Politicians are blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong. But often the fault lies with the permanent executive. The so-called steel or rather junked frame of India, that is, the IAS and the IPS, IRS, State-level cadres, and various subordinate services being in the same boat. But it is in the nature of things that politicians must carry the can for those who are supposed to be answerable to them, namely, the police and the civil services. Indeed, not an insignificant share of the blame actually lies with the permanent executive for the rot that you see all around. For example, not long ago, Maharashtra was rightly proud for being one of the better administered States in the country. It was so not only because it had a better quality of political leadership but essentially because it boasted of first-rate civil servants. No longer, though. The fall in standards has been steep not only in the political class but in the entire spectrum of government servants from top to bottom. It no longer shocks anyone that for quite a few senior IAS officers in Punjab and Haryana, to give but only one example of the complete lack of devotion to public service, their working day starts at the golf club and ends there as well. If some urgent files require their signatures, PAs fetch them to the club house. Given that the pay cheque is guaranteed at the end of the month regardless of what they do or do not do, permanent civil services have become a law unto themselves. Ministers come and go but the IAS officers can play hookey, be as lackadaisical in their jobs as possible and yet both seniority and pay-rise is assured, linked as these are to the number of years they put into service rather than the quality of performance. Any effort to change that ironclad system is bound to fail. That is why we are not hopeful that the Modi Government will be able to truly link pay to performance for civil servants. No, sir, this mammoth elephant is not for shaking and is bound to try and defeat the best effort to wake it up and make it move forward. In fact, regardless of the poor quality of political leadership all around, had the civil services maintained own standards the country would have been in a much better position than it is now. For a corrupt minister can be easily thwarted by an upright bureaucrat. Unfortunately, bureaucrats in order to get ‘good’ posts, happily play second fiddle to such corrupt ministers, that is in case they do not themselves seek a share in the loot. As they say, without a corrupt and/or spineless bureaucrat there can be no corrupt minister. If bureaucrats insist on rules and norms to be followed, it will be hard for venal ministers to misuse power for making money. Unfortunately, conformity and compliance stemming from a desire to get promotions, plum postings and post-retirement sinecures dictate the behavior of civil servants. Therefore, implementing the recommendation of the Seventh Pay Commission that seeks to link pay and promotion to performance will remain on paper, though the Government has promised to implement it. Babus, it should not be forgotten, constitute the strongest of trade unions. Every pay commission has expressed similar sentiments but the only part that is put into practice concerns the pay revisions. The Fifth Pay Commission, for instance, recommended a rationalisation of staff strength, and a complete ban on further recruitment of Class-IV employees. The huge pay revisions were promptly implemented but there was no rationalisation of staff strength.
The latest pay commission wants civil servants to focus on ‘outcomes, not processes,’ and be ‘more accountable for delivery.’ Further, it wants them to be `agents of change.’ These are mere homilies. Indeed, even the senior most civil servants are unlikely to have read any other part of the pay commission report barring that pertaining to the pay-scale revisions. The ethos and culture of civil services revolves around pay and perks to the virtual exclusion of everything else, including performance, outcomes, delivery et al. Change is contingent on a bold and determined political executive. If the Modi Sarkar wants the top bureaucracy to become responsible and result-oriented, it can do no better than to open up the top echelons to outsiders. Proven experts from various fields can be hired for filling responsible positions in concerned ministries. Life-long security of service is the main cause of irresponsible and inefficient civil services. Change that and you bring about a perceptible improvement in the culture of Indian bureaucracy. But which government has the guts to do that? None, we are afraid.
