In the eighth show of our series, we have 10 policy initiatives that will enable the next Prime Minister to reform India's obstructionist administrative apparatus whether in the bureaucracy, police, judiciary or legislature. Our suggestions have been culled from recommendations made by a group of experts and you can get all the details from our website thinkindia.in.com.
Joining us in the studio are three of these distinguished contributors Mahesh N.Buch who was in the IAS and who resigned from service to become an activist for governance reform. Rajesh Tandon who heads participatory research in Asia, an NGO committed to citizen participation and democratic governance. MR Madhvan president of PR Legislative Research an institution that has done sterling work in monitoring and analyzing the performance of the Parliament and with them is our very own Dheeraj Nair CEO of Network 18's Think India Foundation, who has anchored this project for us.
We also have an audience in this studio among whom are some people who have actively pitched in to the debate on twitter and on our website.
I would add all of you to contribute to future editions on Twitter and our website and we will be delighted to invite you to participate in the upcoming shows. Do note that we will present our suggestions on administrative reform and 13 other policy areas to the next Prime Minister who takes office in June.
Also read: Change India: 10 policy initiatives to boost manufacturing
Points 1 & 2 of our agenda for action:
The first one is something that has been spoken about quite a lot that we must end the seniority principle for promotion in our bureaucracy. We should encourage lateral entry. We also suggested that the maximum tenure of the government functionaries should be 20 years with a first level checkout at 14 years of service and we say that you must make a contractual appointments- the norm in the higher echelons of bureaucracy because that's where you need domain expertise.
Second is all constitutional statutory & regulatory bodies, the CEO's or the chief's or the heads or the director general of all of these should be appointed in a bipartisan manner that means the leader of the opposition should be involved in taking a decision on who should head these very important bodies. So, these are points one and two. We have got nobody better who can answer this for us Mr. Buch
Below is of part of the discussion
Buch: The civil service concept in India follows the British pattern as it existed before their reforms took place in which you had services with cadres to which appointment was made on a one time basis on a competitive examination. There is a certain amount of lateral entry that is now taking place, that's only at the level of secretary or the head of the department and its not enough. The seniority principle is not totally without merit because if you combine that with filtering out at various stages of people who are inefficient or incapable of delivering the goods who have reached a level of incompetence then seniority would actually mean the best people have already filtered to the top and you are selecting amongst them.
Raghav: So, we are suggesting these two check points - 14 years of service and 20 years of service.
Buch: I would suggest that these check points be enlarged. After the first five years of the service, person should be pulled back for a very intensive course, to see whether he is fit for the next step. Do this after another five years, at level 15 years, when the person is fit to move into higher duties then you have a very strict check on this. And at level 20 years, you forced a man to go on a sabbatical which he has to go and work in the institution where he produces, a paper which is fit for a Phd and if he doesn't do that, he is out.
Raghav: And that you are saying will create the head room for a lot of lateral entry in any case and the main experts would come in. Quickly point two bipartisanship in appointing the top constitutional regulatory positions.
Buch: Very good in theory. In practical terms, I am not too sure whether I would leave everything on the politicians to decide. Why can't we think in terms of systems in which there are search committees which are non partisan and they send up a list of names and the appointing authority is forced to pick up one of these three names.
Raghav: So, therefore you are saying bringing much more civil society input at the search stage but expert in civil society.
Rajesh: We have just completed a very interesting study of five different commissions – Womens Commission, SC/ST Commission, Minority Commission and Commission responsible for people with disability in seven states and exactly what we are recommending in this is the problem. Appointments to these commissions, chairs of commissions has been done in a flippant manner without reference to the competencies required.
Raghav: And its almost always with the IAS, most of India's regulators are ex-IAS retired officers.
Rajesh: The irony is that when right to information was introduced, all state information commissioners and central information commissioners were retired IAS officers who had spent 35 years of their service upholding official secrecy act.
Raghav: And plus it becomes a sinecure, you don't get expertise in.
Rajesh: You won't get new people. So, I think the important thing is to create first of all a pool through a wide spread process as Mr. Buch was saying and this principle of pool is now being recognized and from that pool then you have a tripartite mechanism. I would like to add a third person to this in addition to the Prime Minister and the leader opposition or the chief Minister and leader opposition - a person of independent repute in relation to that issue but the suggestions come from a wider pool that structure has to be institutionalized.
For the entire epsiode watch videos
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
