[This article was written in 2015, but it could not be published then. It is being posted now, as it needs to be referenced in a future article.]
Most
of my
esteemed colleagues have come to a passionate defence of the Service.
In my opinion, it is not the Service which is in the need of defence,
but the very idea of the State in this nation.
Firstly,
do we need generalist government functionaries? I am not talking about a
career generalist service. I am talking about managerial posts in the
government. Most persons would agree with me on this. Somebody needs to
be 'the Man' in any organization, big or small. The coordinator, the
boss. In most theory of organizations, some sort of a coordinator is
configured, and hence most persons would agree with me on this point.
However, to see generalist civil servants as merely the coordinators is
to underestimate the need for their services. For the government is
unlike the other economic organizations. Economic
organizations choose
what work to take. In fact it is one of the three fundamental questions
facing a microeconomic firm - What to produce? ( For the sake of
completeness, the other questions are how to produce, and for whom?) In
case of government, the first question and the third question are
already solved, or rather, constrained. Economic organizations may
choose not to render a service, if deemed non profitable. The government
may not; infact it has to step in for every problem which economic
organizations refuse to handle. Thus, the mandate of the government is
residuary. Residuary means whatever has not been classified. The E &
OEs. The sundries. While over the years the list of classified
functions of the government has been expanding over the years - the
truth remains - whatever is nobody else's job, is the government's.
Hence, in addition to the much celebrated coordination role, the
generalist government functionary works as a specialist for the
residuary, the unexpected.
Now
that we have agreed that there is a need for generalist functionaries,
we come to the question - with whom to man these. Many detractors of the
Service say that "now the politicians have become qualified enough for
the ministers to render the generalist work themselves, and the civil
servants must render just technical assistance". This statement is quite
wrong, for the politicians have not become smart 'now'; anyone under
this delusion need only look at the stature of the esteemed members of
the Constituent Assembly, which, ironically, had voted for the inclusion
of the Service in the Constitution itself. Politicians have always been
smart; it is just that the facet they must show in public has to appeal
to what may be euphemistically called 'a broad band of the intelligence
bell curve.' It is not the intellectual capability of
our
political masters that prevents them from manning the generalist posts.
It is rather the nature of the State we inherited - in which the
continuity of the Government is defined through the Permanent Executive.
While the moral onus of governance lies on the elected representatives,
the legal onus lies squarely on the civil servant. Thus, when the
Higher Courts need to order the State Governments, they order the Chief
Secretary, and not the Chief Minister. For indeed there can be occasions
when there is no Chief Minister, or any minister for that matter, for
prolonged periods. Similarly, there are municipalities being run by
Municipal Commissioners in absense of Mayors, Blocks being run by BDOs
in absence of Pramukhs. The continuity of the government is vested in
its nameless faceless functionaries, not in its luminaries. However,
that is just half the reason why the political executive cannot be
expected to do the work of the generalist functionary. A rather
important Constitutional reason is the fact that none of the three
tiers of governance - Union, State or Local, is legally subordinate to
any other. However, any big event requires concerted effort of
functionaries of all the tiers - with the Union, State, Rural Local Body
and Urban Local Body being headed by different political parties! How
to ensure coordination between these possibly adversary political
bodies? In India, this jugglery is handled by the Collector. In British
Empire days, the Collector was described as 'the turtle on whose back
the elephant of the Indian Empire stands'. If anything, the elephant of
the Republic is heavier.
Once
the need of generalist posts and functionaries is acknowledged, the
question moves to the need of a generalist cadre. What is the other
option? Indian Railways provide
a model of
manning the general administration posts on a round robin basis, by
civil servants of specialized cadres. The posts of Divisional and Zonal
managers are given to the persons of each of the 9 organized services,
based on cadre strength. While the system has endured, for quite some
time now, it has given to the organization the bane of departmentalism.
Ever observed a group of ants pulling a piece of bread to their lair?
While the ants might look as if they are cooperating, if one does an
experiment and cuts that piece of bread in two, one is surprised to see
that both the pieces move in different directions! More pieces would
result in even more directions ( it is a scientific observation), which
leads to the realization of a fact - each ant is merely pulling for
itself, the illusion of coordinated motion is simply in the direction of
the residual resultant force. As an insider to the IR, the author has
seen the way departmental struggles paralyze daily
work. Everyone is an equal, a master of his own domain, having immense
nuisance value over it, and using it to play out petty rivalries. And
there are just 9 or 10 departments who need to coordinate in Railways.
Outside, there are more than 50 such departments, and one may only
imagine the combination of rivalries and the resultant logjam, were an
impartial outsider not present to moderate. More importantly, IR gives a
good lesson in how the Finance Department routinely scuttles efforts of
DRMs and GMs. The author has not yet seen a case of CTO overruling his
Collector. Yes, he may advise, often correctly. However, this outright
undermining of authority is yet to be seen. This depends on something
known in Hindi as 'Iqbal'. Though it has been waning, and quite fast,
across departments, yet the generalist cadres at both levels of
federation still retain it to some extent. Other departments still
listen to them, above their pretty squabbles. May be because they do
not have a department of their own, so to say. (This is not strictly
true, as most of them handle the land revenue departments of the states
in their initial years - however, that is for a very short period - and
the feeling of kindred spirit is conspicuous by its absense).
A
related issue which has found some currency recently is about the posts
of Secretaries to the Government being denied to the specialized
services. There is an argument that the ministries of the government
dealing with a particular domain needs to be manned by specialists of
that department. Unfortunately, the nomenclature is to be blamed here.
In the Union Government, what are essentially ministries are labelled as
'departments', and what are essentially the posts of 'Secretary to the
Government, Ministry of So-n-so' has been represented as So-n-so
Secretary, leading to much heartburn. Departments are Line functions,
Ministries are essentially Staff functions, aiding and advising the
President or the Governor. Departments need to be manned by specialists,
and need to have a departmental vision. Ministries are not
departmental; at least they are not supposed to be. They are the policy
making bodies, which need to see the interest of the government and the
nation as a whole. A specialist Home Secretary may advise policies that
may really boost up the morale of the forces, but will be oblivious to
its impact on all the other facets of the society. A specialist Revenue
Secretary shall also suffer from a similar blinkered view. A generalist
officer, who has seen it all, and is a student of the Law of Unintended
consequences, is hence the natural choice to take the final call. He may
take the advice of the department for whom the policies are being
framed. However, he may need to make policies which are to the detriment
of that department, if the greater good warrants it - for the situation
of the ants pulling in all directions cannot be allowed. Departmental
affiliations would not allow such a dispassionate exercise. However, the
bleak truth stands true - the departments are for the government and
the people, and not vice versa.
So
now, in
the end, that we have agreed that a round robin handling of the general
administration posts is not the way to go. The question remains, with
whom to vest this authority? Fate had deemed that after their victory in
the Battle of Buxar, the British secured the Dewani of Bengal from the
Mughal emperor. This arrangement, by 1780s, led to the creation of the
Collector ( the first occupier of the said post was Harry Verelst, of
District Burdwan). Since the Collector was the highest official of the
Company (and later the Government) in the District, he got vested with
the charge of law and order (which originally included the control over
the military) and all other departments, as and when they were born. It
may be assumed that had the British won the rights to keep the Army of
the Mughals instead, the top official might have been the Garrison
Commander; and had they won the right to lay the Railways, it might have
been vested in the Chief Engineer. Is this assumption true?
Before answering the what-if, we must face the what-is. What is true is
that for decades now, the general administration has been with the
'land revenue' department, both at the Centre and at the State. For this
very reason, the higher ranked candidates in the Civil Services
Examinations, both at the Centre as well as at the State, have opted to
join these services. Admittedly, the inter se rankings of all the
qualifiers is merely a luck based snapshot of essentially a stochastic
phenomenon. There is no doubt to that. All the persons qualifying for
the main written examination have the potential to top the list on their
day. However, once the sorting is done, these 'momentary toppers'
undergo a learning curve which is unparalleled in the world. Within a
year or two, they shed any baggage of their 'parent department', if they
had had any at all. They deal with whatever the world throws at them;
and each day brings a unique experience. They are hardly
trained for half of what every new day brings, and yet, they learn on
their feet and deal with it, sometimes very well, sometimes not too
well. Thus, they become the captains of the uncharted waters - the
masters of the residuary - residuary - the very reason for the existence
of a generalist functionary. The original rank might well have been a
lucky break; but this body of experience is an unassailable and
unmatchable advantage. So, even without answering the what-if, the
what-is is, by any logical stand, here to stay. Then, let us play with
the what-if. Could any other Service have gained this primacy? Even
today, few Departments have the reach like the land revenue department -
at the most grassroot level. Sample this - the Central Revenue
Departments, which, quite truly, collect the most of the government
income these days, ask of their tax base to file their own returns, and
pay in their own dues. The original, now quite mothballed, Revenue
department, hardly collects anything (in my subdivision with a
population of around 20 lakh, the total land revenue is Rs. 5 Lakh!).
Yet, the revenue staff still prepare the tax returns of all the
landholders (the zamabandi), and even collects those measly dues.
However, in exercise of the whole system designed to collect them, this
department, and hence, the associated services, come into contact with
the majority of humanity that makes up this nation. The records are used
to verify antecedents, income, eligibility, and pretty much anything
else. Once my Tehsildar was asked to sign a certificate to the effect
that the daughter of one couple was indeed their true born daughter! The
certificate was required from 'the Tehsildar or Superior Authority'.
Such is the faith of 'whom so ever it may concern' on the in depth reach
made by the 'revenue' department into almost all facets of the life of
the majority of Indians, that it is not a mere accident that
it, and 'its officers' are into general administration. So, answering
the what-if, it seems, in all probability, that had the District Officer
been primarily designated for some other function, he would have
evolved into the Collector, gradually.
So,
is the Service doing justice to its rightly evolved mandate? Only
partially. As has been clarified, the members of the service have a
taste for the uncharted. However, we do seem to have left the "already
charted" to God. An IAS officer should be a master of general
administration - that includes budget, personnel and service rules,
disciplinary rules and Law. One would notice that all of the above are
well defined academic subjects, that need to be learned the traditional
way. However, under the influence of the modern 'management degree
shops', the Academy has imbibed a pedagogy that
lacks clarity of purpose. The general idea seems to be that the
probationers shall learn the real deal in their State Cadres, so lets
sing and dance away a year! (Or ride it away!) Howsoever brilliant an
officer may be in dealing with the unknowns, if he shows obvious
ignorance of what a UDC should know, he cuts a sorry figure for the
whole fraternity. And hence, a reform is needed from within. As long as
the Service rejuvenates itself to the levels of rigour it was founded
upon, it is the nature's will that it shall remain at the pinnacle
