No laments from a lateral entrant

|
  • 1

No laments from a lateral entrant

Thursday, 21 June 2018 | JS Rajput

lateral entry into the civil services can help the bureaucracy escape routine by bringing in new ideas and talent in development initiatives

Modern systems of governance that respect human dignity and strive to march ahead on the path of inclusive development and growth remain ever-vigilant to sustain democratic values. The onus primarily lies on the elected representatives and political parties. Some of them get the privilege of running Governments for a limited period, while others in opposition; are supposed to keep an eye on those in power, point out the implications of their decisions, and suggest better alternatives which, if liked by the electorate, could catapult them to power next time. Both sides must never give up the search for consensus on sensitive and significant concerns before the nation.

The interest of the people remains paramount for both sides. And to secure that end, one requires regular infusion of dynamism in the system of governance, particularly the bureaucracy. In light of this, the criticism of the latest initiative to invite talented persons from private and corporate sectors to join the Government at the level of joint secretary to the Government of India could only be termed as ‘bizarre’.

To further the chorus of the Opposition, based on contrived apprehensions, this comes mostly from those unfamiliar with the internal functionings of recruitment and promotion systems at the higher echelons of the system of governance. One has not seen much opposition to this move from seasoned bureaucrats and experts. It is indeed intriguing that it can be linked to the Supreme Court’s decision on certain provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Could it be that certain Dalit groups are being persuaded to launch a nationwide agitation against itIJ  The fact is, such appointments have been regularly made in various ministries following certain laid down norms and qualifications.  The recruitments were made by the UPSC. Not many know that in these selections, senior bureaucrats were invariably invited by the UPSC. More often than not, senior bureaucrats outnumber other experts as members of the UPSC.

One wonders why some people with vested interests are concerned about the modified selection procedure under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary who occupies the most coveted bureaucratic position and must be trusted by the nation to maintain the sanctity of the selection. Those worried about the appropriation of the UPSC should be equally concerned about the sanctity of the position of the Cabinet Secretary and impose trust in him to not succumb to political pressure from any quarter.

Who other than the Cabinet Secretary would be familiar with areas that require external expertise in different ministriesIJ There are no grounds for unfounded allegations like the Government appropriating the autonomy of the UPSC. As the debate goes on, the significance of the move will be appreciated on a much wider canvas.

Gandhiji declared ‘politics without principle’ a social sin in 1925. His successors discarded his interpretation right from day one in power.  It left little scope for the bureaucracy to contribute in creating a value-based system of governance. People began to experience a pliable bureaucracy that adjusted quietly to implement ‘as desired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, or the Minister’. All this left little scope for the professionally sound and committed functionary to follow his inner conscience, and call a spade a spade.

Where are the bureaucrats who can object to lavish extravagance by their Chief Minister; be it a donation to a temple, or a huge public expenditure on Iftar parties, or erecting huge memorial parks with their own statuesIJ Believe me, no expenditure can be incurred without the approval of a senior bureaucrat. Even if a Cabinet approves certain expenditures before release, the bureaucracy can put it on record that it is against the prescribed rules and procedures.  No ministers or chief ministers could in that case, dare to break the law. A courageous, committed and competent bureaucracy can control even the most errant of politicians. They enjoy extraordinary constitutional protection to remain true to the law, not the individual.

One could expect that the lateral-entry move may not be formally supported by the bureaucracy but the new entrant would receive a decent welcome and subsequent support. This is what one experienced as a lateral entrant who served the Ministry of Human Resource  (MHRD) in 1989-94 at the level of joint secretary. The designation was that of the joint educational adviser. Although  the civil servants do try minor tricks to safeguard their ‘distinct identity’, this has made no difference in allocation of work amongst joint secretaries.  Yes, one was not considered — and very rightly — for such assignments as an election observer. The selection was made through the panel consisting of one UPSC member and the Education Secretary. 

One had completed fifteen years as a full professor, eleven of which were also as the Head of a Regional Institute in Bhopal.  The search for an expert was initiated by then Education Secretary Anil Bordia who willingly spent most of his career in the education sector. Usually bureaucrats posted in MHRD seek a shift to economic ministries, and usually everyone knows which the preferred areas are. There are exceptions, and several of them do acquire expertise in the domain area of their interest.

Mingle with a group of serving civil servants, and one finds that each one of them considers himself a master in his present assignment. Whether they know the subject or not, most of them act like masters who need no cerebral inputs from anyone.  This has its implications, and that ignites the search for talent from outside.

Narration of two personal experiences would indicate how necessary it is to induct people from outside in a system which otherwise seriously suffers from ‘routinisation’. And that impedes dynamism in the system. While discussing a particular aspect in a group of joint secretaries with me being the only non-IAS, a remark was made, “Prof. Rajput, I know administration”. Seemingly everyone else appeared appreciative of the words of wisdom. The scenario changed when yours truly retorted, “Agreed, but I know educational administration, and I need not elaborate to you the difference between the two. The issue under discussion pertains to educational administration, not administration”.  

Subsequently, everyone was convinced that certain aspects of the case were getting ignored, and that changed the approach and also the decision. The erstwhile Planning Commission was given all the respect by the ministries and meetings amongst the senior functionaries of the two organisations never ignored this aspect.

 In one such meeting, the Chair remarked that before taking up the formal agenda, he would like to seek a response from the MHRD on a serious issue that persistently bothered him, “How can we remove deadwood from amongst teachersIJ” They, he was convinced, are the root cause of quality deterioration.  The education secretary who was supposed to begin the response, played safe and said, “Sir, we have a professor in our group, let him respond.” Taken slightly aback on being fielded out on the set sequence, my instinctive response was, “Deadwood cannot remove deadwood.” There was stunned silence, non-verbal communication on both sides was very clear to me. No one from any ministry ever dares such plain-speaking before the masters of the treasury.

That day the discussion was only on this point, no formal agenda could be taken up. It goes to the credit of the bureaucrats present there that a consensus emerged that unless the management of education systems undergo serious overhauling, not much could be achieved through new schemes of educational reforms.

The teaching community may have its weaknesses, but it would be a folly to blame them alone for all the ills. This narration is just to indicate that if conditions are created for the availability of external professional inputs, the bureaucracy would be willing to listen.

As a body, they may not relish intrusions in their much-protected territory, but once the Government goes ahead with determination, they will welcome ideas and individuals. There is no dearth of takers for fresh and vibrant ideas. It would also provide a great challenge for the talented to put in freshness in development initiatives.

The Government has started on a rather cautious note. One would like the presence of lateral talent in every ministry.  My five-year stay in MHRD greatly benefitted me too during my stay for five years each as the head of the NCERT and NCTE.  I have learned how to firmly assert the autonomy of the professional organisations. In the envisaged scheme, when the lateral entrants return to their parent organisation, they will be imbued with a much larger vision and invaluable experience in the functioning of huge diverse systems.

(The writer is former Director, NCERT, and an educationist)


 

 

 

Sunday Edition

CAA PASSPORT TO FREEDOM

24 March 2024 | Kumar Chellappan | Agenda

CHENNAI EXPRESS IN GURUGRAM

24 March 2024 | Pawan Soni | Agenda

The Way of Bengal

24 March 2024 | Shobori Ganguli | Agenda

The Pizza Philosopher

24 March 2024 | Shobori Ganguli | Agenda

Astroturf | Lord Shiva calls for all-inclusiveness

24 March 2024 | Bharat Bhushan Padmadeo | Agenda

Interconnected narrative l Forest conservation l Agriculture l Food security

24 March 2024 | BKP Sinha/ Arvind K jha | Agenda