Myths about Indian Civil Services

Hello friends, Iam sharing one more message of Mr. Rhaul Garg,s

D. Murali and Indra Nath

Chennai: Civil services all over the world are about administration. "The sublimity of administration consists in knowing the proper degree of power that should be exerted on different occasions," a French philosopher once said. With such power at hand and sheer influence that it can have, today Indian Civil Services should have been the top most sought after position. But is still attracting the kind of talent it used to?

To find an answer, Business Line engaged former Secretary to the Government of India, Dr G. Sundaram who also served under various capacities in the ministries of defence and environment. He was one of the first to suggest VAT (value-added tax) introduction in the country way back in 1986.

Like all brilliant students, civil services was then a natural progression for Mr Sundaram who after obtaining a Masters Degree in Economics from the University of Madras in 1958, and teaching Economics in the Madras Christian College, joined the services in 1962.

In an exclusive e-mail interaction, the former bureaucrat gives his views in a blow-by-blow account on myths surrounding this heralded profession and also explains why young talent is increasingly taking refuge in corporate houses.

The civil services are no longer attracting merit or talent because there are better avenues for the bright and the intelligent. Right?

The answer is 'yes' and 'no'! Broadly speaking, any society that has progressed industrially is bound to attract less and less people to the civil services. But it also depends upon the historical context and the social thinking in a society. In a by and large feudal society that is hierarchical with emphasis upon status and premium on permanency, the civil services still attract youngsters often goaded by the parents. Many parents still want to see their children as the all-powerful collector or in the police service.

Regarding the meritorious entering, the system itself ensures it through the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) although there is some dilution. Even during the British period, some sort of communal reservation was introduced with repeated demands, say for Muslims or Anglo-Indians. However, since the intake was small, it is difficult to conclude merit was 'totally' sacrificed. This logic applies even now; when I entered the IAS in 1962, about 6,000 appeared for the written examination, about 600 were called for the interview and about 200 were taken. Now about 60,000 appear for a preliminary examination and 6,000 or so qualify for the regular examination, about 800 for the interview and about 400 are taken. There is no scope for manipulation in the examination or interview. There are different Boards with different compositions.

A very important change is the composition of the services with entrants from the IITs, IIMs, engineering and even medical background. It is no longer a generalist civil service. It is a pool of talent. So far so good!

In the early fifties, the Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee recommended only two attempts because a candidate gets in by intrinsic merit in the first attempt and by obtaining the technique of the examination in the second attempt. However, the Committee recommended two attempts to take care of sickness, etc. Now, not only the age has been increased but also the attempts depending upon the Reservation. In my opinion, even with Reservation, it is better to catch people young.

The myth goes that civil servants are not paid enough. How far is this fictional?

The pay is low. But a civil servant cannot and should not expect private sector salaries. There is no connection between the work done and the pay or perks in the private sector. Some people talk about the perks like low-rent palatial houses, servants, and vehicles in the government. Even after computing all this, the salaries are low in government. When I got Rs 26,000 at the time of retirement, my niece started with this plus several perks. But there is fixity of tenure in government--one cannot be removed easily from government. In fact, in my opinion, this is the only major drawback in government--you cannot get rid of deadwood. So I recommended in 1977 that Article 311 of the Constitution (on 'Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State') should be diluted and not abolished. I have now written to the Administrative Reforms Commission under Mr Veerappa Moily that this Article should be removed, but civil servants' salaries should be increased.

I have also suggested to the Pay Commission again that they should give up the practice of announcing a package and negotiating on it with the unions. Last time, Mr Indrajit Gupta (Former Union Home Minister) agreed to everything. Instead the exercise should demand what the unions would offer to the government, say less number of holidays, and the pay-package would depend upon this.

Even if you have the best of intentions, some nosy politician can actually foil your plans. Is interference from political leaders just another myth?

There are good politicians who do not interfere. Or they would not interfere against good work. But this kind of species seems to be declining unfortunately. There is interference at every stage particularly where money is involved, making India one of the most corrupt countries in the world. This makes the civil servant either leave with frustration or collude; many civil servants seem to adopt the latter course conveniently, of late. (Hence Article 311 should go with provisions to confiscate ill-gotten wealth).

Aren't there are better ways to serve the people or be patriotic, if that is the spirit behind civil services?

True. One could serve the people and also be patriotic by being in other callings including politics!

Another misgiving that is often voiced is that since a bureaucrat doesn't have a say about people who work under him, his performance can fall flat. Unlike the CEO of a company, a civil servant has no say in the composition of his team.

This is by and large true of the private sector too barring a few exceptions and also perhaps the fourth estate. One should be able to work in any team or to take the best out of it. A system of coterie should be avoided.

What's your take on the allegation of civil servants having to undergo prompt transfers?

True. Transfer is an industry in some States! Even if it is not, it is done in hundreds in some States polarising the civil service itself as pro or anti of political parties. The neutrality of the civil service has gone. The present central government is trying to introduce compulsory tenures at least for some posts in the States. It remains to be seen how far they will succeed. That is why, I have suggested a unified civil service with compartments like law and order, finance, etc so that officers can be transferred only within the same discipline--a similar system was in vogue during the ICS (Indian Civil Service) days.

Some say that civil services are too cushy a job to be challenging. Is it really so?

Not true. The opportunity to serve the people is enormous both in the IAS (Indian Administrative Service) and the IPS (Indian Police Service). At the higher levels too, the jobs are complicated and challenging. One requires intelligence, alertness and also hard work. Of course, very often I felt in the GOI (Government of India) that the amount of time spent and the results achieved are disproportionate.

Does the IFS (Indian Foreign Service) still retain its charm?

In the past, generally high-ranking candidates used to opt for the IFS. It is no longer so; there are however many opportunities to go abroad. But, Foreign Service too, barring in a few Missions, requires high mental calibre and hard work in important Missions and in the Ministry.

Don't you think State allotment makes the all-India Services a misnomer and static?

Yes, this is unfortunately true. This is the reason why some Commissions like Sarkaria have recommended at least two stints at the Centre for the officers and also inter-State transfers. In small cadres like the UT (Union Territory), the experience or exposure is wanting.

Is there really a need for a judicial service? Any suggestions for further improvement.

Yes, certainly. This will ensure a quality judiciary.

Since the services are now politicised, I wonder at times if we could be transparent and frank and switch over to the American system where top bureaucrats are political appointees. In fact, Mrs Indira Gandhi toyed with this idea. Perhaps, we should also revive the old system of services for education (IES) and medical (IMS).

**