Editorial 1: India’s ‘Steel Frame’ does need a change
The Need for Comprehensive Reform
Context
India’s economic growth and governance potential are hampered by persistent challenges within the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the broader bureaucracy, underscoring the need for urgent administrative reforms.
Introduction
India’s governance structures are at a crossroads, with a pressing need for modernisation to meet contemporary challenges. While the country has made significant strides in economic development and innovation, issues like income inequality, underinvestment in critical sectors, and bureaucratic inefficiency continue to impede progress. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), historically lauded as the “steel frame” of India’s governance, has faced growing criticism for its inefficiencies and resistance to change. Addressing these concerns through robust reforms is critical to unlocking India’s full economic potential.
The Legacy and Evolving Challenges of the IAS
- Historical Context
- Colonial Roots: The IAS evolved from the Indian Civil Service (ICS), which was instrumental in colonial administration.
- Post-Independence Role: After 1947, the IAS became central to governance, shaping policy and driving development.
- Key Challenges
- Politicisation: Political interference through frequent transfers, arbitrary suspensions, and loyalty-based promotions has eroded professionalism and morale.
- Lack of Specialisation: Frequent departmental rotations prevent officers from acquiring domain expertise, limiting their effectiveness in addressing complex governance issues.
Corruption and Systemic Inefficiencies
- Corruption: Persistent corruption undermines public trust and hampers effective governance.
- Global Rankings: According to the World Bank’s Government Effectiveness Index, India performs moderately, reflecting inefficiencies in policy implementation.
- Systemic Flaws: Without structural reforms, these inefficiencies risk derailing India’s growth trajectory and governance objectives.
Executive-Led Governance: Boon or Bane?
- Centralised Decision-Making: While executive-led governance under successive administrations has driven rapid economic reforms and infrastructure development, it has also sidelined bureaucratic expertise, leading to bottlenecks and a lack of accountability.
Reforms Under Prime Minister Modi’s Leadership
- Initiatives
- Steps have been taken to curtail politicisation and enhance bureaucratic accountability.
- Lateral entry has been introduced to bring domain experts into senior policymaking roles.
- Criticisms
- Centralising power in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has raised concerns about bureaucratic autonomy.
- Lateral entry appointments face resistance from within the IAS and political allies.
Historical Efforts and Recommendations for Reform
- Commission Recommendations
- First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966): Advocated for specialisation, accountability, and merit-based progression.
- Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005): Proposed performance-based promotions, safeguards against arbitrary transfers, and lowering the entry age for civil services.
- Implementation Challenges
- Many recommendations remain unimplemented due to bureaucratic inertia, political resistance, and lack of enforcement mechanisms.
Lateral Entry: A Game Changer?
- Progress
- Since 2018, lateral entry initiatives have brought professionals from the private sector into senior government positions, infusing fresh perspectives and expertise.
- By 2023, 57 officers were appointed through lateral entry, reducing IAS dominance at the Joint Secretary level to 33%.
- Resistance
- Civil Servants’ Concerns: Incumbents fear it undermines morale and distorts promotion pathways.
- Political Opposition: Concerns about reservation policies for marginalised groups have been raised by opposition parties.
Learning from Global Models
- U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
- Focused on streamlining government operations and enhancing accountability, DOGE’s approach offers valuable lessons for India.
- India could adopt a similar time-bound commission to identify inefficiencies and implement targeted reforms.
Challenges to Reform
- Resistance from entrenched bureaucratic structures and seniority-based systems.
- Political interference in appointments and transfers.
- Legislative and judicial directives, such as the Civil Services Standards, Performance, and Accountability Bill (2010) and the Supreme Court’s directive to establish civil services boards (2013), remain largely unimplemented.
Way Forward
- Recruitment and Promotions
- Focus on merit and domain expertise in recruitment.
- Tie promotions to measurable performance metrics rather than seniority.
- Accountability and Specialisation
- Protect bureaucrats from politically motivated transfers.
- Promote specialised training for officers in key policy areas.
- Lateral Entry and Diversity
- Expand lateral entry while addressing concerns about reservation policies.
- Ensure transparent recruitment processes to enhance trust and effectiveness.
- Data-Driven Governance
- Invest in robust data infrastructure to monitor bureaucratic performance and inform policy decisions.
Conclusion
Reforming India’s bureaucracy requires a multi-pronged approach that balances continuity with change. Strengthening accountability, fostering specialisation, and encouraging collaboration between the IAS and domain experts are essential for effective governance. By addressing these systemic challenges, India can unlock its full economic and governance potential, ensuring inclusive growth and sustainable development.
