Subash CV

Has the IAS become Irrelevant? Divya Mittal’s resignation from the IAS has prompted speculation about what she may do next. Her reasons are her own. But her departure raises a larger question: what still makes an able officer want to remain in the service? The All-India Services were not created merely to supply governments with competent executives. Article 312 of the Constitution envisaged services common to the Union and the states. Sardar Patel defended them because India needed officers with continuity, security and the courage to advise ministers without fear or favour. A secretary,Sardar Patel argued, must be free to record an opinion contrary to that of the minister. The elected government would decide, but it would decide after hearing professional advice and inconvenient facts. When I joined the IAS in 1966, that role was still recognisable. What made the service exhilarating was not its privileges but the possibility of making a difference. A complaint, a field visit, public representations revealed problems that files did not reveal . Using the state or district channels one investigated the scale of what was happening, consulted those affected, tested one’s assumptions, and tried to understand why the existing system had failed. A proposal was then constructed, resources found, departments brought together and the political executive persuaded to agree to a new way of doing things. Not every attempt succeeded. But in forty years, I can recall at least forty instances in which an idea travelled from an observed problem to an accepted government policy , until it finally moved into successful implementation. That goal was the heartbeat of the service. It gave an officer the energy to read, travel, question, argue and persevere. We had no computers, no mobiles and no air conditioners. Only a rickety open jeep and a creaky fan,( sometimes.) Over time, elected representatives became increasingly involved not only in setting priorities—which is their legitimate role—but also in directing administration and even prescribing technical solutions.    An MLA may properly demand that a locality receive adequate water. But if the MLA decides the width of the pipe and the engineer installs, it, it is professionally risky. Democratic accountability has not been strengthened. It has been misused. Professional responsibility has also been extinguished. The same change is visible in bigger decisions. Where is the administrative chain that should be inspecting, coordinating, pointing out the consequences and for ensuring follow-up? Officers appear to be busy attending meetings, maintaining notes on files, preparing defensible justification after the proposal has been discussed in a meeting, issuing financial sanctions and governments orders. The consequences extend far beyond what seems to be happening.If projects are announced without adequately considering whether the infrastructure and the trained personnel are available and how long that might take, it is administrative inefficiency. Officers themselves have often ( not always,) willingly exchanged candour for advancement. If honest advice carries professional risks, if blind compliance brings recognition, the message is clear. Agreeing is more prudent than suffering the humiliation or ostracisation from future jobs. Such changes have weakened the reason for having an All India Services at all even as their distinctive value has been eroded. It was to administer policy but protect due process and also to tell governments what they might not wish to hear. The AIS may retain their prestige. But do their actions reflect the purpose for which Sardar Patel fought to preserve them?   thehindu.com/news/national/u…