Challenges of invigorating the bureaucracy

Amitabha Bhattacharya
Former Bureaucrat

The  Prime Minister’s interaction with Union secretaries last month, urging them to focus on improving the quality of life of the common man and putting forward proposals for ‘impactful decisions’, is  reminiscent of his first similar interaction five years ago. But the experience from the previous term has, perhaps, bolstered his resolve to making the higher bureaucracy more purposive, efficacious and accountable. His address to the IAS officers of the 2017 batch on the eve of their three-month attachment as assistant secretaries to the Government of India, offering them a chance ‘to influence policy formulation’, also underscores his keenness to engage with bureaucrats across different levels.

Popular chief ministers in the states have often led the administration by adopting, inter alia, two methods: constantly remaining in direct touch with the people and interfacing regularly with officials, mostly from the IAS. The more successful among them, however, try to protect the senior officers from undue political interference. Although running a state efficiently is not quite the same as running a country of such diversity and complexity as ours, there are many things in common at the core level of governance. The functioning style of our PM can, perhaps, be better appreciated if seen in this light.

As graciously acknowledged, the officials have largely succeeded in formulating and getting implemented, at the cutting edge level, various welfare and development measures. This success is perceived to have enhanced the government’s image that got reflected in the electoral outcome. Many of these programmes, to be fair, have been a continuation of those conceived or initiated by the earlier regimes, but implemented with greater verve and facilitated by the use of technology. Since no government can have at its disposal as much additional financial resources as is needed to start afresh many new capital-intensive programmes, the rational course has been to avoid wastage, cut unproductive subsidy, reduce corruption and leakage at different levels, and initiate programmes that are crucial for empowering the disadvantaged. These include their inclusion within the banking fold, reservation for the economically weaker sections, Swachh Bharat and Ujjwala Yojana. They are at the same time not hugely capital-guzzling. Apparently, this approach has worked.

Energising the bureaucracy without making fundamental reforms in the higher civil services may not be sustainable in the long run. While systematic reforms, from the stage of recruitment through training to career progression till retirement, are called for without much delay, some important decisions seem to have already been taken. Lateral entry at the joint secretary level is one such move. This has to be closely watched and, depending on experience, its scope should be gradually expanded. The experience of inducting bright young professionals to supplement the stock of career civil servants, as the NITI Aayog reportedly intends doing, should be recorded and analysed by independent agencies. With the fine-tuning of these two ideas, increasing the number of subject-matter specialists from the academic and private sectors should, perhaps, be steadily allowed to enrich the talent pool under the government.

The amendment to The Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018, another key legislation, should enthuse the bureaucrats to work without fear or favour. Instances of honest officers having been criminally prosecuted for errors in judgment or less than adequate diligence are legion. Major mistakes are often committed by officers not experienced in the intricacies of the matter under consideration, either due to inadequate application of mind or erroneous appreciation of the subject requiring decision. 

Admittedly, civil servants must be honest and have the capacity for sustained hard work, but these attributes may no longer be sufficient in the complex governance system of today. Newspapers have been reporting the compulsory retirement of scores of officers on the grounds of proven inefficiency or of corruption. Since the government is all-powerful in matters of disciplining its functionaries, it is all the more necessary that the due process of law is strictly and visibly adhered to. This move should be perceived by all as a means of cleansing the system, not one of political persecution. In this context, the PM’s assurance to Union secretaries “not to worry about genuine mistakes” acquires special significance, and would be watched closely.

The government’s ‘over-dependence’ on the civil services, often alleged during the last five years, is perceived to have delivered results. This approach, however, has its own limitations. Evidently, there is no substitute for a fair and diligent bureaucracy, but its leaders may not always be imaginative, bogged down more with the process than with the impact on easing people’s lives. In order to have a proper mix of action with imagination, the PM and his team should utilise the counsel of the best minds across the board. The government has to be pro-active, but cannot afford to be intellect-indifferent. To change the status quo and conceive creative out-of-the-box initiatives, career civil servants with years of field experience are required to work in tandem with the leaders in the sphere of ideas.

‘Perform or perish’ seems to be the new ‘mantra’. However, care has to be taken to ensure that the bureaucracy does not get demotivated in the process, keeping in mind the sensitivities involved in dealing with an institution that values merit as much as social inclusiveness. Therefore, while recruiting talent from outside or compulsorily retiring officers, the government has to tread firmly but carefully, following established procedures, in order to avoid being charged as partial and vindictive or as weakening the steel-frame. 

It is hoped that the PM’s call to the secretaries and the budding IAS officers will be taken in the right spirit — in defending and furthering our constitutional values and objectives — and that this spirit would permeate through the whole bureaucratic structure.