06 Dec
India’s civil services and the selection process should balance conventional inclusivity with the agility and leadership required to address modern governance challenges effectively
The rapid pace of technological disruption demands a very proactive and dynamic civil service, particularly within the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The bureaucracy can no longer afford to remain flat footed; a high degree of agility is essential, and red tape must be consigned to the archives. Most thought leaders are unanimous on the point that if India is to become a developed nation by 2047, then the key to this would be effective public governance and public service delivery. Different prescriptions are being articulated and there is also an involved debate on them. According to some, the panacea for all that ails the governance is to bring in people from various sectors having domain specialisation on the posts at the policy-making level which are normally held by the IAS or other all India/Central officers. Lateral entry has its ardent proponents as well as vociferous detractors. Both have strong arguments in their favour. Innovation in public governance has been suggested, by none other than the doyen of the Indian IT industry, Narayan Murthy.
Murthy is advocating a radical change in the process of recruitment to the civil services, and in particular to the IAS. He has advised that IAS officers must be chosen from management graduates from reputed management institutes. The thrust of Murthy’s suggestion is that the modern day administrator cannot be one who believes in maintenance of status quo. The need of the hour today is to have managers who can understand concepts like strategy, goal setting, utilising resources and delivering results. They need to understand the fast-changing external economic and technological environment and factor it in policymaking and implementation. This is a time of rapid change and IAS officers must have the ability to lead and manage change. India needs a high level of consistent economic growth and the IAS officers should be equipped to take decisions and formulate policies to make sure that this growth process does not face a hurdle. Murthy argued that the bureaucracy must shift from an “Administrative mindset” to a “management mindset”. He’s of the opinion that the current system of recruitment through the UPSC examination process produces civil servants who are not so well suited to bring about vision, innovation and better execution.
Sanjeev Chopra, a senior IAS officer who had been Director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration at Mussoorie, did not agree with this and stressed upon the fact that UPSC examination allows candidates to appear in 22 different languages, enabling a great degree of linguistic and regional diversity. The fundamental strength of the UPSC system is this inclusivity. He also felt that going to business schools for recruitment will make the administration elitist and there is a huge risk of excluding non-urban aspirants. He also rightly pointed out that public services have to focus on social objectives, and the performance of a civil servant cannot be measured purely in terms of financial efficiency. Sanjeev Chopra is critical of the 72-hour work week advocated for public servant by Murthy. He was emphatic on importance of civil service institutions like the UPSC and LBSNAA in supporting democratic leadership. Governance in public service for him requires a broader perspective than what is offered by corporate management practices.
I believe I am well-positioned to comment on this, having experienced both worlds. I completed my MBA (PGDM) from IIM Ahmedabad (IIM A) before joining the IAS. There is no denying that management graduates from top business schools are of exceptional caliber. I recall that most of my batchmates at IIM A were of outstanding intellect, and the management education equipped them with excellent problem-solving techniques. They have the potential to excel in any situation. However, there is now a significant disparity between the pay packages offered by the government and those provided by the corporate sector. I do not foresee many bright individuals from business schools choosing to join the IAS.
I, along with a couple of colleagues from IIM A, was among the pioneers to join the IAS in 1978. Since then, only isolated cases of management graduates opting for civil services have occurred. My 38 years of experience in the IAS have been truly stimulating and exciting, and I would recommend this career to anyone. However, I doubt there would be many takers from top business schools.
Murthy has suggested recruiting managers from top business schools to change the government’s work culture. He has, to some extent, equated the UPSC selection system with maintaining the status quo. I feel this is somewhat unfair, as the UPSC recruitment process has been periodically reviewed and reformed by experts. The system is fair and succeeds in selecting the very best from approximately one million applicants. The examination is comprehensive, assessing communication skills, logical thinking, and critical analysis. It also tests knowledge of India, including the Constitution, democracy, history, culture, economy, science, technology, and the environment.
The candidates selected through this process possess high intelligence, academic calibre, determination, diligence, depth of thinking, resilience, and motivation. Moreover, the exam is open to students from any academic background, ensuring a healthy diversity among those selected. In recent years, a significant number of engineers have qualified, and the exam is equally accessible to management students if they wish to attempt it.
Furthermore, it is also inaccurate to claim that the UPSC system selects candidates lacking vision or the capacity to execute strategies. The individuals chosen are of a high standard, and most are genuinely committed to bringing about positive change in governance. Many young officers have introduced remarkable innovations, though these efforts often go undocumented and remain unknown to the general public.
After selection, IAS officers undergo a well-structured two-year training program at LBSNAA and in the districts. This training covers law, economics, public administration, and the Constitution, alongside various management concepts and principles. Throughout their careers, IAS officers participate in four additional phases of training to further develop their policy-making and execution skills. From their first day on the job, IAS officers face numerous challenges, which train them in decision-making and problem-solving. I feel the current system is quite adequate in developing administrators who can respond effectively to the fast changing environment and get things done.
It is not managers but leaders who are needed to make the administration result-oriented and proactive. Leadership is not the exclusive domain of management graduates. However, Murthy is correct in emphasising that a visionary, strategic, and problem-solving approach is essential for our administrators. Reforms in government work culture and processes are necessary to make the administration dynamic. An objective performance evaluation system would significantly contribute to professionalising the administration. Moreover, IAS officers must be protected from political interference and victimisation.
Murthy has rightly identified the type of reforms required for effective governance. However, the proposed solution of selecting IAS officers from business schools is not the answer. The current UPSC selection system is robust and cannot be faulted. What we need is regular capacity building and a result-oriented work environment to transform selected officers into leaders capable of driving India’s growth story.
