Administrative renewal

For A New Start, Administration Needs Self Appraisal

Anand Sarup (IAS, Retd) sarupanand@hotmail.com 26-09-2007

To most outsiders, officers look like all powerful functionaries running the government. They also imagine that those of them who toe the line laid down by their superiors, senior bosses or ministers, do so by choice. This is not true. People are servile (i.e. do 'ji-huzoorie' to the extent they deem it necessary for their survival but in the process there is an inevitable loss of self esteem. How servile anyone will be depends not only upon the individuals concerned but also on the demands of the system.

'Ji-huzoori' is essentially a feudal phenomenon. It is quite inconsistent with democracy which requires that whatever is done should provide scope for change. Even during Nehru's regime, Chandra Bhan Gupta had to give up the Chief Ministership because of his differences with him. It would be recalled that one of the most brilliant members of the ICS, A. N. Jha, when he was Chief Secretary of U.P. used to touch Govind Vallabh Pant's feet. Even in the fifties, Rajeshwar Prasad, one of the most upright and hardworking collectors of Etawah District was transferred telephonically because he had refused to toe the line laid down by Hotilal Aggarwal, the congress boss of the district.

In the relatively immediate past, one can name many officers of not only the IAS, IPS, the Income Tax Services, the Central Secretariat Service but also of Technical Services who made tonnes of money and also got to the highest positions in their respective cadres, by doing whatever they were told by their 'superiors'. Once a person belonging to the Income Tax Services, known widely as the 'Khalnayak' became chairman of the CBDT. In a meeting, he recounted how he had been lampooned and asked, of those present, as to how many of them would be prepared to be called 'khalnayaks'. He was surprised and pleased when a large number came forward to accept this nomenclature.

The imposition of Emergency has now been declared, during the sixtieth anniversary of freedom, by some well known journals, as the most shameful event in our recent history. It is being stated openly that many very well known people: politicians and also those in government service, took obviously illegal orders from Sanjay Gandhi and his chief aide, Mr Dhawan, formally a mere personal secretary to the Indira Gandhi.

One knows of many people who-as Mr L.K.Advani put it, "crawled when they were required only to bend", have been Cabinet Secretaries, Chairmen of the Railway Board and even Governors and Ministers of the Central Government. This, one knows is because the rulers who came after emergency found such people more convenient than spirited and uncompromising functionaries.

I can't forget how two of my friends abjectly and publicly touched the feet of politicians with doubtful credential; one to go and join an assignment abroad and the other to become Chief Secretary in his home state.

Why go back very far in time. Look at the situation now. Who can stay on as a minister if he or she defies Smt Sonia Gandhi even on a matter of principle? And, who can continue as a Secretary to Government if he or she tells the Minister that what he or she wants done is dishonest and dishonourable. Normally, this 'helplessness' goes right down the line because people are desperate to get to the top and/ or also to be allowed to make money.

Unfortunately, most outsiders, who write copiously about systemic reforms do not know how almost all categories of government servants have allowed themselves to be enslaved by a system of character roll entries which militates against freedom of thought and free expression of advice to their superiors. Actually, while choosing people for appointment to top jobs, one particular minister preferred to appoint generally those who had been his students and who were politically aligned with his party - and therefore, six of his appointees fulfilled these qualifications.

Even now - and this is based on inquires from recently retired Cabinet Secretaries and Joint and Additional Secretaries still in service - to become a Secretary to Government of India, one needs to 'earn' either excellent or outstanding (good or very good are not good enough) entries during the ten preceding years or have a powerful minister stand up for special treatment for him or her.

If one looks at this rationally, one would readily admit that even a bonded slave would find it extremely difficult to obtain such superlative endorsements from his or her masters, for ten years without a break. What kind of independent inputs can one expect from a bureaucracy which accepts such a system of intellectual slavery?

How can people acquiescing to such functional and moral subordination retain any self–esteem and if they have lost this essential quality, how can one expect them to resist the temptation to obtain lucrative jobs by paying a lump sum to the appointing authority and then to make money, hand over fist, without any fear.

Road to Reforming the System

While it should be self- evident that the present system of promotions is antithetical to freedom of thought or expression, it is also true that there has to be some system to identify not only outstanding government functionaries but also those who have systematically 'managed'' the system by bribery and sycophancy and, therefore, are on their way to the top positions in their cadres. One would have suggested that the system of annual reports being shown to the officers concerned and then these being sent to higher authorities, together with the representations of those adversely affected, might be used as a safeguard but this practice has proved to be a total failure in the army.

Given the complexity of the system, it seems that one must start with a set of tentative suggestions. Then, a preliminary design for a more objective system should be prepared. Thereafter, it should be finalised after discussions with serving officers of various seniorities. Some considerations, which come to mind in this context, are that:

(i) those who have, in aggregate, spent more than three years as Private Secretaries or Principal Secretary to ministers should get a lower rating than other who have worked in less sheltered positions;

(ii) the entries earned by people in postings in international agencies should be disregarded (and if possible, these people should also - in view of the extraordinary benefits obtained by them from their foreign masters - lose seniority to the extent of their absence from their cadres);

(iii) considering the logic of regarding those who earn all degrees from one University, from the beginning to the end of education, being considered not quite equal to those who got their degrees from different institutions, those who have functioned largely from a similarly in-bred situation should be judged with a pinch of salt;

(iv) Any character roll entry, unusually superlative or adverse, immediately following a change of regime, should be looked upon with suspicion;

(v) At the time of promotion to the next higher level, every officer in the reckoning should be shown his/ her annual entries over the last ten years and given an opportunity to discuss his performance with a committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Finance Secretary, the Health/ Education/ Panchayati Raj (etc) ministers;

It must be obvious from the above that evolving a new system of evaluation is extremely difficult and it can't be done at the drop of a hat. Therefore, it is suggested that after some preliminary thinking and formulations, the matter should be referred to all professional associations (and certainly NOT trade unions, who would recommend simple time-bound promotions based on seniority) for considering and recommending a system of award and evaluation of character roll entries.

It is obvious that any system to be put up for replacing the present system which creates a kind of personal and intellectual slavery must, inter alia, ensure that:

(a) financial integrity must be duly encouraged;

(b) conditions must be created for encouraging and requiring government servants to think freely and express their views without fear, making it clear that compromising with what is right and wrong and failing to say it would be considered as condemnable as making money or accepting other favours;

(c) the system must discourage getting ahead by stabbing colleagues, particularly seniors or equals, in the back;

(d) due importance must be given to seniority and also maintenance of the feeling of fraternity;

(e) Restructuring of state and central cadres, and for this, creating a continuing open forum for discussions on changing systems, perspectives and policies; and

(f) establishment and encouragement of State Level and National Level Associations of All India Services and also suitably structured professional (and NOT TRADE UNIONS) Associations of all other services; and

(g) Establishment of Associations of Retired Officers who, hopefully, would not be afraid of speaking out their minds.

The author retired as Secretary to Government of India