A controversy is raging these days regarding the proposed amendments to the IAS (cadre) rules proposed by the Central Government. Several states have reacted strongly opposing these amendments as they feel that this would give Government of India much greater control over the posting of IAS officers to the Center. This amendment is agitating the State Governments more because of certain recent orders issued by Government of India like those relating to the Chief Secretary of West Bengal and some senior officers of the same state.

To put the matter in perspective it is important to understand the current rules regarding deputation. Central deputation in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is covered under rule 6(1) of the IAS cadre rule 1954 inserted in May 1969 which states that “a cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government”. It further states that “provided that in the case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government and the State Government concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government”.

There were around 5200 IAS officer in the country as on January 1, 2021 and 458 were on central deputation. The Central Government is concerned because the required numbers of officers are not coming forward for central deputation and the Government of India is facing a shortage of officers. Central Government wrote to the State Governments recently pointing out that States were not sponsoring adequate number of officers for central deputation. Depending upon the strength of the IAS officers in a particular state a central deputation reserve is created which indicates the number of officers, at various levels, who are eligible for Government of India deputation. On the basis of this the Central Government asks for an “offer list” of officers from which it selects the required officers. The Government of India has now proposed an additional condition in 6(1) which states “provided that each government shall make available for deputation to the Central Government such number of eligible officers of various levels to the extent of the central deputation reserve”. It goes on to add that “the actual number of officers to be deputed to the Central Government shall be decided by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned”. It also says that in the event of any disagreement the State Governments shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government within a specified time. In the letter written to the State Governments the Central Government has also said that “in specific situations where services of cadre officers are required by the Central Government in public interest the Central Government may seek the services of such officers for posting under the Central Government”. The states realized that through these changes the Government of India is taking greater control over the IAS officers and this is the reason why they are objecting quite vociferously.

It is significant to note that the willingness of the officer concerned to go on deputation on to Government of India is essential as per rule 6(2) which states that “no cadre officer shall be deputed except with his consent”. The clause about posting the officers in Government of India in public interest appears to override this crucial requirement of the willingness of the officer concerned. In effect it would mean that any time the Central Government can pull out an officer from the State Government to serve in Government of India irrespective of the willingness of the State Government or the officer concerned. This has become the real bone of contention, particularly, in the light of recent examples of West Bengal and earlier Tamil Nadu.

Most states are having a central deputation reserve shortfall. Over 14 states have a CDR shortfall over 80 percent with the West Bengal figure being 95% and it is above 90% for MP, Haryana and Telengana. It is a fact that most states are not meeting their CDR obligations. This is not in consonance with the concept of an all India service. This is happening  even though the annual recruitment to the service has gone up since 2000. There is a particular shortage at the level of Joint Secretaries, Directors and Deputy Secretaries. This is definitely a genuine problem which needs to be resolved through consultation between States and Central Government.

It is also essential to understand the concept of All India Services as well as the federal structure of the constitution. The idea behind the creation of All India Services like IAS has been to have a common perspective between the State Governments and Government of India and that States should also function towards achievement of national goals. On selection, IAS officers are assigned to a State cadre where they serve in the district and State Secretariat and acquire knowledge about the ground level realities. They can also opt for central deputation and generally they spend 5 years in Government of India if selected and acquire a national and international perspective. He carries his experience back to the state after his central deputation period is over. The All India character the service is maintained by the mechanism of giving 1/3 of the vacancies in a state in a particular year to candidates who belongs to the state and the balance is given to the officers from outside the state.

I think the most import point is that there should be a willingness on the part of the officer to go to Government of India. He should not be forced to do so. Central Government must analyse why officers are not offering themselves for Government of India. At the Deputy Secretary/ Director level the main issue is that at the same level of seniority the officer is working either as a District Magistrate or head of department or some other important post in the state where he has a lot of authority to take decisions and the job is immensely satisfying. Further, creature comforts like a vehicle, house, schools for children and availability of health care are available. At the Deputy Secretary level in Government of India many of these hygiene factors are absent and even the job content is such that very few decisions are taken at that level and the officer is primarily involved in pushing files. If Government of India really wants officers to opt for Government of India at this level of seniority it should focus on taking steps to enrich the job content and also provide basic creature comforts. I am surprised why there are less officers on offer for the Joint Secretary (JS) level posts because the JS is a crucial person in Government of India and most decisions are taken by her and she contributes in a big way to the working of the department. The reasons for the shortage at JS level would need to be studied. I feel one reason could be that lesser number of officers were recruited into the IAS between 1990 and 2000 as a measure to slim down the bureaucracy which was misplaced and from 2000 onwards more officers are being selected into the IAS.

The states are also guilty of not sparing officers for Government of India postings on the grounds that they are doing some very important work and they cannot be allowed to go. They have been instances where due to political reasons the names of officers are not forwarded to Government of India. I feel it is the responsibility of the State Governments to have the required number of officers in the central deputation reserve. There after deputation to Government of India can take place on the basis of willingness of the officers and consultation between the two governments. This is how the character of the all India services can be maintained and also it is in accordance with the federal nature of our union. The problem only comes when political reasons start influencing this process either from the Government of India or State Government level.

I just finished reading an outstanding book “Method in Madness – Insider-Outsider” written by Parmeshwaran Aiyyar who was Secretary Government of India in the department of Drinking Water and Sanitation and the architect behind the immensely successful implementation of Swatch Bharat Abhiyaan which culminated in the declaration of India as Open Defecation Free (ODF) on 2^nd October, 2019. It is indeed a remarkable look about a result oriented civil servant who has had an unconventional career moving from IAS to the World Bank and then back again as a lateral entrant into government as Secretary. In between he dabbled as a professional tennis coach and manager for his children as he himself had harboured ambitions of becoming a professional tennis player but soon gave it up to join the IAS. He writes that one fine morning sitting in Hanoi (Vietnam) as a drinking water and sanitation specialist for world bank he was astounded to here the 15^th Aug speech of the new Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi in 2014 where the PM while outlining his agenda for the development of the country spoke about sanitation as a national priority and also declared that he intended to make India ODF by 2^nd Oct, 2019. Parmeshwaran was amazed because he felt that rarely does a topic like sanitation get a mention in the speech of the Prime Minister of a country and he was excited by the vision painted by the Prime Minister. Desire to be associated with the project was born in his heart at that very moment and fructified two years later when the government appointed him Secretary. It is indeed a remarkable story of grit, determination, leadership and passion that made the seemingly impossible goal a reality.

Toilets were being constructed in the villages and cities for the past several years but it was definitely a low priority program with insufficient funds being made available. The quality of construction used to be poor and it was more of an engineering exercise without any effort to change the mindset of the people. The result was a total failure to curb open defecation and the use of these toilets as cattle sheds or store rooms by the people.  India is a country having a population of over 130 billion and to provide sanitary facility to all and to make them desire it and use it was a herculean task. There is no doubt that no project or initiative succeeds if it does not have the backing of a strong political will. This has been my experience in 38 years as an IAS officer. Fortunately, for this program the political will emanated right from the top level of the Prime Minister and percolated to the Chief Ministers. Parmeshwaran provided the next required condition for success which is a strong and passionate administrative leadership. He writes that he soon realized that in India it is the PM, CM and DM (District Magistrate) model which works and personally made presentation to the Chief Ministers to align them with the vision of the Prime Minister and toured extensively to meet the DMs and ignite their zeal for the implementation of the program at the ground level. Funds were made available in sufficient quantity but still the target of construction of toilets was huge and it required close coordination, regular review and monitoring and dedication to fulfill. However, the important thing is not merely construction of toilets but to bring about a major change in the attitude and behavior of people. Majority of India lives in rural areas and were accustomed to defecating in the open for generations. Parmeshwaran and his team appointed Swatcha Grahis (Volunteers) who worked as social influencers in each village and along with the DM and his team communicated regularly and intensely with the village people about the ill effects of open defecation. Mothers had to be convinced that infant mortality is closely linked to this practice as also are several diseases. Name and shame method was also use along with presenting a realistic picture of the kind of filth people were living in and the impact it was having on their lives. To assist the DM young boys and girls were taken as interns and communication through films and media used extensively. The Akshay Kumar starrer “Toilet Ek Prem Katha” was a major example of this. Parmeshwaran is very clear in his book that this was more a program of behavioral change rather than merely construction of toilets.

I recall being associated with this project as Chief Secretary, UP. Initially, I believed in the CELTS model which was advocated by many experts and was used in countries like Bangladesh to eliminate Open Defecation. I also strongly believe that instead of taking the entire state of UP which comprised of 75 districts I should focus on the 10 district where the DMs were those who had drive and energy and had already done ground work for the implementation of this scheme. However, Parmeshwaran and his team thought otherwise and they wanted the entire state to be taken up at one go. I was skeptical initially but later events have proved me wrong as not only in UP but the entire country made this goal a reality.

We talk of good governance and often lament the Indian system and also its civil service. This making of India ODF is a shining example of the working of the Indian administrative system and the civil service. It only goes to prove that given the right kind of leadership and working environment the civil service is in a position to deliver good governance to the citizens. We see it happening regularly at the time of elections when the District Magistrate and his team are free from any kind of political interference and fully empowered to conduct free and fair elections and they succeed in doing so. In a similar vein I can talk of the success of the Rashtra Swasthya Beema Yojna (RSBY) scheme which was conceptualized and implemented by my colleague Anil Swaroop and it was also a stupendous success and has become the precursor to the intensely aspirational and ambitions scheme of Ayushman Bharat.

Good governance is required to deliver quality public service to the people of this country and the SBM or RSBY only go to show that there is nothing rotten in the system. The same system and the same set of civil servants can deliver outstanding results provided they get political support, strong leadership, unambiguous goals and the right kind of motivation and inspiration. It is leadership which is important as it helps in building teams, sharing goals, being transparent and accountable and working with total objectivity. Civil servants have to be transformed from being wedded to process, procedures and regulations to those having a passion for delivering results and outcomes. The performance evaluation of civil servants should also be done on the basis of the performance indicators they are supposed to fulfill within a time frame. Of course, this would require allowing a civil servant to stay at a post for a minimum period of 2 to 3 years. It is also important for the political executive to realise that policy making is their role and they should do so with the advice of the civil servants but policy implementation should be left entirely to the civil service without any interference directly or through the obnoxious weapon of transfer. I read many articles of intellectuals who desire reform of the civil services and the administration. It is not a rocket science and only if the conditions mentioned by me above are created you will find the civil servants deliver extra ordinary results. It all appears so simple and yet does not happen because of certain vested interests. Governance is linked to providing a better quality of life to the ordinary citizen and systems have to be built which will make this possible.