Most historians of Modern India accept that the British wielded influence not just through military might, but by leveraging the ICS' potency and penetration to perpetuate their rule over India. The British colonial rule in India relied on two pillars: education and the Indian Civil Services (ICS). Through, the pervasive ICS framework, the British established and maintained control, imposing unjust regulations that subjugated the Indian populace.
The ICS was based on three aspects: permanence, pervasiveness and penetration. It was created with the idea of the British Empire permanently ruling the people of India. It should pervade all the aspects of Indian life and culture and it should penetrate the Indian landmass so as to subjugate its resources to British colonial needs. This system, designed for exploitation, contributed to India's colonization and the growth of the British Empire, demonstrating the power of administrative structures. The fulcrum of the British Empire and the vehicle of exploiting India was the ICS. The ICS was meant to maintain British rule in India.
Regrettably, post-independence India chose continuity by transitioning from the ICS to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The common jargon of the ICS, which was taken over by the IAS, was maintaining the rule and order. However, post-independence India aspired for a radical yet silent change. The very words 'maintain' and 'change' are opposite, contradictory and poles apart. It is hard to imagine how an institution that was meant to maintain the rule could be an instrument of change in India.
In the post-independence years, optimism surrounded the IAS, seen as a bastion of integrity and public service. Despite its elite status, it displayed empathy towards the marginalized groups. Soon, this euphoria also evaporated.
A reevaluation of the IAS is overdue. India has celebrated 75 years of freedom, yet development remains sluggish, failing to match global standards. Central to India's political landscape, the government shapes policy and direction. The IAS, responsible for policy execution, spans from grassroots initiatives to national defense. Yet, the IAS has fallen short of its promise. It has evolved into self-governing elite, wielding excessive autonomy. It has emerged as a power-centre in itself. It has emerged as a feudal-coterie ruling elite though saving itself from the cover of anonymity. Though it has taken all the features of the ICS, it has failed to deliver what was expected from it. The prevalent narrative blames politicians for corruption and inefficiency, overlooking the IAS's complicit role.
District Magistrates, for instance, exercise unchecked power, influencing every facet, aspect and area of their jurisdiction. The IAS also infiltrates state-run enterprises like PSUs (Public Sector Units), driving policy decisions. Consequently, accountability diminishes, obscured by the veil of anonymity. Corruption often involves collaboration between politicians and IAS officials, illustrating a deeply entrenched problem.
Recent cases, like the IAS officer from Chatisgarh and the Jharkhand IAS officer amassing significant illicit wealth, highlight not only systemic issues within the IAS but also the lack of national character in these guardians of the nation. Such behavior contradicts the ethos of serving the nation's interest.
To actualize Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a developed India, a transformation of the IAS is urgent, essential and an immediate need of the times. The current IAS structure has outlived its use, has stagnated and is stuck, failing to meet contemporary needs. In line with the "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas" (Together with All, Development for All) principle, reimagining the administrative framework is imperative.
Evolving beyond the IAS, India should embrace a dynamic cadre of public servants. This fresh approach, open to expert input and innovation, aligns with India's journey towards progress and inclusivity. It should take a collaborative approach wherein the public should also be involved in policy making and executing. There should be 50% lateral entry. Officers from other services should be encouraged to take more positions so as to bring more innovation, creativity and transformation. More and more field experts and public spirited persons as well as bureaucrats should be encouraged. Like the experiences of other successful countries where the bureaucracy is an instrument of transformation, old procedures and mode of thinking should be done away with. There should be a career progression test after 10 years of service so the non-suitable candidates can be pruned. Instead of career progression based only on the review of a supervisor, there should also be inputs from colleagues, subordinates and the public at large.
The IAS is not only a system but a cocoon. By dismantling the archaic IAS system, India can pave the way for a new era of responsive governance, embodying the spirit of collective growth and trust.
(Rajiv Tuli is an author and commentator)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.