Publish with Us

Follow Penguin

Follow Penguinsters

Follow Penguin Swadesh

An insight into an IAS officer’s work with the Government

Here’s an excerpt from Making a Difference by a successful retired IAS officer, Alok Ranjan, who served with distinction in various assignments in the State Government as well as the Government of India.

*

Making a Difference
Making a Difference || Alok Ranjan

Working with the State Government

A very revealing incident took place when I was the Principal Secretary Urban Development and the urban local body elections were to take place. They were thirteen posts of mayors and as per the act and rules, there was a clear roster system to determine which seat would be general, which reserved, which would go to women, etc. The CM wanted particular candidates to contest from specific municipal corporations and I was summoned by the CM Office and given the brief to prepare the roster accordingly. I explained that this is not possible as the rules and their interpretation was clear. The stratagem of taking legal opinion was then adopted by the CM Office and the Principal Secretary Law interpreted the rules differently which accommodated eight out of the thirteen proposed mayor candidates. I said that I did not agree with the opinion but if given in writing, I would abide by it. However, the CM was keen that at least three other proposed mayoral candidates should be accommodated in the roster. To my utter disbelief I was called and told by the CM Office in the presence of the Principal Secretary Law that for eight seats, the interpretation given by the law department should be used while for other three, my earlier interpretation should be employed. I had to show my dissent by saying that I could agree with an interpretation I felt was wrong if given in writing, but I had to be consistent and could not possibly choose different interpretations for different mayor seats. At my refusal, the officers present looked at me as they would at a goat about to be sacrificed and I realized that my goose was cooked and mentally began to prepare for my transfer. Imagine my surprise and amazement when the CM saw my point and agreed with it. It just shows that often the officers close to the CM try to be holier than the king. If they put up both sides of the picture to the CM they will invariably get to the right decision.

Secretariat working is all about files which are almost like living organisms having a life and energy of their own. A good Secretariat officer believes in not keeping files pending and he is proud to proclaim that his table is clear. However, this movement of files has little relation to actual decisions being taken and on closer examination, he will find that the files have been sent to law, finance or personnel departments for advice. The files move to and fro with volumes of noting which ensures that no accountability can be fixed on anyone at a later date. A close relative of this strategy is the formation of a committee to examine the matter which takes its own sweet time to give a voluminous report. Even developing a system of tracking files and prescribing maximum time limit for files to stay at a particular desk does not help.

The Principal Secretary of a department is expected to provide leadership to his team. He has to have the skill set to build the team which shares the objectives and goals of the department and works towards its fulfillment. The key task is to prepare the budget of the department, then release the budget to the field officers and monitor physical and financial progress. Above all, he has to assess the problems in his department, resolve them and achieve the required outcomes. Unfortunately, this does not often happen as the officers are more concerned about processes than giving results. Calling or attending a meeting becomes an end in itself and occupies the majority of the time of the secretaries and the heads of the departments. The job of a Principal Secretary is not only to assist in policy formulation but ensure implementation. Often we hear the rather unfair and incorrect statement that policies are good but implementation is poor. The reality is that policies are framed in the rooms of the Secretariat overlooking the harsh realities at the field level and a good policy must take into account how it can be executed…

To really play a transformational role, the officer must focus on results and outcomes but unfortunately, the officer is often more concerned about the process than delivering results. I have personally seen many brilliant officers mellow down in the Secretariat to the level of becoming ‘inaction wonders’. They disconnect themselves from the field and get mired in the rules and regulations with the results that the files become thicker, with no difference being made to the actual delivery of public services. For instance, if an officer is Secretary in the urban development department and is busy disposing of files while cities are full of garbage and filth rotting on the roads, then it implies that his working has no connection with the real issues confronting his department. Similarly, there is no purpose served by the Health Secretary clearing files on a daily basis if the quality of healthcare remains abysmally poor. Teachers remain absent from schools while the Secretary Education is busy issuing detailed guidelines and instructions which have a total disconnect with the realities in the field. This leads to discontentment amongst the people as they are receiving poor quality of public services. It is, thus, mandatory to make better outcomes the focus of each and every department and the performance of all the Secretariat, departments should be measured accordingly…

 

Working with the Government of India

The biggest attraction of a GOI posting is the international exposure. In simple language, it means the prospect of foreign travel and also a chance of a foreign posting. Ministries are categorized according to the avenues of foreign travel that they promise. That is why ministries like commerce are sought after and the competition to get into them is high. When the GOI officers meet each other, the common topic of conversation is the number of countries that an officer has visited. Some claim to have crossed the half-century mark whereas others make tall claims of having scored a century. I happened to go as JS Defence and defence was a ministry which had very few opportunities for foreign travel. If at all they travelled, it was mostly to Russia. Many of my colleagues looked sympathetically at me and said ‘could you not manage a better ministry? ’I was told that most officers avoid PHD ministries – personnel, home and defence – as they have the least chances of foreign travel. So, defence, despite being such an important strategic ministry, has few people opting for it. Within the ministries too there is intense competition for the international co-operation desk. A foreign posting or deputation to an international organization is highly coveted. This is despite the fact that these assignments do not give great opportunities for doing challenging work. Late T.S.R. Subramaniam who retired as Cabinet Secretary and had served in the state, center and in an international organization, had commented in his book that the maximum work is done in the districts, then the state government, then the GOI and finally the international organization where you have a lot of time on your hands. Still, the lure of the international posting is there.

The GOI concerns itself with policy formulation at the national level and is generally not involved in the implementation aspect, which is the responsibility of the state governments. In some departments like defence, external affairs and commerce, all the action is at the GOI level. There are, however, huge GOI bureaucracies dealing with subjects on the concurrent or the state lists. Sometimes, one wonders whether it is necessary at all. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture in the GOI has ten Joint Secretaries whereas agriculture is a state subject. There is a serious case for reduction in the size of certain ministries at the centre and also of clubbing several ministries together as it is strange that the Ministry of Agriculture is not involved with issues related to fertilizer, water or agriculture credit.

The ministries of such size at the GOI exist because of political reasons and also the bureaucratic culture of creating work to perpetuate work and justify itself. The major mechanisms for this are the centrally sponsored schemes where the major financial contribution (60 per cent or 75 per cent) is done by the centre and schemes are formulated at the GOI level with detailed guidelines. The problem arises as no two states are alike. The same schemes will succeed in one state but the conditions in other states will not favor its implementation. Thus, the states constantly argue that funds should be transferred to them and they be left free to design schemes. However, there is no denying that there is greater wisdom available at the GOI due to its knowledge about the best practices in the states, presence of experts and availability of international inputs. The GOI involves stakeholders, specialists and consultants in designing policy and the due diligence done is of a very high order. Yet, there cannot be a universal policy looking at the extreme variations between states. The solution, as usual, has to be in between…

To succeed in GOI, one needs to study the department in detail, understand crucial issues, articulate your viewpoint and have the ability to carry officers of other services and specialists along with you. It requires great qualities of leadership to set the goals and milestones for your departments and then lead the entire team towards fulfilling them. A dedicated officer will always find working in the Government of India to be a transformational opportunity.

**

For all IAS aspirants, Making a Difference will prove to be a book of great significance.

How did the ICS evolve into the IAS?

Alok Ranjan’s Making a Difference provides an insider’s unique perspective on the IAS and the role it plays in public administration and development. Here’s an excerpt from the book about how this service evolved over a period of time.

*

Making a Difference
Making a Difference || Alok Ranjan

I often hear people talk about the Indian Civil Service (ICS) and compare the IAS unfavourably with it. It is important to understand in this context that the nature of the job, responsibility, working environment and expectations of the people from the IAS differed hugely from that of the ICS in the colonial days. It is, undoubtedly, the successor service to the ICS but it is not the same and cannot be the same.

 

For those who are unstinted in their praise for the ICS, it is a sobering thought to be told that this hallowed service was considered neither Indian nor Civil nor a service by the great leaders of the nationalist movement. Yet it would be interesting to trace the journey of the ICS, its origins and contribution, and then try to understand how it evolved into the IAS. It would be relevant to examine how the IAS itself is evolving and undergoing change in its character, nature, diversity and reputation.

 

In the eighteenth century, the East India Company gradually spread its tentacles through most of India and from a professed trading company, it became an agency of governance on behalf of Britain. Naturally, administering such a huge country needed the Army and the Civil Service. Teenaged men were recruited into the East India Company Civil Service and they spent their time in India collecting revenue for the company and maintaining law and order. In 1800, Governor-General Lord Wellesley decided that teenaged recruits would have to undergo special training in India. For this, he decided to set up the college of Fort William in Calcutta, but this proposal had not been approved by the company’s Directors in London.

 

The Directors did however establish a college in Hertford Castle in England in 1806 and then moved to Haileybury three years later. The selection of candidates to Haileybury was by a process of nomination by the Directors. They had to be seventeen years old and come from distinguished families. There was no question of selection based on merit; family pedigree was considered the most important attribute. People joined the civil service for adventure and with a spirit of altruism. The salaries and the pensions offered were very attractive. After nomination and before joining Haileybury, the candidates had to take some kind of a written and oral exam where they were tested in history and mathematics as well as language. The foundational course at Haileybury was for two years and the candidate studied mathematics, philosophy, literature, law, history, general economics as well as Indian languages. Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic were also taught. It is a different matter that these languages were not of much use when the civil servant landed in India. They had to administer in the vernacular languages and learn them as soon as they were posted to the field. The educational atmosphere at Haileybury was not very demanding and most candidates focused on just clearing the exams. There were lectures for about two hours everyday and a lot of free time was available to socialize and indulge themselves in drink. There was, however, the minority who studied hard and were known as ‘Steadies’, much like the ‘Keen Type Probationers (KTP)’ of our time who took the training at the Mussoorie academy very seriously. Though discipline was lax at Haileybury, a feeling of esprit de corps was very visible and close friendships were formed which lasted for a long time. Haileybury continued till 1857 when the British Government took over the governance of India from the East India Company, and introduced a system of selection into the ICS on merit, through a competitive examination.

 

The British Government made this change as they felt that selection by patronage would no longer meet the needs of governance and that meritorious candidates were required. Initially, the ICS drew a majority of its entrants from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge but this soon changed. The Macaulay Committee laid out the guidelines of the selection which prescribed the maximum age limit initially as twenty-three but subsequently brought it down to twenty one. The committee designed an exam that demanded strong factual memory and a concentrated study of academic texts. The graduates had to study beyond their university syllabi to prepare for the exam and much like today, establishments like Crammer came up to prepare candidates for the exam.

 

There was a lot of criticism of this ‘Crammer’ system and many felt that unsuitable candidates were being selected just by preparing some questions that happened to appear in the examination paper. Still, many were of the view that the selection system provided better candidates than the earlier system that was based on patronage. This was followed by the Lord Salisbury Reforms which decided that candidates would take the exam at the school leaving age (seventeen to nineteen years) and then they would be on probation, studying in a university for two years. This system lasted from 1879–1892 but some leaders were of the opinion that candidates were being selected at too raw an age and they did not take their probation period in the university seriously. Another criticism was that it deterred Indian candidates from taking the exam.

 

Since the 1830s, Indians had joined the Government of India (GOI) in the capacity of Deputy Collectors, Deputy Magistrates and bore the burden of governance supervised by a handful of British ICS men. Lord Cornwallis in the eighteenth century had excluded Indians from high positions in the government. The 1853 Act opened up the service to all natural-born subjects of the crown. However, it was near impossible for Indians to compete as it was expensive and there were religious considerations which did not allow Indians to go to London to attempt the exam. Satyendra Nath Tagore was the first Indian to have been selected. In 1869, four Indians qualified, including Surendra Nath Banerjee and Romesh Chandra Dutt. The Indian National Congress in 1885 appealed for a simultaneous exam at a centre in India. In 1886, the government appointed a Public Service Commission which raised the age limit for the ICS to twenty-three years, enabling more Indians to write the exam. Even then, till 1910, only 6 percent of the ICS were Indians.

error: Content is protected !!