Impact of Agnipath scheme on operational capacity of armed forces needs to be assessed and communicated properly before rolling it out in phased manner

The Agnipath scheme recruiting agniveers for the armed forces has been a hot topic of discussion over the past fortnight, and has even led to violent protests and demonstrations in various parts of the country. There is a legitimate room for dissent and debate in a democracy but violence and damage to public property cannot be condoned in any manner. However, the intensity of the adverse reaction from the youth does point towards certain genuine concerns which need to be addressed and, in fact, should have been anticipated by the policymakers. Public policy is a complex issue because it deals with human beings who are prone to rational as well as emotional responses. It is for this reason that the formulation and rollout of any public policy needs to be done with a lot of care and has to involve all the possible stakeholders. We find that as soon as negative responses started coming in after the declaration of the policy, the government started announcing various other measures like 10 per cent reservation for agniveers in Central police forces or non-combatant wings of the armed forces. Some state governments have also assured of giving preference to agniveers in state government jobs. These announcements have helped in reducing the tensions but are somehow appearing to be an afterthought and a case of too little and too late.

Public policy always has some objectives in mind but, inevitably, there are unintended consequences to any policy, and it is the job of the policy framers to anticipate them and provide solutions in the policy document. The civil servants and the defense bureaucracy should have been aware of the likely reactions, and after deliberating on those, they should have been able to address them in the policy. The political executive normally has a much better understanding of the pulse of the people, and they should easily have been able to sense the likely reactions and prepare accordingly. I was surprised to read in one of the newspapers the statement of a senior officer of the government who said that they did not expect this kind of intense reaction. It points towards inadequate attention paid to the process of policymaking. Policies are not to be framed in isolation but have to be in close touch with the ground realities.

The government has outlined various merits of the scheme. The first is putting a check on the huge cascading liability of pension payments for better utilisation of defense outlay. In the budget for 2022-23, the defense ministry has been allocated Rs 5,25,166 crore — of which 54 per cent i.e., Rs 2,83,130 crore has been provided for pensions and salaries. Thus, pensions and salaries take away a large portion of the defense budget, leaving less to be spent on modernisation of equipment which is a necessity in modern day warfare. Only 27 per cent of the overall defense budget is for capital expenditure. It has been pointed out by some experts that ideally the ratio of revenue to capital outlay in the defense budget should be 60:40 whereas for India this ratio is 80:20. Indeed, this is a genuine cause for taking remedial action. Further, the government has also said that they will absorb 25 per cent of the agniveers in the armed forces and, eventually, by 2030, reach a state where agniveers and regular recruits would be in the proportion of 50 per cent each. This would reduce the average age profile of the armed forces, which today stands at 32 years. India needs a much younger profile for its soldiers. Unfortunately, the scheme has not been communicated properly and it has got positioned as a pension reform scheme whereas any reform relating to the armed forces has to focus on the objective of improving national security and operational capability. People would have accepted the scheme better if it could have been explained to them that this scheme would make the nation more secure, and by spending more on modern equipment, the defense forces would become far better equipped to handle any threat to the nation.

The adverse reaction is coming because 75 per cent of the agniveers are getting a job only for four years, after which they are not entitled to any pension or medical facilities, and left on their own to seek further avenues of employment. The government has come out with the promise of reservation in certain jobs for agniveers but there are reasonable doubts in the minds of the youth about the level of implementation, as even today the ex-servicemen quota in most employment remains unfulfilled. The private sector may be making pious statements about how agniveers would be a useful and disciplined resource for them but considering that they would only have a class-12 level education, one wonders to what extent the private sector would be able to employ them and in which capacity. The issue of unemployment is a genuine one confronting the youth today and this is why they are reacting in such a negative manner to the proposed scheme. It is interesting to note that most of these protests are happening in the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. This is because these states have the maximum population of young people looking for jobs. Further, in both these states, the level of industrialisation is low and there are few job opportunities outside the government sector. In UP, I am personally aware of the thousands who apply for a grade-D level post in the government and many of them hold post graduate degrees and some of them are even PhD-holders. We can look around and see that in states like Maharashtra, Gujarat or Tamil Nadu, there is hardly any protest. Looking at the problem of unemployment, even the honorable Prime Minister has recently declared that one million vacancies in government should be filled up within 18 months.

In public policy, the issue of timing of a reform is also of crucial importance. Regular recruitment to the armed forces has not taken place for four years because of Covid, and many young aspirants have cleared various stages of the selection process. All of a sudden, they are informed that all these selections in process are cancelled and Agnipath scheme is to be implemented. Naturally, a negative reaction is bound to unfold due to a sense of desperation among the youth. The ideal thing would have been to complete all the selections which were in process and introduce the agniveer scheme along with regular recruitment in a phased manner. This would have given the opportunity of evaluating the scheme and, if found beneficial, rolling it out fully within four to five years. Some government spokesman has made the astonishing statement that this is a pilot scheme. A pilot scheme is one which is introduced on a small scale and, if it gives good results, it is scaled up. Evidently, there is apparent confusion in the government on how to make the scheme palatable to the people.

The Agnipath scheme has to be evaluated on its impact on the operational capacity of the armed forces and should be rolled out in a phased manner, depending on the results of a concurrent evaluation. Major policy reforms need far greater thought and involvement of all concerned.

Click to read original article.

While one exam may be the threshold to qualify as civil servant, the officer’s promotion is based on annual performance along with seniority which ensures objectivity

Just passing one exam assures you a promotion to the top in your career and also provides a lifetime job security is the refrain I have been witnessing in various WhatsApp groups and in a spate of articles in the print media ever since the civil service exam result was announced a week ago. Many are surprised at the media space being made available to those candidates who have succeeded in the civil services exam, and in particular have qualified for the IAS. I read some opinion pieces which express surprise at this, and compare it to other countries where possibly this would not be newsworthy at all. They tend to equate this with a colonial hangover or the excessive importance to government in our society. It is not true that only candidates clearing the civil services exam get so much publicity as I have read similar stories about those who clear the JEE exam for IIT or get 100 percentiles in the CAT exam for admission into the Indian Institutes of Management and others. However, there is no denying the fact that there is no comparison to the attention being given to candidates who secure top ranks in the civil service exam. All of us are aware of the names of the girl candidates who secured the first three ranks in the exam. This is no doubt an indicator of the fact that the civil services exam is an extremely tough one where barely about 800 candidates qualify out of 8 to 10 lakhs applying and around 5.5 lakh students actually writing the exam — which means about 0.15 per cent candidates succeeding. There cannot be a more difficult competitive exam on which the aspiration of not only the candidate but the entire family is focused. Success in the exam leads to immediate recognition for the candidate and her family, and the status in society goes up exponentially.

The biggest credit must go to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) which conducts this exam in a completely fair and impartial manner and it is perceived as such by all. Such a large exam being conducted with total honesty and integrity is a great achievement, especially when we find that much smaller exams relating to selection for government posts at lower levels become subjects of allegations of nepotism and cheating. The total integrity of the civil service exam gives it a halo of merit, and even the most powerful politicians or officers cannot interfere with it. The best is selected and this ensures that the civil servants are capable and intelligent people. I recall when I qualified for the IAS and looked around my batch, I found each one of them having exceptional qualities and knowledge. In fact, when in college, we could predict which student will make it to the civil services and more often than not the prediction came true. However, commentators, while agreeing with the fact that the exam selects the best on merit, criticize that just passing one exam provides a career of more than 30 years where promotions are based on seniority and almost everybody reaches the top. They argue for a system in which the merit is assessed at different points of time in career and the wheat is separated from the chaff and only those who continue to learn and grow reach the higher levels. The argument has force in it but I must point out that things have changed and now a candidate qualifying for the IAS does not automatically become Secretary to the Government of India, or even Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary. A 360-degree evaluation system has been introduced and now for promotions to the top the government does not only rely on annual performance reports but on feedback about competence and integrity from various stakeholders. The result has been that not more than 30 per cent of a batch is getting promoted to the top. Of course, questions are being raised about the efficacy of this 360-degree system which is opaque and often arbitrary. Still, it does ensure that not everybody reaches the top. In the system before this, the assessment was done on the basis of annual performance reports which generally tended to rate an officer as good or very good. I feel that there is a need for designing an objective and transparent evaluation system but there are issues related to this which must be kept in mind.

An IAS or IPS officer, amongst all the civil servants, works directly under the supervision and control of the elected political executive who is the final decision maker. Many decisions are taken for political reasons for which it would be difficult to hold the officer responsible. If seniority as a criterion for promotion is done away with and replaced with merit it could lead to complications as the merit would be assessed by the political masters. I have seen this in Uttar Pradesh, and it is true for many other states also that officers get aligned on political grounds with one ruling party or the other by design or by default. Some officers themselves are responsible for this as they fall to the lure of good postings under a particular dispensation. However, there are a large number who get identified for no fault of theirs, simply due to the fact that in a particular government they hold important posts and are perceived as being close to the party in power or belonging to a particular caste or community. Merit then gets subsumed under the weight of political influence. Promotions, if based on merit determined in such a manner, would lead to officers close to political party in power reaching the top. As part of police reforms, it is now mandated that top three names on the basis of seniority are sent by the UPSC to state governments for appointing one of them as Director General of Police. This has been a welcome move, considering that before this it was open to the party in power to appoint an officer who is close to them as Director General.

Even in this system, the political executive finds a way out by branding a selected officer as incompetent and removing him before the completion of his tenure. The point I want to make is that both the IAS and IPS work under political masters and it is thus very difficult to have an objective system of performance appraisal. It is for this reason that seniority is worth continuing with as a criterion for promotion. It is also not true that there is no effort to upgrade the skill-set of an officer after the initial one exam. There are now at least five phases of training for the IAS at different levels of seniority, equipping them with the knowledge required for jobs that they will hold at that level. It is also not true that all officers get important postings. Each officer acquires a reputation during his career which does determine his career path. The one exam is important as it selects the cream but it is also true that an objective system of performance evaluation free from political bias and based on attainment of results and outcomes is very much required for the bureaucracy to deliver in this age of disruption.

Click to read original article.

Looking at the past, it doesn’t seem probable but it is indeed an aspirational goal and would require a comprehensive action plan for all economic sectors

Uttar Pradesh has 16 percent of the population of India but contributes only 8 percent to its GDP. If UP was to be a country it would be the fifth largest country in the world. At the time of Independence, the per capita income of UP was the same as the national average but today it is less than 50 percent of the same at Rs 65,431 per annum. It is true that UP has become the third largest economy with the current GDP of around $220 billion (Rs 17 lakh crore) but in terms of per capita income it is second from the bottom.

Recently the UP Government has issued a tender for hiring a consultant to take the UP economy to $1 trillion by 2027. Looking at the past this does not seem very probable as it would involve the UP economy growing at a rate of more than 30 percent per annum. However, it is indeed an aspirational goal and would require a comprehensive action plan for all sectors of economy because what is required is not an incremental push but a quantum leap.

UP is primarily an agricultural economy with 25 percent of the GSDP coming from this sector which employees more than 65 percent of the population. This is one of the main reasons for the poverty in the State as large number of people are under employed or in a State of disguised unemployment and, hence, not contributing to the economic development of the state. UP has nine agro-climatic zones and each would require a separate strategy for deciding upon issues like cropping pattern and also on ways to improve the productivity to bring it above the national level.

There are huge regional imbalances with western UP being far ahead of eastern UP in terms of productivity and income of farmers. Similarly, Bundelkhand is a rain-fed area where most of the farmers only taking one crop in a year. However, the same Bundelkhand if provided with adequate drip and sprinkler irrigation facilities can become a hub for citrus fruits, vegetables, medicinal herbs. Moreover, the real problem is the fragmentation of holdings with average size of land holding being 0.80 hectare meaning that most of the farmers are small and marginal and this has a huge impact on their viability. They are often in urgent need of cash and dispose of the produce at low prices. Aggregation of farmers through farmer producer companies is the answer. Further, huge investment is required in development of cold chains and storages so that the farmers can store their produce and release them in the market at an appropriate time.

Animal husbandry is often a neglected sector but it has been my experience that this can significantly add to the income of the farmers. A mission should be launched to bring about a dairy revolution in the state with its entire complement of feed, fodder, medicines, artificial insemination, chilling plants and processing centers. Similarly, a neglected sector of UP is that of fisheries where the state has a potential of growing at more than 15 percent per annum and through this the farmers of UP can become agribusiness entrepreneurs.

MSME sector is next only to agriculture in terms of generating employment and this is a vital sector for the state of UP. A forward looking and dynamic MSME policy is required which provides credit, technology and market to the MSME sector. Often the governments focus only on bringing in new industry but the existing industries also need a supporting hand. A separate cell has to be created to cater to the problems of the micro sector which is more than 90 percent of the MSME. This sector is largely unorganized and needs an approach specifically suited to its needs. Noida is the industrial hub of UP but industries need to move to other regions of the state.

The textile and leather sector has a great potential for developing and also generating large scale employment. Noida can easily become a hub for the electronic industry. Lucknow, Prayagraj and several other tier II cities have great potential for development of the IT sector which will give a big push to the UP economy. Besides, the network of expressways the eastern freight corridor and Delhi Mumbai corridor can easily stimulate industrial development in large areas adjoining to them.

The game-changing sector is the agro-processing one. A very small percentage of agriculture produce is processed today. At every block level a center for the development of the food processing sector can easily be developed which will provide employment to rural youth near their homes and there would be little need for labor to migrate to other states. These centers can be developed as rural growth engines which will have a transformational impact on the economy.

The vital sectors for the development of UP are health and education. The Government will have to invest heavily in these sectors and also bring about improvement in the governance to make quality health care and education accessible to all. A special mission for improvement in the learning competencies at the primary education level has to be given the highest priority and the gross enrollment rate in higher education increased to 50 percent.

Click to read original article.

To implement NEP’s transformational vision of ensuring multidisciplinary education, policymakers should sincerely focus on bolstering primary schooling

We are in the midst of celebrating the 75th year of our independence and the entire country is organizing functions and programmes to commemorate this year as Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. There is a lot that we should be justifiably proud of in our progress during this period but, at the same time, we should be aware where we stand with respect to various indicators of development and also consciously chalk out a roadmap to make our country a developed nation by 2047. A holistic approach of development is required but we must realize that the 21st century is one where knowledge will determine the progress of a nation. If India wants to keep pace or even go ahead of the rest of the world in the 21st century then the main area of focus has to be education. We have a vast army of young people giving us the advantage of a demographic dividend but, without providing quality education to all, this will turn into a disaster. Education is a tool of political empowerment and also the means to bring about social equality and economic progress. The SDG goal for education very succinctly puts it that we have to strive to achieve “inclusive and equitable education to all by 2030”. This is a tall order for our country where the mean years of schooling are low and the gross enrolment rate for higher education is only 26.3 per cent at the moment and the status of all education indicators are much lower for girls.

We had an education policy in 1986 under which a significant amount of work was done in the education sector but the new education policy, coming 34 years after that in 2020, has a completely new vision about what education should mean for the Indian citizen. The vision statement envisions an education system rooted in Indian ethos and seeks to transform India (Bharat) into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society by providing high-quality education to all. It seeks to inculcate pride in being an Indian but also inspires to become a truly global citizen. It is indeed a wonderful vision which aspires to blend the Indian culture and ethos with modern science and technology. The NEP decisively wants to free itself from the shackles of the colonial legacy, as pronounced in the famous Macaulay minute on education. The Indian citizen should be a self-confident person, conscious of the great culture of the country but also desire to bring in the best of science and technology.

The foundation has to be strong for any building to withstand shocks or pressures. Unfortunately, our elementary education system is of abysmal quality and this clearly means that it would be difficult to build the edifice of a developed nation on this basis. The NEP has rightly focused on foundational literacy and numeracy. The education system would now be 5+3+3+4 years instead of the current 10+2+3. There would be a national mission for foundational literacy for the first five years of a child’s education. This would be till the age of eight years and is based on the scientific premise that 85 per cent of a child’s cumulative brain development occurs up to the age of six. Today, we see the sorry spectacle, as brought out by the survey reports of the NGO Pratham that students of class five can barely read or do simple arithmetic of class two levels. This requires serious remediation if our nation has to develop. The teachers need to be specially trained in early childhood care education. In India, this work is done by Aganwadis that are not trained for this job and have a lot of additional duties to perform. They will have to be trained specifically for this job and a synergy would have to be established with the primary school teachers so that together they are able to fulfill the goal of foundational literacy. It is indeed a matter of concern that even today, there are a large number of schools where the children don’t even have chairs and desks and they sit on the floor. We cannot become leaders of the knowledge society if serious steps are not taken to completely overhaul primary education. The community has to be involved in this. I would vouch for decentralization of primary education so that the village level local bodies are able to monitor them and bring about an improvement in the quality of education.

Teachers are crucial if school education has to turn round the corner. The new education policy rightly says that efforts have to be made to restore the respect and dignity of teachers which should motivate her to feel responsible and accountable for imparting quality education. We need to create an environment where the best are willing to enter the teaching profession and are prepared to work in outlying rural areas. There should be a regular programme of training and capacity development for teachers, and to keep them motivated the governance has to ensure a fair and impartial system of career management and progression. Qualified teachers should be recruited. Vacancies need to be urgently filled up and a system evolved to protect the teachers from the menace of transfers.

The goal of having a multidisciplinary approach at the school level is laudable but difficult to implement. The school systems as well as teachers will have to be oriented and geared to take up this responsibility. Besides, it is imperative to give equal importance to vocational and extracurricular education but, once again, this requires a lot of reforms at the school management level.

The new education policy has given valuable suggestions about developing education from primary to higher level but I feel we have to begin by focusing on school education. If the quality at this level remains poor then higher education will not improve. Education must get the highest priority from all political parties and the governments otherwise the problem of unemployment will grow larger and we will have an army of frustrated youth who would be diverting their energies into deviant channels. The future of India depends upon how we manage and transform school education.

Looking through the lens of social realities, rather than just in economic terms, revival of old pension scheme appears to be a viable proposition

A recent debate has been triggered on the issue of demand of the government employees to be given pension as it was done before 2005 under the old pension scheme (OPS), and not as per the new pension scheme (NPS) — brought into existence by Central Government in 2005 and adopted by all state governments except West Bengal at different points of time. Uttar Pradesh has been witnessing a major agitation in this regard by various employee associations and, recently, in the run up to the assembly elections, the Samajwadi party had promised in their manifesto that they would revive the old pension scheme if voted to power. Soon thereafter, the Government of Rajasthan went ahead and announced the implementation of the old pension policy for their employees. Recently, I also noticed advertisements appearing in newspapers justifying this decision and pointing out its several benefits. In a similar vein, the Government of Chhattisgarh is seriously considering reviving OPS and several other states are also actively examining the issue.

Noted economists and several retired civil servants have been voicing serious reservation on the revival of the OPS. Their contention is that this would be a financial disaster for the public finances of state governments as salaries and pensions were a major drain on the state resources and were increasing every day due to increase in the number of employees. Additionally, longevity of people was causing a huge strain on the budgetary position of governments, leaving limited resources for expenditure on capital items or social areas like health and education. It is true that the logic used to replace OPS by NPS was that the pension liabilities were rising too fast and the state finances would not be able to bear their burden. To discuss the implications further, it is essential to understand the mechanics of both the schemes. In the OPS, a retiring government officer or employee was entitled to 50 per cent of his last basic pay drawn as a monthly pension till the end of his life. He would also be eligible for an increase in dearness allowances announced from time to time to counter inflation by the government. In the case of the death of the employee, his wife was entitled to get 50 per cent of the pension amount for her life. The NPS does away with this system and instead provides for a monthly contribution being made by the employee (10 per cent) and the concerned government (14 per cent) of the basic salary of an employee and this contribution has been kept in a separate fund where fund manager is expected to invest this in the market and get good returns. On the date of his retirement, a lump sum is available for the employee where he can draw 40 per cent and leave the balance 60 per cent in an annuity scheme to get monthly returns. It is true that this would have a lesser impact on the cash flow on the governments than the OPS. However, it must be examined as to why it is being universally opposed almost by all officers and employees who joined service after 2004.

The employees argue that the NPS is linked to the market. They are apprehensive that the amount contributed is being invested in the stock market and that they would get an amount at the time of retirement which is determined by the stock market. There is, thus, no certainty as to what the value of their contribution would be and nor do they have any role in deciding how the amount is to be invested. Employees have different number of years of service and with the age of entry to almost all government services having been increased significantly, many employees are retiring even after just around 20 years of service. During this period, the NPS corpus that is created by their contribution is too small to give any significant lump sum return or a viable stream of returns through annuity. The employees’ associations have been quick to point out several cases where on retirement the employee has been getting a measly sum under the NPS which is too meager to enable the employee to live his balance life with any sense of dignity or comfort. The problem has been further compounded by the fact that many state governments have not been making their contributions regularly to the corpus and also that there is no real time knowledge that an employee has about the fate of his pension fund. Significantly, they point out that if the NPS is as attractive as OPS as pointed out in justification by some governments then why is it that their senior officers who joined the service before 2004 are availing the facility of OPS and not opting for NPS. Similarly, they allege that the policymakers have themselves not made NPS applicable to them. It is also significant to point out that NPS has not been made applicable to the armed forces where the OPS is continuing. In a recent advertisement issued by Rajasthan Government, it was pointed out that the second national judicial pay commission has recommended OPS for the judicial services and the national human rights commission has also expressed its opinion that the state should examine the human rights element involved in NPS vs OPS.

Even though it would not be correct to examine this issue from a purely financial angle I would like to first examine this aspect. All that the OPS is saying is that 50 per cent of the last salary should be given as pension on a monthly basis. There is no reason why state governments cannot plan for this by continuing with the 14 per cent contribution every month and keeping it in a separate corpus and earning returns on it. The budget size of each government is increasing by almost 10 per cent every year and there is no reason why the contribution to the pension cannot be increased by the same amount every year. In this way, the government will be spending only as much every year as they are spending under the NPS. The returns on this corpus can come as an addition to the state finances and, from this, a monthly pension can quite easily be paid to the retiring employees from the government treasury. In this way, I do not foresee any extra pressure on state finances which could imply curtailment of expenditure on physical and social infrastructure. Other innovative ways of handling the situation can also be thought of.

The crucial thing is that the old pension acts as a social safety net for the retiring employees. You only have to look around to see that it is a pension or family pension which allows a pensioner to live a life of dignity and enables him to address his health issues that crop up after retirement. The society is such that children look after their parents if the parents are earning a monthly income to cater to their needs. If a lump sum amount is given then it rarely remains with the old parents, as the children lay claims on the amount to meet some immediate financial requirements of theirs. An OPS ensures that a retiring employee is not dependent on his children and lives in comfort for the remaining part of his life. Every issue should not be seen simply in economic terms and the realities of social life need to be factored in. The government should seriously consider reviving OPS to keep their employees motivated and also get the best brains to apply for government jobs. If the apprehensions around NPS were not genuine then the phenomenon of almost all employees and teachers agitating on a regular basis for revival of OPS would not be there. Policymakers must view this issue not as simply an economic problem but one concerned with providing lifelong social security which is a major objective of a welfare state.

Click to read original article.

Most people have a tendency of holding the IAS responsible for anything that goes in the country.

In recent weeks there has been a debate on whether the IAS as a service has delivered or has it failed the nation. Different viewpoints are being expressed. Indeed, there can be arguments on both sides of the balance. Indeed, there can be arguments on both sides of the balance. I personally feel that IAS has delivered despite the constraints under which it functions. Ground level realities are very different from the view from outside which many sections of the society tend to take about the performance of the IAS as a service. It is also felt that in the IAS there is complete job security and promotion is automatic on the basis of seniority and there is no objective performance appraisal system in place to determine the sustainability of officers for senior level posts. There are many who have a tendency of holding the IAS responsible for anything that goes wrong in the country.

Strangely, the general view is that the IAS as a service is very closely knit and self perpetuating and always defends itself and members of the service. This is very different from reality where IAS officers are more concerned about their individual careers rather than to think about the IAS fraternity as a whole. Far too often the IAS officers have a propensity of criticizing the service and those who are senior love to say that the ethos and values of the service are on the decline in the younger batches. I do not believe this to be true. There are the good, bad and the ugly in the IAS as there are in other professions and it is incorrect to try and give the entire service a bad name.

Some years ago in the Uttar Pradesh IAS Association some officers who became crusaders against corruption in the service organized a secret ballot to vote for three most corrupt officers in the UP cadre. This move was hailed in the media and various forums but with a negative connotation and the story went around that the IAS was a corrupt service. An act of self cleansing attempted by some officers was turned into a tool to damage the reputation of the entire service.

A colleague of mine has very rightly pointed out that many IAS officers in order to show themselves as being intellectually progressive criticize their own service. Other sections of the society then use these very utterances to condemn the IAS. Introspection and self improvement are essential but the service has enough achievements to its credit to make its members feel a sense of pride in them.

Many individual IAS officers have done outstanding work in the Districts and in policy making but, unfortunately, most of it not documented. Only recently with the advent of social media have some IAS officers begun to talk about to work done by them and the innovative way in which they have delivered good governance the service as a whole can be, justifiably, proud of itself for having played a very important role in keeping the nation together and also ensuring that the government works according to the democratic principles and the spirit of the constitution. Some IAS officers have posted on social media that no doubt the steel frame has got corroded but how do we handle the corrosive environment in which IAS officers function?

Many people, when they discuss this issue with me, are quick to point out that rules and regulations are made by the IAS and if they are hampering the working of the government then the IAS should change them. It is true to some extent and it is also a fact that the IAS officers have been responsible for modernizing many rules and procedures but they cannot change everything.

They also function under a system where the politician is the master.

One thing that has emerged from all the discussion is that there is a need for a performance based promotion system for the IAS. There is a very extensive system in existence which has been continuously improved upon over the years but it is still not very satisfactory as it does not separate the wheat from the chaff. A large proportion of officers get a very good or outstanding rating without their meriting it. The promotions are on the basis of seniority subject to unfit which means only those involved in court cases or departmental enquiries are left out. The Government of India has recently introduced a three sixty degree evaluation system for the Secretary level and other senior posts. This has resulted in almost 30% to 50% of a batch not being able to get promotion to the Secretary level.

However, the working of this system is quite opaque and has caused a lot of resentment amongst officers. My view is that there is a definite need for an objective evaluation system for the IAS which should lead to the promotion of those officers who acquire new skills and knowledge, have qualities of leadership, have good communication skills, have the capacity to motivate and inspire a team and are not scared of taking prompt decisions in public interest. Officers who deliver results and outcomes should reach the top and not those who merely push files, are risk averse and believe in maintaining the status-quo. Unfortunately, the current system encourages good file work and not delivery of results. This is a difficult exercise because in my experience I am yet to come across a truly objective performance evaluation system. There is always an element of subjectivity which can become dangerous in the current environment where the politicians are evaluating the performance of officers and there is a tendency to brand officers along lines of caste, community or perceived proximity to members of a political party merely because they have served on important posts in a particular government.

It is easy to say that an IAS officer should give free and frank advice and uphold what is correct but these days it has become hazardous to do so particularly in State Governments where the Minister or Chief Minister takes this as an indication of willful dissent and is prone to transfer you to unimportant posts or worse start an enquiry against you. Today the IAS officer has to walk the political tightrope very adroitly otherwise he could have a fall from which it would take him years to recover.

It must also be kept in mind that the basic principle of governance is to have the right man at the right place. However, rarely does an IAS officer get to work with the team of his choice. He has to give results working often with a mediocre team and facing political interference at every level.

Despite the above, several IAS officers have achieved a lot and have been shining examples of competence and integrity. There is a lot of scope for introspection, self improvement and also major reforms in the entire system of governance. However, given the ground realities it would be harsh to say that the IAS has not delivered at all or failed the nation.

Click to read original article.

Freebies are not good economics but they often happen to be good politics as they become important reasons for a political party to get elected

Just last month the elections to the State assemblies of Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Punjab, Goa and Manipur were held. In the build up to the elections all political parties promised a lot of monetary benefits to the electorate which could be called doles or freebies. A PIL has been moved before the Supreme Court to direct the political parties to restrict the promise of freebies in order to have money available for developmental schemes. The Supreme Court has admitted the petition and also commented that political parties should indicate how they will arrange the funds to fulfill the promises made by them in their manifestos.

Last week the Prime Minister held a meeting with Secretaries of various departments of Government of India in which amongst the feedback given by officers there was a consensus that promise of freebies should be avoided otherwise they put unnecessary strain on the public finances and can lead to unsustainable deficits. It is true that prudent public finance management needs to ascertain the resources and allocate them to items of expenditure that would lead to a faster rate of growth for the economy. Expenditure on physical infrastructure like roads, energy or irrigation leads to creation of an environment that is conducive for private investment to flow into the manufacturing and services sector contributing to higher momentum of growth. It has also become increasingly clear that development of human capital is essential to bring about all round development of the economy and accordingly the tax payer’s money is best spent on social sectors like education and health. Various committees have been set up from time to time by Government of India and State Governments to evaluate the public expenditure and to indicate the road map for future expenditure targeting.

Freebies are not good economics but they often happen to be good politics as they become important reasons for a political party to get elected. Ultimately, politics is all about gaining political power and for that one has to win elections. There is no denying that in the long run good economics would be good politics as it would lead to greater employment and development. However, elections are very often fought on immediate issues and, therefore, the freebie culture has caught on. Political parties which do not have a chance of winning the elections promise the moon but the voter is aware that these are empty pronouncements and is not lured by them. It becomes a different matter when political parties who are serious contenders to form Government promise freebies because they will have to honor them on coming to power which could have a negative impact on the state finances.

It is advisable that any political party promising freebies in their manifesto must indicate from where they will get the resources to implement the promises if elected to power. The voter must be alert to ask these questions and be aware of the financial impact on promises being made. In reality this is generally not true and freebies do help parties in getting votes and the voter does not go into the financials aspects. This is the prime reason why the political parties race against each other to promise freebies. It is also true that a freebie which has been given by one government is likely to continue as no other government will be able to face the reaction if they propose to discontinue them. For example, many states promise free power to farmers. This leads to excess extraction of ground water and also continuation of traditional cropping patterns. However, this kind of free power is difficult for any new Government to remove as it would lead to their becoming unpopular.

At the same time, I feel a distinction must be made between a freebie and a genuine welfare measure. In India we have a welfare economy because growth has to be inclusive to take care of the vast majority of people who are still poor and are not able to get the basic minimum amenities of a decent livelihood. In the recent elections to the UP assembly a major factor of victory of the ruling party was the vote they got from the “beneficiary class”. These were voters who had benefited from schemes like Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (housing for all) and the distribution of free ration to those who had been pushed into poverty due to impact of the COVID pandemic. These schemes would come under the category of welfare measures which a government must take to address the problem of the poor and the under privileged.

Then, again, many political parties promise loan waivers and win elections on this basis. This is, in my opinion, a regressive measure. It leads to lack of financial discipline, impacts future loaning by banks and creates a big burden on the State. Most States which have promised and implemented loan waiver have had to reduce the expenditure on essential, physical and social infrastructure in order to manage the deficit in the budget. The long run impact of this on economic development is adverse. Once again it can be argued by its proponents that this is a welfare measure to alleviate distress of the farmers.

I recall that for the best part of my career we used to talk about plan and non-plan expenditure. Every Government focused on increasing the plan expenditure which led to creation of new assets and tried to keep to non-plan expenditure as low as possible. Whenever, there was an economy drive the immediate step taken was to slash the non-plan budget by a certain percentage. This led to a situation where maintenance of assets suffered hugely and the education and police departments bore the brunt as the maximum expenditure in their budget was on salaries which was essential and could in no way be labelled as a drag on the economy. Fortunately, this distinction is no longer there. Money is the same whether plan or non-plan. Too much emphasis on subsides and freebies does distort the financial position of the State. The criticality of financial prudence can only be over looked if one is prepared to face a financial crisis like the Sri Lankan economy is facing today. However, every welfare measure in favor of the poor and underprivileged should not be construed as a freebie as prime objective of the State is to look after the welfare of its citizens. There is a thin line between two but still one can distinguish between a genuinely inclusive policy and an unnecessary and unwarranted freebie. The latter should be avoided but the former is essential for a welfare State.

Click to read original article.

Making the MCQ-based CUET mandatory for UG admissions will promote coaching culture and ignore comprehensive parameters of selecting candidates

Each year, the month of June raises the heartbeats of thousands of young boys and girls, as they rush to apply for admission to Universities for undergraduates courses, based on their class 12 marks. Such is the situation today that even a student with marks in the high nineties is not sure of getting the subject or college of her choice. Delhi University witnesses cutoffs as high as 100 per cent for several courses. I wonder how students score 100 per cent in subjects like literature or history! There seems to be intense competition among various boards to provide higher marks to their students. I read somewhere that this year, students from the Kerala board were more favourably placed than others. There is no doubt that different boards have different ways of evaluating their students and, often, there is a difference in the curriculum also — making it unfair to compare their scores. I have been Principal Secretary of Education in UP. I remember that there was a time when marks secured in the UP board used to be far below those in other boards, and students of UP board found it almost impossible to get admission in Delhi University. This issue was addressed accordingly, and now, even UP board students are securing sky-high marks — though the general level is still below other comparable boards.

Let us first understand what the common university entrance test (CUET) is all about. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has made CUET mandatory for Central universities and has suggested that state and private universities should also follow it. The National Testing Agency, under the Ministry of Higher Education, has announced the format for CUET. The admission to UG courses in Central universities will have CUET replacing the class 12 marks-based admission system. This test shall be based on the NCERT syllabus and will be divided into four broad sections. Section 1A and 1B will involve papers on languages, which will test the reading and comprehension skills of students. Section 1A is compulsory for all and will test the candidate in English or any of the 12 chosen languages. Section 1B shall test their proficiency in specified foreign languages. Section 2 shall test the knowledge in core subjects out of a list of 27. This includes subjects like visual arts, performing arts and music. Section 3 is a general test — not related to any domain subject — which shall test the mental ability of the students. A candidate is allowed to take up a maximum of nine papers in two different combinations. The CUET will not rank students but will provide scores, based on which admissions shall be made. The board exam scores will not have any impact, except that a minimum qualifying score shall be indicated by different universities.

Quite obviously, the main merit of such a system is to put all the students coming from different boards on a level playing field. The race for high cutoffs shall be done away with. This clearly is an improvement over the earlier system. However, this could lead to a situation where the students will focus on preparation for this test rather than learning the prescribed syllabus for class 12. A similar kind of situation is apparent in the case of students applying for engineering entrance tests. It is true that the domain subject will be based on the class 12 NCERT syllabus, implying that students have to be thorough in their class 12-level knowledge. However, multiple-choice questions cannot substitute class 12-level exams. Important skills like written communication, power of discussion, analytical reasoning and logical flow are difficult to test in an objective paper. In this light, it may be worthwhile to consider giving anywhere between 25 to 50 per cent weightage to class 12 board exam results. Such a measure could bring in the best of both systems.

It is also almost certain that coaching institutes for CUET will sprout up in every nook and corner. You only have to look around and see the coaching institutes that have mushroomed for engineering, Law or management entrance tests. The CUET then becomes a question of who can afford the better coaching institutions, and also, test the particular kind of skills required for solving CUET papers, which will be imparted by these coaching shops. The system will work to the detriment of those coming from underprivileged backgrounds. Moreover, very recently, the CSAT, which was an aptitude test for civil services preliminaries, was reduced to a qualifying test after a furore all over the country that this test discriminated against students from rural backgrounds. The same arguments will apply to CUET. Strangely, the chairperson of UGC has confidently stressed that coaching will not be necessary, as this would be different from IIT entrance because the ratio of seats for applicants will be 1:5 against 1:50 in the case of IITs. Furthermore, he said that the level of difficulty of the questions would be moderate so that the students are comfortable without coaching. Frankly, I am unable to see any logic in these arguments. I can foresee that coaching institutes shall spring up within a year of the introduction of CUET.

All over the world, questions are being raised on the efficacy of such tests as a reliable medium for ascertaining the eligibility of students for admission. Even the time-honoured SAT has been open to questions. Many foreign universities are now not in the favour of SAT and have dispensed with SAT as a requirement for entrance to the universities. Moreover, serious issues have been raised about SAT being a genuine test of merit. Most foreign universities now have essays, social activities, references and interviews as means of testing a candidate for admission. Maybe Indian universities will also have to consider adding some of these parameters in their evaluation of a candidate.

The biggest point in favour of CUET is that it is common for all. Curiously, this is also the main criticism of this test where critics argue that one-size-fits-all tests may not give the desired results. It is also to be noted that the CUET needs to be designed intelligently so that it becomes a true reflection of a student’s ability and talent. One critic very candidly said that a test is only as good as the person who sets it.

One feels that CUET is an improvement over the earlier system but it is still a work in process, and much more discussion and understanding will have to go into having a university entrance system that does not discriminate and genuinely tests the aptitude and competence of the students.

Click to read original article.

While the Budgetary focus on physical infrastructure for growth is a step in right direction, neglect of social infrastructure will likely propel inequality

The Union Budget for the year 2022-23 has continued with the emphasis on growth with the expectation that a high rate of growth would lead to a better quality of life for people. Nobody can dispute that growth is important but there is also the spectre of rising inequalities which cannot be overlooked. Growth has to be inclusive in nature and it is against this paradigm that the Union Budget needs to be evaluated.

We must start with the positives. There is a substantial increase of 35 per cent in the capital expenditure with ambitious targets for roads, railways and ports. This emphasis on development of physical infrastructure was very much required to lay the foundation for industrial growth and economic development. It will also create a demand for items like steel and cement, which should act as an incentive for increase in private investment and also provide jobs for those involved in the construction activities. The real test of the matter would lie in the implementation in both quality and quantity terms. Looking at the trend of expenditure against the current year’s Budget, the prospects do not look very bright but then one should not be unduly pessimistic, and hope that the government machinery will be able to fulfill the ambitious goals of capital expenditure that have been provided for in the Budget. It is also significant that despite the increase in government revenues, this expenditure will have to be met through additional borrowings which will increase the substantial interest liability in the Budget.

The second-most significant aspect in the Budget is the clear focus on digital technology. In every sector in the Budget statement, one finds schemes related to introduction of digital technology. This will definitely improve the functioning of various departments and provide better services to the people. We have the concept of drones in agriculture to improve crop statistics as well as land records. In the education sector, E-Vidya is being used to develop about 200 channels to provide quality education to the school-going children. Similarly, in the health sector, digital healthcare has been given paramount importance. This is the age of technology and only that country will go forward which develops a knowledge economy. The importance given to digital technology is a step in the right direction and prepares India to face the disruptive challenges posed by the fast-changing technological environment. This should also lead to a creation of a new set of job opportunities for the youth.

My main concerns around the Budget are regarding the sectors of health and education that haven’t seen any increase in budgetary allocation. Besides, apart from introducing digital technology there is no new scheme to bring about qualitative improvement in education and healthcare. The development of social infrastructure is as important as the physical one. We have examples of various countries which first focused on education and healthcare to develop their human capital and then emphasised on physical infrastructure. Only a well-educated and healthy society can take full advantage of the opportunities created by enhancement of capital expenditure. Health and education should be the topmost priorities of the nation and this should have been reflected in the Budget. For instance, having a digital health card and digital infrastructure is undoubtedly useful but digital intervention without a sound physical foundation is not likely to yield the required outcomes. Healthcare will improve only if there are more doctors, nurses, paramedics, ICU beds, hospitals and other health-related infrastructure. This requires significantly stepping up the expenditure in public health, which is still languishing at only about 1.3 per cent of GDP whereas it should be stepped up to 2.5 per cent at the earliest. The pandemic has exposed the huge gaps in our healthcare system, particularly in the rural areas. This should have sensitized the government to accord highest priority to the health sector.

Similarly, the pandemic has created huge issues in the education sector, which should have been reflected in the Budget. E-Vidya is a welcome move but it is no substitute for improving the education infrastructure, quality of teaching and learning outcomes. I am also mystified by the reduction of allocation for the crucial MGNREGA scheme. People are still suffering from the adverse impacts of the pandemic which has pushed millions into poverty, who require the safety net of a rural employment guarantee scheme like MGNREGA. Also, I was looking forward to the introduction of an urban employment guarantee act along the same lines as MGNREGA to cater to the unemployment problem in urban areas. This could have helped in creating productive assets and more consumer demand. In fact, the Budget has not taken any significant step towards enhancing consumer demand which contributes more than 50 per cent to the GDP and acts as a stimulus to private investment.

Previous year’s Budget talked big on disinvestment and privatisation but current year’s Budget is silent on these goals. For the current year, against the target of Rs 1.75 lakh crore only about Rs 9,000 crore has been realised. Expectations are that with the LIC IPO, it would reach Rs 78,000 crore. The roadmap for the future is not clear. It may be that not being able to push through the structural reforms in agriculture, the government has become a little cautious. Furthermore, the government had announced monetisation of Rs 6 lakh crore of public assets and there were talks of realising Rs 88,000 crore this year itself. Once again, the Budget has not spelt out any details regarding this.

The middle class, particularly the salaried section, was eagerly looking forward to some benefits in income tax but the Budget has not touched the income tax rate at all. A reduction could have once again stimulated consumer demand by putting more disposable income in the hands of the people. However, it is noteworthy that the tax rates have been kept constant which is a positive point in itself.

We can hail the budget as being a growth-oriented one, and also appreciate the stress on digital technology. However, in a society where inequalities have gone up over the last few years, more thought could have been given to the inclusiveness and development of human capital.


Click to read original article.

Indian bureaucracy is in dire need of reforms to ensure its independent and harmonious functioning, as also to hold it accountable to the people

I had the opportunity of chairing a session in the annual convention of the Lucknow Management Association (LMA) on the very important topic of governance reforms for the transformation of Uttar Pradesh (UP). My session was on bureaucratic reforms and leadership development. The panel consisted of illustrious speakers like ex CAG and IAS officer Vinod Rai, Pradeep Mehta of CUTS International and Himanshu Rai, Director, IIM Indore. Though the focus was specifically on the state of UP, the webinar had a larger relevance in the context of the entire country as it is clear that good governance is essential to make India a developed economy. Various studies have established a clear correlation between good governance and pace of growth of GDP. Very often it has been argued that various political parties on coming to power come up with a large number of infrastructure projects and development schemes but have not made any substantial reforms in public governance.

Good public governance is about a system where there is accountability, transparency, impartiality, fairness and integrity. The institutions of governance have to perform their designated roles. It is important that quality public services are delivered to the citizens, which is the ultimate goal of good governance. There is no denying the fact that there is a need for greater result and outcome orientation in the government system. Bureaucratic reforms are an essential component of governance reforms.

Curiously, whenever there is a discussion on bureaucratic reforms, the talk centers on reforming the Indian administrative services (IAS). It is true that IAS is at the top of the bureaucratic structure but it accounts for much less than one per cent of the total bureaucracy. Merely reforming the IAS will not change everything as reforms have to travel down to the last level of the bureaucratic ladder. I can give a classic example of this from my experience in UP. At the top level, we went through several sessions of discussions, formulated policies and issued detailed government orders regarding ease of doing business. We were rewarded for this by attaining a high rank amongst the States in the ease of doing business rankings. However, despite our claim that all clearances should be given online, the prospective entrepreneur had to vigorously follow up at the lower level of bureaucracy to actually get his work done. For example, we found that though online clearance for power connection was given, the entrepreneur did not get the connection for a long time and had to constantly make an effort to contact the junior engineer to get the job done. Ease of doing business failed at the last stage of implementation. It is for this reason that it is important to consider changing the mindset of the entire bureaucracy and not merely the IAS.

The panelists rightly felt that there was a perception about the bureaucracy being unresponsive, insensitive and insulated from people. It is up to the officers themselves to look within and alter their working style to make it people- oriented or citizen- centric. For this they will have to look at themselves as providers of public services to the people and not as rulers. This requires an immense amount of humility, empathy and compassion. Training and orientation programmes can help in bringing about this attitudinal change. However, the real change will come if there is an inbuilt system of reward and punishment which rewards the right kind of behaviour and result orientation. It is not as easy as in the private sector to have quantifiable targets for issues relating to public policy. However, some degree of quantification is definitely possible. There are performance evaluation systems which can be designed to accurately measure the attitudinal aspects also.

For bureaucracy to perform, it has to come out of the maze of rules, processes and regulations, under the garb of which it generally shelters itself. This is possible with wide-ranging reforms in the entire system of governance where an officer is not penalized for bonafide actions done in public interest. We need these reforms to ensure a system of prompt decision-making which is the basis of good governance. Above all, the bureaucracy today needs to be innovative and always ready to take initiative in resolving problems of the people with a positive orientation.

It is not that the bureaucracy cannot perform. There are several instances of outstanding work done by the officers. Two recent examples are the vaccination drive against Coronavirus and the development of Kashi Vishwanath Temple corridor. I remember, during my tenure as Chief Secretary from 2014–16, we implemented game-changing projects like construction of Lucknow- Agra expressway, Lucknow Metro and Dial-100 in a record time with no cost overrun. The quality of execution was also exemplary. Even today, officers in the districts are doing a lot of good work which is not being recognised because of lack of documentation.

Good governance requires a relationship of mutual trust between the politicians and the bureaucrats. They are like two wheels of a vehicle which have to move in tandem otherwise the vehicle will not be able to move. Unfortunately, the instances of political interference in governance are on the rise. The mechanism of transfers is used by the political executive to control the working of the officers. Senior officers are not able to get the team they want because of this interference. It is well known that unless you have the right man on the right job it becomes difficult to deliver results. Today it is almost impossible for an officer to have a team of his choice.

It is necessary to develop leadership qualities at all levels of bureaucracy. The officers have to be trained to work in teams and be motivated and inspired to achieve the goals set for the organisation. They must develop the quality of reflective listening which means absorbing the opinions of others and also developing crucial negotiation skills. The bureaucracy has to implement laws in true spirit and provide justice to all citizens. They should wield power for the benefit of the citizens and development of the country. A system should be evolved where the officers need not reinvent the wheel every time but learn from the best practices of others.

Bureaucratic reforms are possible if there is a political will to do so. I hope that the mission Karamyogi started by the Government of India will prove to be a positive step in this direction. The bureaucracy must appreciate that the real test of their performance is in the hands of the citizens. They must deliver if they want respect. It is urgently required to reform the system of governance and make it accountable to deliver outcomes without which the bureaucracy shall never be able to justify itself.

Click to read original article.