Civil service finds itself at the crossroads

THE present chaos and confusion in the management of the upsurge of Covid-19 cases in different parts of the country make us reflect on the delivery of public services. Is it, to quote The Guardian, ‘overconfidence’ or overemphasis on ‘minimum government, maximum governance’? India is known to have a systematic rule-based or dharma-controlled government. Kautilya’s Arthashastra (Book IV) noted that there are eight kinds of providential visitations: fire, floods, pestilential diseases, famine, rats, tigers, serpents and demons. “From these shall the king protect his kingdom.” It is his dharma. There is a separate chapter on how to overcome pestilence. The same remedial measures shall be taken against epidemics. We are obliged here to provide references to our past and the glory of great traditions of governance, though World Bank experts and/or Harvard-educated bureaucrats today may not consider these as important. There seems to be some contradiction or incongruity between the declared policy of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ and the past administrative traditions of India.

Governance in India is understood through the delivery of public goods and services carried out by a cadre of trained officers initiated by the East India Company. Macaulay wanted a civil service to put in practice the company rule and recommended inter alia that it was “undoubtedly desirable that the civil servants of the company should have received the best, the most liberal, the most finished education that the native country affords.” The ICS officers were recruited and trained in London and sent to India. The induction into the civil service after the Macaulay Committee report was based on merit replacing some kind of a spoils system. The modern bureaucracy imported into the country during colonial rule was introduced through the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854 that included the colonies. The Government of India Act, 1858, further strengthened the system. Though we cannot deny that the aim of the British rule was to exploit the resources of India to their advantage, the officers had sincerely established institutions and placed civil service values of ‘neutrality and impartiality’ as unblemished conditions of service.

After Independence, the Constitution made elaborate provisions for a permanent civil service system for the country. In fact, the basic structure of the Constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers wherein the executive consisting of the civil service is made autonomous and accountable to the legislature through the political executive under whose control it functions. It has also facilitated a permanent tenure with pension. Articles 311-320 empowered the government to create the All-India services and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to recruit civil servants on the basis of merit established through examinations with a minimum educational qualification of an undergraduate degree. The legacy of British and Mughal revenue administration was combined in the collection of land revenue and administering of law and order through the district magistrate and the collector. During the planning period, the cadre was further strengthened to deliver different kinds of services for the welfare of the people. These officers, mostly serving in a state other than their own, symbolise national integration.

Indian economy and society have been built not only by the committed leaders but also by the officers of the civil service in every nook and corner of India. The role of the civil servants both in policy-making and planning has helped young recruits like SR Sankaran remain committed to the poor and the socially marginalised. Enlightened officers like IG Patel, in association with the experts, laid a strong foundation for a growing economy in heavy engineering, space, pharmaceuticals, electronics, banking etc. This trend continued till the late 1980s; the ‘selfish bug’ bit the bureaucrat thereafter through the philosophy of Margaret Thatcher’s New Public Management. A civil servant is reduced to a manager of easing business and not a public servant representing the constitutional mandate of serving the people. The dichotomy between public administration and New Public Management is explained by John A Rohr, a scholar on public service: “Managerial innovations cannot change the fact that administration is governance… the connection between ethics and governance is immediate.” Public service ethics presuppose that one has made, or at least should have made, a prior judgement on the moral legitimacy of the regime under which one serves. “Recall Aristotle’s distinction between a good man and a good citizen who may also be a bad human being; for example, a good Nazi is by definition a bad person. Consequently, the question of public service ethics cannot arise in a thoroughly unjust regime because an unfavourable answer to the fundamental question on the moral legitimacy of the regime itself precludes further inquiry.”

Thus, in the given context, civil service is becoming a blessing of the party in power that cares less for constitutional morality to carry out its functions. The young civil servant is in confusion and some are becoming turncoats to follow the rules of the game. The founding fathers were very clear in protecting the civil servant through the UPSC in case of charges of misdemeanour. They are recruited, trained and put in service to carry out functions to deliver constitutionally valid public goods and there is no provision as of now to minimise their role. The whole system will crumble if a district magistrate is ordered in the present scenario to withdraw or minimise the scope of governance. Can we minimise the option of delivery of healthcare, agricultural services, rural development, social justice, education etc. and leave it to the private sector? Yes, we can if we are prepared to face the challenges we are witnessing today.