secretaries from the IAS acquire prior field-level experience and multi-departmental exposure in a state and at the centre, they are generally equipped to take a dispassionate view on such matters. Also, the IAS officers gain a perspective on inter-sectoral priority. A specialist, however proficient in a field, may not find it easy to take such a holistic view on behalf of the Government.

Besides the secretariat department(s) in each ministry, there are many attached/subordinate offices like those of Director Generals/Commissionerates, public sector undertakings and other autonomous bodies/registered societies under every Ministry, each of them having a plethora of subject matter specialists in a variety of fields. There happens continuous interaction between all these bodies before an idea is firmed up. As such, those who plead that senior posts in the secretariat should be filled by experts betray an inadequate understanding of how the government organises its activities. At the higher levels, key people must have a holistic perspective and a clear understanding of the processes involved.

Generalist Versus Specialist

The question that is often raised in this context is whether the higher bureaucracy, that is, from the joint secretary upwards, is intellectually equipped to comprehend complex economic and technical issues in order to properly aid and advise the minister. Should a career civil servant, recruited through a tough competitive examination conducted by the UPSC years ago, cope with the increasingly complex matrix of decision-making at the highest levels of the government? Can an IAS officer, however brilliant and diligent he or she might be, based on his or her experience at the sub-district and district levels, for which she or he had been trained at the National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie, handle after a decade or more diverse portfolios from the civil aviation to the power or to defence? These are valid questions that have been raised from time to time over the last few decades.

It may be noted in this context that the words such as professionalism, specialisation, and technical expertise are terms often used vaguely and inter-changeably. Is not a career civil servant a professional? Does not an IAS officer, after years of experience at the field level, become an expert in public systems? Can the expertise of a doctor or an engineer be of the same nature as that of a policeman or an auditor? Does qualification play a role here? Can a renowned oncologist or a heart surgeon, for example, be considered an expert to advise the government on how the health policy of the nation is to be formulated? How valid are the observations to ‘keep experts on tap, not on top’? Recently in an article published in the renowned journal Science (6 July 2018), the President of the US National Academy of Engineering was quoted: ‘Engineering systems cannot be wisely envisioned, designed or deployed without an understanding of society, culture, politics, economics, and communications—in other words, the very stuff of the liberal arts and also of the social sciences’ (Balasubramanian, 2018).

However, pedagogic issues notwithstanding, it is almost axiomatic that being knowledge-proof, meaning thereby specialisation-proof, has not done much good to the image and performance of generalist civil servants. As such, administrative reform commissions, and even pay commissions, have from time to time, stressed the need for broad specialisation, in the IAS. A conscious effort should, therefore, be made to facilitate IAS officers, after the first decade of their ‘immersion’ in districts, to acquire specialisation in broad sectors—such as the social sector, infrastructure sector, financial sector and the like, based on their qualifications, aptitude and preference. This idea had also been mooted from time to time but, unfortunately, never taken seriously and implemented.

It should, however, be noted that technical specialists such as engineers, doctors, agricultural scientists and lawyers have always had a substantial say in the overall decision-making process as also in the implementation phase. Lateral entry at the highest level of the secretary has also been in vogue and such recruits proved outstanding as the best of career civil servants. Lovraj Kumar and M. A. Wadud Khan were inducted from the private sector. Eminent men like Mantosh Sondhi and Hiten Bhaya were brought in from the industrial management pool with years of public sector experience behind them. The appointments of economists like Manmohan Singh, MS Ahluwalia and Bimal Jalan are well known. Most of the members of the erstwhile Planning Commission and the present Niti Aayog have been eminent specialists. Raghuram Rajan was inducted from the academia to head the Reserve Bank of India.

Besides, the Secretaries of ministries/departments such as the Atomic Energy, Science & Technology, Earth Sciences, Scientific & Industrial Research, Medical Research, and Agricultural Research and Biotechnology have always been scientists of eminence. Ministries like the Railways and Posts have traditionally been manned by Indian Railway or Postal Service officers. In addition, there are umpteen posts, equivalent to secretaries and joint secretaries, meant for scientists/engineers/doctors/economists/technical specialists and others.

Therefore, there was nothing very original in the new move of the government to allow entry at the level of joint secretary—that too for only ten posts against about 400 under the CSS. However, this was perhaps the first time that many sought to be recruited through an open advertisement at the level of joint secretary.

Some Apprehensions

For obvious reasons, those inside the system felt threatened that their territory was under assault. But was that really so? Till a few years ago, IAS officers held 249 out of 341 positions in the Government of India. For a variety of reasons like unplanned reduction in the intake of IAS men and women from the 1990s onwards and others, this ratio has been steadily and drastically declining with much larger number of officers belonging to other organised services, other than the IAS, filling such crucial posts. Whether it requires a revisit or not, the fact remains that under the CSS, no posts are reserved for members of any particular service. The government, in this case the Cabinet Committee on Appointments headed by the Prime Minister, exercises its right to select the most suitable candidate from the available pool of talent. By organised induction of joint secretaries from the open market, this scenario is likely to change.

One perceived fear is that the number of such lateral entrants may be increased with time and that the political leadership, by creating a ‘divide and rule’ mechanism, would further demoralise the ‘steel frame of governance’. This is not an unfounded fear, given the history of not-so-infrequent trampling of the higher civil services, irrespective of parties in power. Desire to have a ‘committed bureaucracy’ is a time-tested one. The second fear, connected with this, is that in the garb of recruiting outstanding specialists, politically indoctrinated individuals will be inducted into the system. Both these fears are not entirely unfounded, but could at least be partially allayed by letting a constitutional body like the UPSC handle the recruitment process, after defining the job requirements more explicitly.

The examples of candidates leaving the best of positions in international organisations and highly lucrative jobs in the private sector to join the higher ranks in the Government of India are legion. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that aspiration as long as the recruitment conditions ensure that only such candidates, the likes of whom are unlikely to be available in the existing system, are appointed. If they turn out to be truly outstanding, provisions should be made to induct them permanently into the government, with the approval of the UPSC, and considered for higher postings. Ideas have also been advanced for a reverse migration for the IAS and other civil servants, for a limited period, to the private sector. That also could perhaps be attempted concurrently.

The Way Forward

The IAS has been devised to be in a leadership position in India’s bureaucracy. Despite having an enviable talent pool, if the IAS system has not fully succeeded, whatever be the reasons, it cannot escape responsibility. Admittedly, the government should have the best people at the helm of affairs and if there is a felt need for supplementing the existing stock of talent by bringing in fresh blood into the system, the IAS, in fact, should welcome such an inclusive move. That there is no effective mechanism to weed out the deadwood and that every member of the All India and Central Civil Services is in an automatic mode to reach the highest echelons of the bureaucracy has perhaps not done much good to our system of governance.

How to push and introduce the concept of sectoral specialisation within the IAS should be a top priority that cannot be delayed further. These moves to reform the civil services should have come from within than from without, which has not happened. The need for lateral entry has arisen, partly on account of this internal failure. This lateral entry scheme, if implemented properly, is likely to foster more competitive spirit, break the complacency of higher civil servants and eventually prove to be a positive and watershed initiative in public interest.