Good move, but…

Govt must not waste or misuse lateral entry to bureaucracy

There has been much discussion of an advertisement placed by the Union government in newspapers seeking applications to 10 posts at the level of joint secretary. The advertisement states that the tenure of a successful applicant will be three years, extendable to five. This advertisement has re-opened an old debate about lateral entry into the all-India civil services and, beyond that, about larger administrative reform. There are broadly two views that need to be examined in this context. First, there are those who argue that the current bureaucratic set-up is antiquated and inefficient. It was designed for a much smaller and less complex economy – and, perhaps more importantly, minimised accountability in a manner more appropriate for a colonised country than a liberal democracy. The status, career and progression of a civil servant in India continues to be over-determined by the results of an exam she took in her 20s, and not enough by her skills or performance. Thus moving away from a permanent cadre of generalists towards an accountable set of specialists is essential. In any case, there are over 450 officers at the level of joint secretary and just 10 of them from outside will not upset anything. The other point of view is that the “steel frame” of India, as the founders of the republic thought of the all-India services, must remain politically unconnected and able to have a broad experience of public service in all its facets before an officer reaches the decision-making level of joint secretary. To preserve this, positions of crucial administrative power should remain reserved for tenured civil servants.

The current government has long been criticised for an over-dependence on the bureaucracy for policy innovation as well as for administration. It is difficult to see path-breaking or transformative reform emerging from a group that has a tacit investment in existing systems. Many argue that the government’s relatively disappointing record on reform is a product of precisely this over-dependence and its unwillingness or inability to expand the pool of policy-makers. Yet this advertisement can also be seen as the culmination of several moves to broaden the pool of talent available and reduce the dependence of the Union government on the Indian Administrative Service in particular. Many members of other tenured cadres are filling roles equivalent to joint secretary or above that had traditionally been the preserve of members of the IAS. A proposal was also recently floated by the prime minister’s office that the choice of cadre and service for a successful applicant to public service be postponed – reducing the dependence on the initial ranking of prospective civil servants in the entrance exam. Viewed from this perspective, the Narendra Modi-led government needs to be complimented for seeking non-disruptive changes to India’s administrative core.

Overall, 10 new lateral entrants to the Union government are unlikely to change the character of administration in India. Yet much will depend on how these entrants are chosen, and whether they go through transparent processes put in place by the Union Public Service Commission. The Opposition has raised concerns about the motives of the government in introducing this innovation. Certainly, the notion of lateral entry must not be discredited by the hiring of politically-connected time-servers. This opportunity to pilot far-reaching change to India’s administrative set-up must not be misused or wasted.