Empathy, an essential attribute of leadership in most professions, becomes even more vital in the medical field as it entails very basic human instincts and sentiments

On the eve of July 1, which is celebrated as National Doctor’s Day, Honourable President Draupadi Murmu addressed the convocation at AIIMS Gorakhpur and lauded the great role played by doctors in society by healing people and saving lives. To me, the most important point she made in her speech was that empathy plays a major role in healing. She emphasised doctor-patient communication and said that medicine is not just a profession but a service to humanity. She appealed to doctors to make compassion and honesty a part of their personality and to perform their duties with a spirit of service. All of us would agree, based on our own experiences, that we expect more from doctors than just a prescription or a surgical procedure. We feel happiest when the doctor listens to us attentively and calmly reassures us with a smile, explaining what they think the problem is and why they are suggesting a particular line of treatment. We want to go back to such doctors again and again because we are confident that they will cure us. In reality, an empathetic doctor is often able to provide relief because of the bond of trust that develops, and our own body begins to cooperate in the healing process, making the medicines more effective. A doctor who treats us with compassion and empathy develops a divine halo, and the bond between the doctor and the patient becomes sacred.

Empathy and compassion are virtues that apply equally across all professions. To be successful in professional life, one needs knowledge of one’s work and the ability to take people along. It is the human being who must remain the ultimate focus of the actions of any profession. I have been a civil servant, serving in the IAS for 38 years, and I realised during my career that whenever I acted with empathy and compassion, people responded with warmth, trust, and confidence, and I was able to give them greater satisfaction. The job in the IAS is to assist the political executive in the process of policymaking and then implement those policies with integrity and effectiveness to address the grievances of the people.

If policies are formulated by merely analysing data in air-conditioned chambers without considering the human element, they often fail, as they are not accepted by the very people they are meant to serve. Similarly, if implementation becomes merely a matter of paper reporting and achieving physical and financial targets, then such implementation lacks a soul and does not improve the quality of life of the people it is intended for. In short, better public service delivery takes place only if civil servants have an attitude of empathy and understanding. This means they must listen to the silent voices of the people and learn to appreciate them.

Right from the beginning of my career in the IAS, I believed in being accessible to the common man. As a District Magistrate, I devoted several hours to meeting the people of the district and making a sincere effort to resolve their problems. I used to keep an open house, not allowing my personal assistant or peon to dictate who could enter my office to meet me. I recall that in my first posting as a District Magistrate, my first visitor was a poor farmer. When I asked him to sit down, he was taken aback and declined. But when I persisted, he sat down on the floor. I had to get up, hold him by the hand, and make him sit on the chair opposite me. It had a transformational effect on him, and he looked very happy and content. The message travelled across the district, and because of the empathy and compassion that radiated from my action, I received a lot of support from the people of the district. This helped me in bringing about good governance. I carried this habit with me throughout my career, and even as the Chief Secretary of UP, I used to meet citizens without an appointment for one hour every day. This helped me understand the problems of the people better and respond to them positively.

Empathy and compassion are not a favour that you do to the other person. They make you and the organisation far more productive and efficient. They are essential qualities of leadership that bring about professional excellence. Even in the corporate sector, it is leaders who deal with their team members with empathy and understanding who succeed. It is true that the bottom line is of paramount importance in the corporate world, but a motivated and happy team leads to greater organisational effectiveness and ultimately, more profits. This is true for any profession. Empathy is the ability to fully understand another person. It enables you to perceive the feelings and emotions of others, and when you respond to them, you develop a strong sense of trust. Empathy taken a step further—where you actually share in the feelings of another—becomes compassion.

Leaders must have emotional intelligence (EI) to perform at the highest level. The leadership competencies of EI are self-awareness, self-management, empathy, and motivation. Self-awareness is about understanding oneself—our limitations and strengths—while self-regulation frees us from being prisoners of our emotions, allowing us to remain reasonable and calm. Motivation is the capacity to move to a higher level of performance, while empathy is about putting oneself in the shoes of another. Of all these, empathy is perhaps the most vital, as it allows one to truly understand another person’s perspective. This helps in building a shared mission, a common purpose, and creates great teams that collaborate to achieve organisational goals. In such a scenario, conflicts are managed, and both people and the organisation grow and develop. Studies have shown that more than 70 percent of success in any organisation can be attributed to the emotional quotient in its leadership. AI is a big disruptor today. We can feel the world around us changing due to the impact of AI. It is clear that leadership in the modern era will involve understanding AI and having the capacity to innovate and implement it within organisations. However, AI is not a substitute for certain human skills, which will become even more important to ensure that AI enters our lives with a human face. Professionals must learn how to remain irreplaceable in a world run by algorithms. Automation has created a greater demand for responsiveness to change and for leaders who focus on human beings. Empathy and compassion are the true leadership traits essential for effective leadership in the age of AI. Leadership is not only about data analysis or technology but about the human being, whose life we must strive to make qualitatively better.

When money and influence decide official postings, merit becomes irrelevant, and the common citizen is left to suffer the cost of compromised delivery

Every year, the month of May and June is the transfer season of officers and employees. Detailed policy guidelines have been issued this year by the Government of UP, just like in the past. Yet, once again, the transfers have got mired in controversy. The headlines in the morning newspapers are blaring about corruption and irregular transfers in the stamp and registration department. Evidently, the Minister of State had complained to the Chief Minister, who took cognisance and cancelled the transfers and immediately ordered the removal of the Inspector General stamps who is the head of the department. In a similar vein, the transfers in the health department and some others are under serious scrutiny. The Ministers are at loggerheads with their officers on the transfer issue, and the entire administrative atmosphere has been seriously vitiated.

Transfers are an annual exercise, intended to streamline the administration and ensure that officers are rotated throughout the state, thereby preventing the development of vested interests in any particular place or region. The guidelines issued are above board, and they prescribe a time limit for an officer to stay in a District or a division before she is transferred out. Naturally, not all the officers in the eligibility zone of transfers can be moved out at one go because this would lead to a massive reshuffle, which would cause instability in Governance. Normally, the guidelines prescribe the percentage of officers in a department who should be transferred. The problem arises when there is an arbitrary and partial approach employed in transfers, and also there is a lack of fairness and objectivity in deciding which officer should be transferred where.

The month-long transfer season, which sometimes gets extended, is like a festival season with officers and employees leaving their station of work and running around Ministers, officers and other influencers to either avoid being transferred or get an assignment and place of their choice. In Government, the general rule is that transfers of officers and employees up to the class II level are done at the prerogative of the head of the department (HOD). Transfers of class I officers are done at the State Government level. In the latter case, the Secretary of the department is expected to prepare transfer proposals and get them approved by the departmental Minister. The Minister will have a say in these transfers. However, the situation gets complicated when the Ministers start interfering in class II and below transfers, which are in the domain of the head of the department. In fact, interfering is a mild term. The Ministers believe that all transfers have to be done with their approval, and one finds transfer lists being prepared in the office of the Minister and the head of the department is simply expected to issue orders accordingly under his signature. Similarly, for class I officers, most secretaries avoid conflict and prepare proposals according to the wishes of the Minister concerned. This leads to an ugly situation where allegations of corruption become rampant and good governance goes for a toss.

In the democratic scheme of governance, the Minister, being an elected person, is the boss and the HOD and the Secretary are expected to work under his direction. The political executive is expected to frame policies on the advice of the administrative officers. Thereafter, the execution of the policies is the responsibility of the civil servants. To deliver public services to the citizens in the desired manner, the civil service has to ensure effective execution. This is possible only if the HOD and the secretary concerned have control over their team of officers because it is through them that results and outcomes will be achieved. Management science is vocal about the concept of having the right man at the right place for getting things done. In any field, a leader is only as good as his team and should have a say in selecting his team members. Can you imagine a situation where the Indian cricket captain goes into a test series with a team which has been selected by the Minister of Sports? I am sure such a team selected due to extraneous pressures would never win a test series. In the same way, when officers are saddled with a team not chosen by them or officers posted on assignments for which they are not suitable, how can we expect them to perform and deliver results?

The situation gets worse when junior officers, because of getting their postings through the Minister, owe their allegiance to him and are not bothered about their HOD. They begin to believe that performance at work is not important and focus their energies on keeping the Minister happy. Also, in cases where they have paid money to get particular postings, they believe that it is their right to extract as much as they can from their assignment. This leads to a high level of corruption and an unethical work culture, which is detrimental to providing public services to the common man. It is because of this kind of situation that unsavoury conflicts and disputes between various levels of officers are becoming common, and it is the citizen who suffers.

In a humorous vein, one can say that in reality, the roles have been reversed with the Ministers focusing on implementation and having little time for policy making, leaving it to the officers to make policies! This inverted structure is not how a democratic government should function. Most conflicts between HODs and Secretaries with their Ministers are on the transfer issue, which leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

Ideally, the HOD should be left free to choose his team because he has to be accountable for the results. There should be no interference in his jurisdiction. Regarding class I transfers, these can be discussed by the secretary with the Minister concerned. An objective criterion for transfers can be laid down without much difficulty, particularly in this era of computerisation. Technology would ensure that there is impartiality and objectivity in the entire process, and this would send an excellent signal of Good Governance down the line. Transfers should not be treated as an end in themselves but as a means of creating a work ecosystem which would fulfil the expectations of the citizens. This sounds simple enough, but is unlikely to happen because the transfer industry has taken deep roots in the Governance structure, and those who profit in this industry are unlikely to change their ways. The quality of execution will continue to suffer unless the Government concerned has the courage and the conviction to bring about a complete change in this system.

Virat Kohli’s  retirement creates a vacuum in the Indian Cricket Team which will be difficult to fill. He had a great career and was easily one of the greatest batsmen that India has produced.

One of the greatest qualities of leadership is to spot talent and then give it an opportunity to develop at the right time. For this we must give full credit to Dilip Vengsarkar for recognizing the immense potential of Virat Kohli and drafting him into the National team when others were not so sure. Virat more than justified the faith reposed on him.

Succeeding in Test Cricket is not easy even though you might be having a lot of innate ability. The opposition equipped with modern tools of analysis goes into great depth of the batting style of any new player and they are quick to exploit even the smallest of weaknesses. This is why many test batsmen have started off with a flourish but then slowly faded out. I remember Virat beginning with a bang and then going through a horrendous English tour of 2013 where he scored only 137 runs in ten innings. It seemed that some weakness in his batting had been exposed. We all thought that this was the beginning of the end of another potentially promising career. But we had reckoned without the resilience and fierce determination of Virat. He worked on his batting and came out a super star in the 2014 Australia tour. There was no looking back after that. The period from 2014 to 2019 established Virat Kohli as one of the top batsmen in the world. 2016-18 was his golden era where he smashed all records and scored more than a thousand runs in each calendar year.

His form dipped after 2019 with the possible exception of 2023 yet he remained one batsman that the opposition bowlers feared the most. We, also, always had hope as long as Kohli was batting. He inspired confidence. His commitment to the game was total and he was always intensely involved which sometimes rubbed people the wrong way. He was greatly successful as a Captain.

Virat Kohli with his batting and intensity as well as the desire to win gave us moments of great joy and excitement. His journey is a story of inspiration and a master class on how to succeed in your chosen career.

Indian team will not be the same without him. Wishing him the best for his future.

The Civil Services exam system needs urgent reform to prevent youth from wasting prime years in repeated attempts, as well as to prioritise idealism and efficiency

The Civil Services results have just been declared, and the photographs and interviews of the successful candidates are being flashed across newspapers, fuelling the civil service dream of millions. It is indeed a great day for those who have made it, and they deserve all the congratulations for their resilience, determination, intelligence, and hard work. At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands who have not succeeded, and they are anxiously wondering about their future. For some, the portals of a life of meaning and purpose have been opened, but for others, it is a depressing moment, and they are feeling lost.

After reading the interviews of the selected candidates, I was surprised to find that most of them had succeeded after several attempts—perhaps even four to five. There was hardly anyone who had made it in the first attempt. This disturbed me. It is true that it is one of the toughest exams, with less than a thousand getting selected out of several lakhs who write the exam. Still, I feel that there should be a much larger percentage of candidates who succeed in the first attempt. When I was selected for the IAS in 1978, there were a significant number of candidates who qualified in the first attempt, and I wonder why this is not happening anymore. The nature of the exam needs to be reviewed to address this anomaly.

When I wrote the IAS and succeeded in the first attempt, I joined the service at the age of 22. This gave me 38 years of working life. Today, with candidates making it after several attempts and getting selected near the age of 30, their career span is considerably shortened to about 30 years. The topmost position in the IAS is that of the Secretary to the Government of India or Chief Secretary in the State. Even today, officers make this grade after serving for about 32–33 years. This means that a large number of current officers, who are getting in at a late age, will never make this grade. It would be ironical if even the candidate who is among the toppers does not reach the highest post in the service because she retires before that. This is not a healthy sign. It can be hugely de-motivating. Further, it can create a feeling among such candidates that there is no point excelling at work because the highest level of the service will not be reached by them. I fear that some may deviate from the desired path and believe in making hay while the sun shines.

I remember that when I got into the IAS, the minimum age for the exam was 21 years for all, and the maximum for general candidates was 26, with the reserved categories getting a couple of years more. Now, I find that though the minimum age remains the same, the maximum age limit for general candidates has been raised to 32, while it is 35 and 37 for the OBCs and SC/STs respectively. This, to my mind, creates a problem, which is further accentuated by the fact that the number of attempts allowed has been exponentially increased. In our time, we were permitted a maximum of three attempts. Today, I find that a general candidate is allowed six attempts, with OBCs getting three more, and it is unlimited in the case of SC/STs. The net result is that young boys and girls keep toiling for the Civil Services exam year after year and spend the best part of their lives doing this. If, at the end of the day, they do not succeed, then they are left in the lurch, with no other rewarding career options available. They become overage for various jobs, and it is perhaps too late for them to acquire a professional degree that would make them employable elsewhere. Their future becomes dark, and they have to look for jobs far below their potential, which frustrates them—and many fall into the grip of depression.

Today, there are a large number of stimulating career options available, and there is no reason why the youth of this country should spend their prime years repeatedly attempting the Civil Services examination. Civil service is not the only route to success in life. Not being able to clear the Civil Services exam is not an indicator of the potential and ability of a person.

Moreover, getting into the Civil Services at a late age presents another problem area. When a person has crossed the age of thirty, his value system and ethical framework have already been formed. It is very difficult to mould him differently. The Civil Services require not only a different aptitude but a completely different mindset and attitude. Service to the people has to be the overriding motivation of a civil servant. I remember joining the IAS at 22, almost fresh from college, full of enthusiasm and the belief that one can change the world. Beyond thirty, there is no denying that a person becomes more worldly-wise and has often seen so much of the realities of the world that there is no place left for unbridled idealism, which, in my opinion, must be the discerning quality of a civil servant.

In light of the above discussion, I am of the firm conviction that the maximum age for the Civil Services should in no case exceed 28 for general candidates, and an exemption of a year or two can be given to the OBCs/SC/STs. Further, the maximum number of attempts allowed to a general candidate should be three, with one additional attempt for the other categories.

Further, I strongly feel that the syllabus for the Civil Services exam needs to be urgently reviewed. The current syllabus is far too exhaustive and expects the candidate to memorise almost everything under the sun. This should be changed because this is one of the main reasons why a candidate has to study for years before he can even think of clearing the exam. For instance, there is no need to have three General Studies papers. Two would be quite sufficient, and they also should have a manageable and defined scope. In addition, the question papers should offer options and not make it mandatory to attempt all questions. There is a fourth General Studies paper on ethics which can be removed. I would be the first person to advocate for the relevance of ethics for civil servants, but having a paper on it in the entrance examination does not help. Ethics should be an important part of the training curriculum at the service academies.

The essay paper should remain, as also one optional subject. However, I feel that the relative weightage of the personality test should be increased. You can now be interviewed in any of the recognized languages, and so there is no elitist bias in this. Moreover, at the prelims stage, in addition to the General Studies papers, the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) paper should also be added to the score and not be just a qualifying paper. The scheme of the paper can be reviewed to ensure that it does not unduly favour any group.

We need the best to enter the Civil Services. The exam should be such that it makes this happen without making a candidate spend more than five years of his youth preparing for it. The scheme of the exam should be such that it does not deter deserving candidates from having a shot at it. There is a need for an urgent review of the Civil Services exam scheme and pattern.

On the Civil Services Day, the IAS must introspect whether it has upheld the lofty ideals of service, integrity, and nation-building it was envisioned and entrusted with

April 21 is celebrated as Civil Services Day because on this day, the Hon’ble former Home Minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, addressed the first batch of officers of the newly created IAS service as the successor to the ICS. Addressing them, he said, “You are the pioneers in the Indian Service, and the future of the service will depend much upon the foundation and tradition that will be laid down by you—by character and abilities, and by spirit of service.”

He highlighted five qualities that the IAS should embody: impartiality and incorruptibility, integrity, work without any expectation of extraneous rewards, sovereignty, and spirit of service. He went on to paint a vision for the future of the service by saying, “Along with discipline, you must cultivate an esprit de corps, without which a service has little meaning. You should regard it as a proud privilege to belong to the service—the covenants of which you will sign and uphold, through your service, its dignity, integrity, and incorruptibility.”

The IAS today has to look within and ask itself whether it has lived up to the lofty ideals with which it was created. I guess the answer would be mixed. The service has produced outstanding and dedicated officers who have contributed to the building of the nation. Officers of the civil services conduct elections with fairness, impartiality, and great efficiency; they do outstanding work in handling natural calamities and stand for the values enshrined in the Constitution, as well as work with a sense of service to the people in policy formulation and execution.

Yet, a large section of people bear animosity towards the IAS and consider it a legacy of the colonial regime, insulated from the problems of the citizens of India. Some of the criticism of the IAS is valid, but the rest is largely based on an inadequate understanding of the conditions in which IAS officers work and perform. Clichés like the IAS is ‘rule-bound, resistant to change, overbearing, arrogant, self-seeking, obstructionist, and not suited for the 21st century’ are thrown around. Many of these criticisms are ill-informed and turn a blind eye to the yeoman service rendered by many IAS officers in building the nation.

There is no doubt that there has been a decline in the basic values of integrity, impartiality, and incorruptibility in the service. But it is also true that there are a large number of officers working with total commitment, integrity, and dedication in the service of the nation.

The IAS opens up a path to a lot of power, influence, and immense opportunity. Yet, it is also the portal to numerous challenges. Today, on Civil Services Day, the service must introspect and reflect upon its performance.

There is no denying that there is still a gap in the delivery of public services to the people. Despite becoming the fifth-largest economy in the world, we are still a developing country, with per capita income, human development, and hunger indicators far below those of most nations. This indicates a governance failure somewhere, and the IAS, being at the apex of the structure of governance, cannot escape responsibility. Each IAS officer must introspect and reflect on this. The service needs to rediscover and reinvent itself; otherwise, it faces an uncertain future. The IAS has few friends, and it must redeem itself through performance and integrity.

IAS officers are supposed to work in anonymity and not chase personal or professional publicity. Ironically, this virtue has worked to the detriment of the service. People are not aware of the outstanding work done by many IAS officers. Today, some IAS officers have taken to social media to talk about their achievements, but these are only a few, while a large number are working quietly with dedication. There is an urgent need to document the initiatives and proactive work done by various officers and also to develop achievement-based case studies.

In this light, it is heartening that some IAS officers are recognised for their performance and honoured with the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Governance on the occasion of Civil Services Day. I was also very happy to see that the Indian Express Group gave awards to District Magistrates and Collectors who did transformative work in their districts. I feel if more such examples are brought to the knowledge of the people, they will view the service more favourably.

In a democracy, the elected political representative is the one who holds the reins of power, and the civil service has to work in close conjunction with them. The job of the IAS is to advise in policy formulation and take the lead in implementation. The politician is aware of the pulse of the people and articulates their vision, which has to be translated into action by the civil servant. Governance cannot move forward if both these wheels of good governance do not work together.

Political intervention is essential in a democracy, but political interference leads to suboptimal results. In general, there is a harmonious relationship between the politician and the civil servant, but often there is conflict, which can have negative consequences. My take is that things move in the right direction if both understand each other’s viewpoint. The civil servant has to appreciate that politicians must respond to the wishes of their voters, while the politician should understand that a civil servant must work according to the Constitution and the rule of law.

In the State Governments today (not so much in the Government of India), the identity of officers is linked to their caste or community. This is unfortunate because the only identity of an officer should be that he is an officer. This has reached such proportions in some states that officers are shuffled like a pack of cards with every change of government. So much so, that officers holding important positions under one government are packed off to insignificant posts by the new government.

Realising this, many officers have also started using this card and are now openly aligning themselves with political parties in order to reap the harvest when a particular political party comes to power. Even more ominous is the disturbing trend of inquiries being ordered against officers presumed to be close to the outgoing government. It is also true that some officers bring this upon themselves by their actions. When asked to bend, many are willing to crawl in the lure of powerful assignments.

Today, the IAS must redeem its pledge to the nation and be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the poor and marginalised sections of society. It must realise that its future is at a crossroads and will be determined by the path it takes. It has to do a lot of soul-searching to overcome its weaknesses, build on its strengths, and take India forward on the path of becoming a developed nation.

It is through its efficiency, effectiveness, leadership, problem-solving approach, decision-making, and absolute integrity that the IAS will be able to refurbish its image and truly don the mantle of a premier service. It is only then that the service will be able to fully justify the immense faith with which Sardar Patel had supported its creation.

With the World Happiness Report 2025 ranking India 118th out of 147 nation, policymakers have a critical challenge to prioritise social justice and overall well-being of Individuals

Recently, on March 20, the International Day of Happiness was celebrated to remind us that happiness is something for which all of humanity aspires. It was in 2012 that the United Nations proclaimed this day to recognize that happiness is a fundamental human goal. Also, for inclusive and sustainable development to take place, policymakers all over the world must address the crucial issues of happiness and the well-being of human beings. Ever since 2012, a World Happiness Report has been released on this day, ranking countries based on happiness and providing insights into how they are progressing in terms of happiness and well-being. Accordingly, the World Happiness Report of 2024 has been published, and once again, India’s performance has not been very encouraging. Though India’s rank has gone up by ten positions, it is a matter of concern that India still ranks 118th out of the 140-odd countries assessed on the life evaluation scale. It is also worrying that India has consistently been among the countries with the lowest levels of happiness over the years.

The methodology used and the reliability of the World Happiness Report have once again become a hot topic of debate, particularly in light of a disturbed nation like Pakistan being ranked happier than India. This report is largely based on survey data from a worldwide Gallup Poll. It primarily focuses on six variables that, according to the report, combine with subjective matters of life satisfaction to provide an in-depth look at the state of happiness in a country. These variables are GDP per capita, which is a measure of the standard of living; healthy life expectancy; social support, which evaluates whether people can rely on someone during difficult times; freedom to make life choices; generosity; and perception of corruption, which indicates the level of trust people have in their government and society. The ranking is influenced by these six factors but is based on the Cantrill ladder method, where people are asked to rank their life satisfaction level on a scale of 1 to 10. India’s consistently low rank indicates that Indians have been ranking themselves low on the life satisfaction scale. It would be interesting to explore the reasons for the same.

It is difficult to accept that countries like Libya (79), Venezuela (82), Rwanda (116), Palestine (108), and Pakistan (109) are happier than India. Today, India is the fifth-largest economy, while Pakistan’s GDP is not even 10 per cent of it and is in the throes of a financial crisis. That India could be less happy than countries facing war, internal strife, and economic collapse raises doubts about the methodology of these rankings. Actually, it is based on subjective self-assessment by respondents, which is, more often than not, governed by perception rather than hard data. In some of these countries, people may be scared to express their honest opinions. Moreover, in many of these countries, people’s expectations are low, so they express happiness with what they have. India, on the other hand, is a young country with rising aspirations and is thus likely to be dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. We tend to debate issues like corruption in government, unemployment, and inflation, which could influence the nature of responses given by Indians.

However, our low ranking on the happiness scale should not be so easily brushed aside. Our policymakers must confront reality. The WHR 2024 is an elegant, well-researched, and analytical document that has examined happiness from various angles. The global analysis has discussed issues like caring and sharing, living with others, sharing meals, connecting, supporting, and trusting others. It has attached great importance to the concept of giving to others, discussing how one can convert one’s money into creating greater happiness for others. The report has conducted an in-depth global analysis of caring and sharing by discussing six measures: donating, volunteering, helping strangers, and the likelihood of a wallet being returned by a neighbour, stranger, or police. It is interesting to note that during the difficult COVID-19 pandemic period, the world’s happiness level did not decline due to an increase in benevolent acts of caring and sharing. The WHR found that even in 2024, benevolent acts were 10 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels. India ranked 57th in donation, 10th in volunteering, and 74th in helping a stranger. However, India scored low on the trust factor, with its ranks on the parameter of expecting a dropped wallet to be returned by a neighbour, stranger, or police being 115th, 86th, and 93rd, respectively. These figures show that there is very low trust in the integrity of the police. The WHR also found that sharing meals with others is strongly related to life satisfaction—much more than factors like income and unemployment. Happiness is real only when it is shared.

Some of the factors explaining the low level of happiness in India can be identified. The first among these is economic inequality. Despite a growing economy, income inequality remains a major challenge. Moreover, rural areas lack access to essential services like healthcare and education and struggle with poverty. Even more disconcerting is that we have not yet been able to provide social justice to all, despite our Constitution being based on the principle of equality of opportunity. The inequities of the caste system are responsible for this. Awareness of mental health issues is low, with people suffering in silence, affecting their overall happiness. In addition, the closely knit family structure that once provided emotional support is breaking down, while work pressures and a fast-paced lifestyle are eroding traditional community bonds, contributing to a sense of isolation. The lack of work-life balance is leading to high levels of stress. Unfulfilled aspirations are driving people to seek solace in alcohol and drugs. It is also true that public trust in the government is low, with people perceiving a high level of corruption in public institutions.

The Nordic countries are the happiest, with Finland leading the way. We could learn something from them. The key factor contributing to their high level of happiness is the existence of strong social support systems. In these countries, the state provides extensive support to its citizens in areas like healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, and parental leave. These systems alleviate financial stress and provide a safety net during challenging times. In addition, these countries prioritize work-life balance, and there is a high level of trust in institutions, with corruption levels in Nordic countries being among the lowest in the world. There is a strong sense of community and equality, as these countries promote egalitarian values. Another distinguishing feature is their focus on environmental sustainability. The icing on the cake is free access to quality education, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.

India must learn from these happy countries, and our policymakers should focus on the issues of reducing income inequality, ensuring social justice, strengthening social safety nets, improving governance, and reducing corruption as well as promoting work life balance. Rather than denying the findings of the report, India needs to look within to assess the causes of unhappiness and address them on a priority basis.

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.

India’s Test debacle against New Zealand offers vital lessons in terms of strategy, preparation, and mindset, which, if taken, can pave the way for resurgence from the setback

Success and failure in life continue to provide valuable leadership lessons, and sports is no exception. The recently concluded Test series between India and New Zealand was a shocker. We lost a home series for the first time since 2011-12, breaking a streak of eighteen consecutive series wins on home soil. Any loss stings, and in this cricket-crazy country, a defeat in cricket becomes a highly emotional issue—especially when it’s a complete and embarrassing washout, as was the case in this three-match series against New Zealand. What made it worse was that the Indians were outplayed in all departments by New Zealand and are now left with nowhere to hide.

Every Test-playing nation prepares pitches to align with its strengths. When Indian teams play abroad, they confront conditions that favour swing bowling or fast, bouncy tracks. Rightfully, India prepares pitches that offer substantial turn for spinners. For the past twelve years, superior Indian spinners have consistently decimated visiting teams’ batting lineups, spinning a web that has trapped opposing batsmen. However, Test cricket today is no child’s play; it is a highly competitive and professional sport where technology is used to analyse opponents’ strengths and weaknesses, helping teams design effective winning strategies. In this contest of leadership, New Zealand showed superior strategy and successfully implemented it. India’s strategy, on the other hand, backfired, and we were subjected to the unedifying sight of average New Zealand spinners rocking the Indian boat. Astonishingly, bowlers like Santner and Ajaz Patel appeared unplayable, while India’s proven spinners, Ashwin and Jadeja, were made to look unexpectedly ordinary.

When I was a child, my father was posted in Nainital, where we had a kitchen garden that was regularly destroyed by visiting wild animals, especially a notorious porcupine. The gardener decided to tackle the problem head-on and dug a huge pit and camouflaged it with branches and other plant material. The next day, the garden was devastated by porcupines and other animals, but to add to our woes, the gardener’s wife was wailing after he fell into the pit he had dug and hurt himself. Similarly, the Indian team fell into their own trap. The important leadership lesson here is that if you have a strategy, you must meticulously plan its execution. A strategy becomes meaningless if leaders fail to anticipate competitors’ responses and prepare their team accordingly. We prepared turning tracks to ensnare the visiting team but had no answers for the opposing spinners. Our batsmen appeared even less prepared to handle spin than New Zealand’s, looking clueless against ordinary spin bowling.

The lesson is that you must assess your strengths and weaknesses and train your team members to overcome their limitations. You cannot simply leave everything to chance. Additionally, digging a pit for others is a negative approach; leaders should focus on the positives.

Ever since the defeat, the IPL has become the villain of the piece. Most critics of the Indian batting display are pointing an accusing finger at the IPL. The refrain is that the IPL, with its T-20 template of slam-bang cricket, has converted batsmen into “sloggers” and bowlers into those focusing only on containment. There is some truth in this, but we must not overlook the tremendous contribution of the IPL to the development of Indian cricketers. Most young men can now adopt the IPL route to showcase their talents, and the money they earn offers enough promise of financial security, making more and more young boys take to cricket as a career.

However, Test cricket is a different ball game altogether. The solution lies in having horses for courses—different teams for Test cricket and T-20. To a large extent, this has already started happening in India. What is required is that those who are going to play Test cricket should be given as many opportunities as possible to practice red-ball cricket by participating in domestic tournaments and India “A” ventures. It is strange that we prepare vicious turners for Test matches, yet our own batsmen rarely get to practice on such wickets. No wonder, when the occasion comes, they are found severely wanting. The wickets in domestic cricket are batting paradises, and many young batsmen put up stellar performances. This puts them into the Test team, where they find themselves out of sorts when the ball starts turning square. The recent pathetic batting display was exhibited both by senior established batsmen and aspiring young players. The question that intrigues us is: why prepare a minefield of a wicket if your batsmen lack the skill set to perform on them? This is perhaps a very important lesson in strategy and leadership. Look first at your strengths and then focus on strategies that will build on them.

I find newspapers lamenting the rather ordinary batting averages at home of some of the accomplished batsmen like Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli. The same was the case with Cheteshwar Pujara and Ajinkya Rahane. By preparing rank turners, we have managed to successfully ruin the averages of these great batsmen and also undermined their self-confidence. That the performance has been wanting cannot be denied, as the figures speak for themselves. Does it mean that the time has come to phase out the senior players? In sports, as in any other organisation, one must retire even tested performers after they reach a certain age and keep infusing young blood into the organisation. However, this should not be done in a knee-jerk fashion. This process of creative destruction needs to be managed with maturity and foresight, requiring proactive leadership. Succession planning is one of the most important tasks of the leadership team in any organisation but should never be done in an impulsive and haphazard manner. It is a continuous process that should involve a hassle-free handing over of the baton from the old to the new, passing on the gems of experience and building the capacity of new members so that they can carry the team to the finishing line ahead of others without any hiccups.

The biggest leadership lesson is that failures lead to growth, and this is how we must view the recent debacle. We must learn from it by returning to the drawing board and planning for the future in an open and uncluttered manner. Like the phoenix, we can rise from the ashes. There is no better example of this than the performance of our own Indian team in Australia in 2021-22 under Ajinkya Rahane. We lost the first Test badly and faced the humiliation of being bundled out for 36. Virat Kohli, the captain, had to return after the first Test due to personal reasons. The odds were heavily against us, yet the Indian team under Rahane and Shastri fought back, with Rahane leading by example with a superb hundred. India lost several other players, like Bumrah, to injury, yet defeated Australia 2-1 in the series. This is possibly one of the most underrated success stories in Indian cricket. In a similar manner, Pakistan was recently hammered by England in the first Test. They carried out major changes in their team and relied on the strategy of fielding untested spin bowlers against England. Before England could realise what hit them, they had lost the series.

India need not despair. The failure has only highlighted the problem areas that the leadership must address positively. Self-belief must be restored, and a new team combination with the right mix of experience and youth created. The Australian series can bring India back into the limelight. All it requires is faith in oneself, fierce determination, and the will to win. We may have suffered a defeat, but we must believe that we have not been defeated.

The unfortunate and tragic death of a young girl employed with a premier consultancy company is a matter of great concern and has rightfully attracted the attention of all stakeholders. The seriousness of the issue can be gauged by the fact that this is not an isolated incident of unreasonable work pressure and toxic work culture in an organization leading to excessive stress in employees causing major health and mental health issues. This is true of most organizations whether in the public or private sector but the problem seems to be more acute in the corporate sector. The excessive focus on improving the bottom line at all costs ignores the human element and creates a work culture where machines and human beings are treated alike. Efficiency and productivity are the goals that corporate organizations seek to achieve but they little realise that they achieve just the opposite by putting their employees under unreasonable and excessive stress.

The desire to cut costs and increase the profits becomes so obsessive that often the organization tries to take the work of two to three people from one employee. Curiously, the key result area of HR, in most organizations, is to reduce the cost to the company and they do so by being very stringent in the number of people that they hire. Reduction in ratio of cost of personnel to revenue or profits is taken as a positive indicator of efficient management. They may have to recruit professional manages at a high salary because of the dynamics of supply and demand in the market but they make up for it by taking the work of two to three managers from one. One frequently hears managers complaining that their repeated requests for getting support staff falls on deaf ears even as the demands on their time keep multiplying with more and more work being thrust upon them. The result is that it becomes impossible for an employee to manage her time and she is constantly running against impossible deadlines. While fixing targets or deadlines the senior management is not reasonable making the employees feel that they are not meeting the imposed expectations. This creates conflict and also a situation where the senior expresses displeasure and the employee concerned feels a sense of failure and gets stressed. This is further compounded if the boss has a short fuse and resorts to shouting or blaming his team managers. Repeated such toxic events lead to a major stress threat for the employee and this constant spiral results in serious physical and mental health issues.

The motto of the school where I studied was that work is worship. In my entire 38 years of career in the IAS I have enjoyed my work and never felt it to be any kind of a burden. In fact, I used to be bursting with energy every single day of my career. Most successful professionals or Government servants will support me when I say that work itself is a source of great satisfaction and creates positive emotions and happy sentiments. If one is involved in her work and the nature of the job is according to ones calling then one never counts the number of hours that one puts into work. A sense of wellbeing is closely related to the level of enjoyment that a person derives from her work. At a seminar on happiness at the work place a few days ago a lady Doctor shared her experience of being often woken up in the middle of the night to perform an emergency surgery but she never felt any stress or negativity about it. On the other hand she always felt a deep sense of satisfaction of providing relief to her patient. Work, then, is a source of enjoyment and fulfillment and does not kill anybody. However, if one is stuck in a job which is not to her liking then work becomes of source of unhappiness. It is, thus, important to choose a job profile which is to one’s liking rather than take up a job enticed purely by a high salary package.

The work culture in an organization is responsible for creating positive or negative emotions amongst its employees. It is not work but a toxic work culture which causes stress, anxiety and related health issues. If an organization treats its employees merely as a mechanical resource and tries to extract the last pound of flesh from them, it creates a poisonous work culture. Impossible deadlines, giving inadequate support staff, expecting the moon, having a hierarchical relationship and not alloying freedom of expression or action creates an unhappy work place. If there is no objectivity and fairness in the performance evaluation system then also it makes the employee distressed. An employee gets emotionally disturbed if she has a boss who publicly humiliates her often for no fault of hers. Further, the work culture is such that the top management is very stingy with praise but extravagant with criticism. It is said in management circles that culture eats strategy for breakfast. I would go on to add that a toxic work culture eats the employees for lunch.

Developing a positive work culture is not rocket science. It is simply a question of right attitude and mindset flowing down from the top management. It is about treating employees as human beings by having a holistic approach and always keeping in mind the fact that the success of every organization depends upon the wellbeing and satisfaction of its people. So many studies have shown that it is not success that leads to happiness but it is the other way round. If the employees in an organization are happy they would be more productive and innovative and the organization would be able to perform at a high level.

Work life balance is the buzz phrase these days. It has its supporters as well as detractors. Many fresh entrants to job market believe that work life balance means less pressure of work, more vacations, relaxed atmosphere with no deadlines and a lot of happy activities. This is a wrong attitude to approach one’s job with. There is no substitute to hard work and work life balance does not imply only life and no work. On the other hand an atmosphere of only work and no life is also detrimental to a working environment. The crucial word is balance. The ideal work culture is one which balances both work and life outside work. The physical and mental health of employees should be of great importance to an organization.

Employees feeling a sense of exhaustion, at the age of forty, are a poor reflection on the work culture of an organization. The top management of such companies must own the responsibility for the same.

Along with concern for profits and productivity, organizations must concern themselves with the wellbeing of its people. I would go as far as to say that it should be their overriding concern. A happy work culture where employees feel that they are valued and their jobs are enriched creates a happy and successful organization. The golden rule is to treat employees as human beings. These days, numerous aspects of the working of an organization are audited. To these happiness audit of employees must be mandatorily added.

The union government’s attempt to recruit joint and deputy secretaries through lateral entry holds little significance in curing the ills of governance

The issue of lateral entry has attracted a lot of discussion and controversy in the last few days, following the UPSC’s advertisement for recruiting specialists for 45 posts at Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary/Director levels in the Government of India. The decision came under a strong attack from opposition parties, the government’s own allies, and Independent thinkers for not providing for reservation for these posts. Initially, the government defended its decision but subsequently cancelled the advertisement and professed its commitment to social justice. In all matters of direct recruitment to the Government of India, reservations must be provided. Lateral entry is a form of direct recruitment. If more and more people are recruited in this manner, then it would undermine the policy of reservation. I believe that the government has taken the right step by rolling back the advertisement.

Reservation is indeed a major issue, but this crucial intervention of lateral entry needs a thorough examination before the government ventures into it. The important question is about the rationale behind lateral entry. What problem in the current system of governance is lateral entry trying to solve? Proponents argue that lateral entry would infuse new blood and fresh ideas from outside the system, making it more rigorous and vibrant, ultimately leading to better results and higher performance. Their argument is that they are facing a disruptive technological environment that requires domain specialisation. It is felt that IAS officers or other civil service officers lack specialised knowledge, which is acting as a barrier to effective and forward-looking governance.

The problem, as identified by advocates of lateral entry, is that results are not coming at the desired pace, which is slowing down the nation’s development. They feel that lateral entry is the panacea for all that is leading to less-than-optimal performance. However, the reality is that it is not the civil servants who are responsible for this situation due to a lack of domain knowledge; the problem lies with the bureaucratic structure and system of government functioning. The government’s work is concerned with the proper utilisation of public money and requires uniformity of approach across the vast government system. This is the rationale for the labyrinthine web of processes, rules, and regulations that slow down decision-making. Civil servants are more concerned with following mandated procedures than delivering results because any violation could lead to a vigilance inquiry, and sometimes even criminal charges. The best civil servants, who are rated as dynamic and dashing at the beginning of their careers, often mellow down as the years go by, largely due to the pressure of the four Cs—CAG, CVC, CBI, and the courts. More often than not, an officer is looking over their shoulder and adopting a safety-first approach before making a decision. A civil servant learns the hard way that violating rules and regulations of any kind can land them in trouble, whereas not delivering results will not put them under scrutiny. A lateral entrant would face a similar situation, and I cannot fathom how a domain specialist would be able to navigate the system better than a civil servant.

It would be interesting to assess the nature of the work that a Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary does. A large portion of their time is taken up by parliamentary matters. They prepare answers to parliamentary questions, anticipate likely supplementary questions, and brief the ministers. They prepare notes on issues concerning their department that are taken up for discussion in parliament and also attend meetings of parliamentary committees. In addition, they attend to legal cases, prepare agendas and minutes of meetings, draft notes on files, and draft letters. I do not see how a specialist would be able to handle this better than a civil servant whose career exposure has, in fact, made them a specialist in these matters.

More than domain specialisation, it is leadership qualities that are required. A civil servant at a senior level needs to be a leader who can coordinate with different departments and develop and motivate their team to get the job done. They need decision-making ability, and communication skills, and are required to develop systems of monitoring and evaluation. A civil servant, through their training, must have developed these qualities by the time they reach this level. If not, they can be trained to develop the same. There is no case for a domain specialist in this regard.

In any case, lateral entry at the Deputy Secretary level serves no purpose, as it is too junior a position for a specialist to make any significant contribution. They would just be pushing files without making any impact. There is a problem of officer shortages at the Deputy Secretary level, the reasons for which should be identified and addressed. Lateral entry is definitely not the answer. Enriching the role of the Deputy Secretary and providing certain creature comforts would certainly motivate more people to opt for Deputy Secretary level posts in the Government of India.

It is ironic that those who carry the banner for lateral entry of specialists also bemoan the silo approach in government and call for a cross-functional approach. A specialist is most likely to have a siloed viewpoint, whereas the multifunctional experience of an IAS officer is more amenable to thinking beyond silos in an integrated manner. In the words of Paul Appleby, an expert on public administration, it is the diversity of experience of an IAS officer that is most conducive to the formulation of good policies. Furthermore, to what extent should specialisation be pursued? A nephrologist and a paediatrician are typically so immersed in their area of specialisation that they would find it difficult to take a holistic approach to health policy, which an IAS officer is in a position to take. Besides, there is no substitute for the 8-10 years of experience working in districts, and understanding the problems and issues of marginalised sections of society, which provides a strong foundation for policymaking.

The civil servant is selected through an extremely tough and rigorous examination. In lateral entry, the proposal is to select people for the posts of Joint Secretary based on a 30-minute interview, which cannot match with over 20 years of experience working in the field as a civil servant.

I am not against having specialists in the government. In the words of Winston Churchill, the specialist should be “on tap” and not “on top.” There is a strong case for having specialists as advisors to the ministry. Consultants can also play a role, but their use should be limited. Of course, outstanding individuals can be brought in to work for the government in their area of specialisation, like Nandan Nilekani chairing the Aadhaar project. They don’t need to come in as Joint or Deputy Secretary. Moreover, there are officers in the IAS with backgrounds in management, engineering, medicine, or economics. Their careers could be managed in a manner that allows them to bring the best of both worlds to their jobs. After about twenty years of service, IAS officers can be made to specialise in broad areas like finance, the social sector, energy, or infrastructure. Of course, they should then be posted in their areas of expertise and not get shifted around for political reasons.

Lateral entry into the government is an idea that needs serious rethinking. We must move away from the myths surrounding this concept to the realities of good governance. There are issues with the current state of governance, but these must be correctly diagnosed. The right remedy can only be prescribed if the root causes impacting effective governance are properly understood and analysed.