Since Independence, the federal democratic system has been governed by the elected executive, generally referred to as the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister as primus inter pares. This elected executive usually changes every five years, depending on which political party gets first-past-the-post in the elections. The winner is given the responsibility to run the country in accord with the Constitution. However, to ensure systemic continuity there exists an impersonal, permanent executive aka the complex hierarchical bureaucratic structure, the famed steel-frame of the country.
If the country has witnessed peaceful transitions from one government to another, the credit, inter alia, has to go to the often-maligned steel-frame; howsoever rusted it is alleged to be. This stereotypical Weberian institution, predicated on rational and predictable rules, has ensured the sustenance of the often doddering and toddling baby steps of Indian democracy. And the bureaucracy usually has its recruits selected through one of the toughest examinations in the world as conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The civil service remains pretty much ensconced in the system to provide the critical support to the elected executive in the task of governing the country.
Of late, however, the bureaucracy has been under fire. Trenchant criticism has been mounted against its conservatism and status-quoist approach. It has been argued that the civil service has been failing and flailing in its duty to adapt itself to the demands of development. One needs to appreciate that the Indian bureaucracy or any bureaucracy for that matter is genetically programmed to be status-quoist as wilful chopping and changing with a system of governance can result in instability. This could be dangerous for a complex, plural democracy like India with multi-layered societal diversities. We can’t afford to ignore the examples of Latin America, Africa or East and South-east Asia where such experiments have often resulted in balkanisation and failure of governance.
Given the multiple constraints in a complex, plural society like ours, the civil service has definitely delivered though observers feel that it has started showing signs of fatigue and does require a face-lift to suit the changing times. And it is with this in view that the Central government is considering proposals to effect reforms in our civil service to keep it in step with time. One such reform is lateral entry to the civil service. The Centre is trying to institutionalise lateral entry from academics and the private sector into some senior government positions.
This is a long overdue reform with far-reaching implications. Critics feel that in order to change the way in which the bureaucracy works, it has become imperative to move from a closed to a more open system for recruiting future administrators. The bureaucratic glasnost is believed to be one of the prerequisites for enhancing the quality of the quotidian governance. In the past, there have been suggestions by government-constituted expert groups to institutionalise lateral entry into various critical positions requiring esoteric and specialised knowledge. But, such suggestions have often been pigeon-holed and not followed up in right earnest. However, with its commitment to good governance, the federal government has been exploring various ways to enhance efficiency and effectiveness for better delivery of public services and benefits. Ergo, in all likelihood, this reform measure might now materialise.
The system of lateral entry has always existed. Nandan Nilekeni, the former Infosys official, was inducted to oversee the Aadhaar scheme which has the potential to transform India's social welfare sector. Another illustrious example is Raghuram Rajan, the present Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, a position usually held by career bureaucrats. The practice, however, has been ad hoc in nature and marked by dilettantism. Given the strong umbilical linkage between governance and prosperity amid growing complexities in society, Western countries like the UK, the USA, Australia, Holland and Belgium have already thrown open specific government positions to qualified personnel. This is a better way to attract the right talent for the job.
A judicious combination of domain knowledge and relevant expertise is a critical requirement in governance. These attributes are often not present in a cadre of generalists. Moreover, the increasing penchant for politically correct recruitment through reserved quotas also restricts the scope for merit in critical areas requiring definite skills and competence. The second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) also envisaged a shift from a career-based approach to a post-based approach for the top tier of government jobs. The ARC felt that civil servants ought to compete with domain experts from outside the regular cadre for senior positions.
An important dimension of this reform is to encourage genuine competition by setting up an independent authority to supervise the proposed recruitment process. Without an independent authority with well-laid out norms, there is a chance that lateral entry may turn out to be an excuse for a back-door entry of the spoils-system to recruit politically-aligned persons. This will further subvert the system thereby defeating the whole purpose behind the move.
The proposed lateral process of recruitment is also believed to be a move to prise open the stranglehold that the IAS has on key appointments. While the move is definitely welcome, it should be ensured that it does not entail change for the sake of change. After all, a system which has delivered over the years can’t be jettisoned overnight. The baby should definitely not be thrown with the bathwater. One has to be very cautious while bringing in such far-reaching systemic changes. After all, Nandan Nilekeni has also been gasping for breath in the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI) with the Aadhaar initiative going nowhere.
Such changes will only be cosmetic if other factors remain unaddressed. And this includes the insulation of the civil service from political interference. Besides, while allowing lateral entry, the members of the civil service should also be allowed to move out, do a stint in the private sector and come back to rejoin the government as per protocol. Private sector enterprises also need to benefit from the rich and varied experiences that civil servants have. For sure, a change of this nature will not be easy as there is bound to be stiff resistance from within the bureaucracy. The government, however, ought to push ahead with this paradigm shift in Indian governance as the national interest is always greater than the interest of a few though the proposal does need a more broad-based discussion with all the relevant stakeholders.
If the country has witnessed peaceful transitions from one government to another, the credit, inter alia, has to go to the often-maligned steel-frame; howsoever rusted it is alleged to be. This stereotypical Weberian institution, predicated on rational and predictable rules, has ensured the sustenance of the often doddering and toddling baby steps of Indian democracy. And the bureaucracy usually has its recruits selected through one of the toughest examinations in the world as conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The civil service remains pretty much ensconced in the system to provide the critical support to the elected executive in the task of governing the country.
Of late, however, the bureaucracy has been under fire. Trenchant criticism has been mounted against its conservatism and status-quoist approach. It has been argued that the civil service has been failing and flailing in its duty to adapt itself to the demands of development. One needs to appreciate that the Indian bureaucracy or any bureaucracy for that matter is genetically programmed to be status-quoist as wilful chopping and changing with a system of governance can result in instability. This could be dangerous for a complex, plural democracy like India with multi-layered societal diversities. We can’t afford to ignore the examples of Latin America, Africa or East and South-east Asia where such experiments have often resulted in balkanisation and failure of governance.
Given the multiple constraints in a complex, plural society like ours, the civil service has definitely delivered though observers feel that it has started showing signs of fatigue and does require a face-lift to suit the changing times. And it is with this in view that the Central government is considering proposals to effect reforms in our civil service to keep it in step with time. One such reform is lateral entry to the civil service. The Centre is trying to institutionalise lateral entry from academics and the private sector into some senior government positions.
This is a long overdue reform with far-reaching implications. Critics feel that in order to change the way in which the bureaucracy works, it has become imperative to move from a closed to a more open system for recruiting future administrators. The bureaucratic glasnost is believed to be one of the prerequisites for enhancing the quality of the quotidian governance. In the past, there have been suggestions by government-constituted expert groups to institutionalise lateral entry into various critical positions requiring esoteric and specialised knowledge. But, such suggestions have often been pigeon-holed and not followed up in right earnest. However, with its commitment to good governance, the federal government has been exploring various ways to enhance efficiency and effectiveness for better delivery of public services and benefits. Ergo, in all likelihood, this reform measure might now materialise.
The system of lateral entry has always existed. Nandan Nilekeni, the former Infosys official, was inducted to oversee the Aadhaar scheme which has the potential to transform India's social welfare sector. Another illustrious example is Raghuram Rajan, the present Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, a position usually held by career bureaucrats. The practice, however, has been ad hoc in nature and marked by dilettantism. Given the strong umbilical linkage between governance and prosperity amid growing complexities in society, Western countries like the UK, the USA, Australia, Holland and Belgium have already thrown open specific government positions to qualified personnel. This is a better way to attract the right talent for the job.
A judicious combination of domain knowledge and relevant expertise is a critical requirement in governance. These attributes are often not present in a cadre of generalists. Moreover, the increasing penchant for politically correct recruitment through reserved quotas also restricts the scope for merit in critical areas requiring definite skills and competence. The second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) also envisaged a shift from a career-based approach to a post-based approach for the top tier of government jobs. The ARC felt that civil servants ought to compete with domain experts from outside the regular cadre for senior positions.
An important dimension of this reform is to encourage genuine competition by setting up an independent authority to supervise the proposed recruitment process. Without an independent authority with well-laid out norms, there is a chance that lateral entry may turn out to be an excuse for a back-door entry of the spoils-system to recruit politically-aligned persons. This will further subvert the system thereby defeating the whole purpose behind the move.
The proposed lateral process of recruitment is also believed to be a move to prise open the stranglehold that the IAS has on key appointments. While the move is definitely welcome, it should be ensured that it does not entail change for the sake of change. After all, a system which has delivered over the years can’t be jettisoned overnight. The baby should definitely not be thrown with the bathwater. One has to be very cautious while bringing in such far-reaching systemic changes. After all, Nandan Nilekeni has also been gasping for breath in the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI) with the Aadhaar initiative going nowhere.
Such changes will only be cosmetic if other factors remain unaddressed. And this includes the insulation of the civil service from political interference. Besides, while allowing lateral entry, the members of the civil service should also be allowed to move out, do a stint in the private sector and come back to rejoin the government as per protocol. Private sector enterprises also need to benefit from the rich and varied experiences that civil servants have. For sure, a change of this nature will not be easy as there is bound to be stiff resistance from within the bureaucracy. The government, however, ought to push ahead with this paradigm shift in Indian governance as the national interest is always greater than the interest of a few though the proposal does need a more broad-based discussion with all the relevant stakeholders.
An underground laboratory will be set up near Pottipuram village, Theni district to study the properties of the neutrino.
