:: Nitish Sengupta

Red-tape babus out of sync with new India

By Nitish Sengupta

In India, we have been talking about administrative reforms ever since Independence. There was an administrative reforms commission set-up long ago, and another one is currently deliberating on the subject. Yet, in all these years, we have achieved precious little in altering our administrative system, procedures or the ethos of our personnel. There were too many safeguards and an undue emphasis on the written word and the correct procedures so that no one escapes responsibility. These had their advantages at one time but they cannot meet our current requirements when the emphasis should be on high-speed decisions, trust and responsibility of subordinates and achievements of results. Administrative reforms should necessarily evolve in the following areas:

Structural or organisational

Procedural

Manner and style of functioning by officials and staff

Organisationally, the entire system is marred by obsolete forms, a plethora of institutions which have outlived their utility and seem to induce a kind of administrative paralysis. Horizontally, there is division of authority along a large number of ministries or agencies, none of which are competent enough to take decisions by themselves, instead all play a collective role in decision-making. Decisions take very long to emerge and often a single ministry or agency can hold a veto over the process. Vertically too there are long lines of hierarchy in every office. This pattern, which leads to organisational deadlocks, is repeated at both the Centre and states.

A lot of ministries and agencies have outlived their utility but still exist, playing an altogether counter-productive role. Some of them, created during the heydays of the license-permit raj, have not been wound up though the purpose of for which they were created has long since disappeared.

On top of it all, there is a general abundance of manpower, much larger than the amount of work. While the government’s work is steadily decreasing, there is no let up in the staff increase.

Procedurally, we need to drastically axe the current time-consuming and wasteful procedures, particularly the structure along the line of hierarchy in offices where files go up and down with officers raising queries which lead to delays.

We need to radically reduce the number of hierarchical levels on which files move, restricting it to not more than two to three, including the minister. There should be a flat order that no officer is to keep any file for more than 24 to 48 hours. And if s/he detains any file for longer, s/he must do so by giving reasons and obtaining the approval of his superior officer.

After Independence, there has been a general emphasis on discretionary or administrative controls exercised by particular officers rather than on non-discretionary systems of control where general policies are formulated and publicised in writing so that every applicant knows where he stands. Wherever a government decision is needed in a specific case, we should operate the principle of management by exception. That is, a person doing a project or activity which falls within the guidelines, s/he need not approach the authorities for approval and should just inform them. It is only when a departure is proposed from the guidelines that there should be need for seeking approval. The advent of IT has made the situation abundantly suitable for simply axing many of our old procedural requirements.

It is when we come to attitudinal issues that I am afraid the biggest change is called for. A majority of officers still behave as if they are administering the country and don’t imbibe a managerial approach where their aim should be the achievement of a goal in relation to the development of the nation, rather than dispensing a favour to applicants. We have to lay much greater emphasis on acquiring knowledge and experience and stop treating a young IAS officer’s amateur standing as a virtue.

Rather, the officers must be encouraged to specialise in areas of their interests. They should then be retained in that area for a much longer time than it is done at present.

We should ideally follow the French administrative system where young entrants to its civil service are, from the very beginning, branched off into broad areas such as economic, social and general administration and are not normally pulled out of their areas of specialisation. Officers accustomed to dealing with distribution of permits or so, for which long queues are indispensable, should be made to start their training in queues to teach them to be time-conscious, friendly and courteous. Officers who work in agriculture should be made to do real farming for at least one or two years to understand the problems of land and those who make a living off of it.

Nowadays, the average entrance age of IAS officers is 30. Ergo, the old concept of catching them young has actually been given up. It is necessary to reduce the age of entry to the IAS to 24 or 25, as in the past. The stranglehold of the IAS on all top jobs should be ended, and while many of them deserve to occupy the top jobs, other officers who show adequate promise and ability, should be co-opted into higher services. Jobs at the top should be opened up to eligible persons, wherever they come from. The emphasis should be on managerial skills and realising goals, rather than on routine problem solving or being fixated with procedures.

We have to accept that globalisation and the dramatic march of new information technology are inevitable and unstoppable developments of modern times.

There are constraints no doubt, but there are also opportunities. The administrative organisation and attitude of our personnel are survivals from the 19th century, and do not meet the requirement and challenges of the 21st century.

Nitish Sengupta, an academic and an author, is a former Member of Parliament and a former secretary to the Government of India