Politicisation of Bureaucracy—Trends & Solutions - Essay, UPSC MAINS | Course for UPPSC Preparation - UPPSC (UP) PDF Download

Politicisation of Bureaucracy—Trends & Solutions

structure

(1) Opening    —    The trends in the relation

ship between the politicians and civil servants in India.

(2) Body    —    Policy-making and policy implementation.

    —    Fear of displeasing the political bosses.

    —    Political bureaucracy.

    —    Demoralisation on the part of the honest and efficient officers.

    —    Plan of joining political parties.

    —    Promote the interest of the ruling party for personal gain.

(3) Closing    —    No amount of suggestions will contribute to the development of a healthy and positive relationship between the politicians and civil servants in India unless both of them undergo a transformation of their mental attitudes and start respecting one another.

Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash was allegectly assauted at midnight meeting held at  Delhi CM Mr Kejriwal's officials residence. The IAS association boycotted all meetings called by Ministers of Aam Aadmi Party led government in Delhi. After four months the problem was solved.The AAP blamed the Central Government of politicising the bureaucracy.

It is useful to briefly analyse the trends in the relationship between the politicians and civil servants in India. The transformation of the Indian civil service from its regulatory character of the pre-1947 years to the development/welfare oriented administration in the post-1947 period called for the civil service taking an active role in aiding the ministers/politicians on welfare measures and implementing them in a positive manner for the good of the people. Some of the other factors which have contributed significantly in this regard are:

Complexities of modern-day governance resulting in the need for a certain level of expert knowledge in handling the business of government in contrast with the incompetence of the general lot of the politicians to measure up to such requirements. Most of the politicians in India are so involved in party, and often petty, politics that they neither have the time nor the inclination/competence to take their primary job seriously, and this results in administrators being forced to involve themselves in both policy-making and policy implementation.

Fear of displeasing the political boss which may result in their being transferred to far-off places and/or being posted in inconsequential positions has led the civil servants in India to accept interference by politicians in their day-to-day functioning.

There has emerged a class of civil servants in India—and their number is growing—who simply want to please the political boss and be in his/her good books, so that they can go up the ladder fast. In this category come many of the higher civil servants who go out of their way to tender such advice to their political masters which keep them happy irrespective of whether such advice on policy matters is correct or not. So eager are many officers of the IAS to adjust themselves to the whims and fancies of their political bosses, that one may jocularly describe the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as the Indian Adjustment Service. This category of civil service in India is described appropriately as political bureaucracy.

The emergence of a political bureaucracy is the extreme reaction to Nehru’s description of the Indian bureaucracy as fossilised and his daughter Indira Gandhi’s call for a committed civil service. In other words, one has to perhaps blame the politicians too for the pendulum swinging to the other extreme.

We may now turn to some notable examples of how the civil servants in India have either benefited professionally by going along with their political bosses or suffered because of the principled stand they have taken on some issues. Alexander became the Chief Secretary in Karnataka over the head of many of his seniors because of his closeness and obliging attitude towards Bangarappa, while P.S. Appu, Head of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration, had to resign some for the simple reason that he proceeded against an influential IAS probationer for the latter’s misdeeds and A.P. Venkateswaran resigned as the Foreign Secretary over the television outbursts against him by Rajiv Gandhi. Asish Khemka an IAs from Haryana cadre got transferred more than 5- times in his twenty seven years career. Inthe recent years transfer posting and sacking of bureaucreats area regular phenomenon. 

Another important feature of the relationship between the politician and civil servant in India is the tendency on the part of the governments as and when they come to office to bring about large-scale transfer of officials, specially at the higher level. This system was initiated by the Janata Party Government when it came to power at the Centre following the 1977 elections when it wanted to ‘punish’ or ‘send away’ officials whom they felt were closely associated with Mrs Gandhi during the Emergency. This system has continued since then at both the national and State levels. In the name of bringing in as Secretaries—at other levels too—officials in whom they have confidence, the ruling parties have invariably punished efficient and principled officers and brought in their places officials whom they like or through whom they can get their work done and their political objectives realised. In Karnataka the former Deve Gowda Government brought about, in instalments, large-scale changes in the Secretariat and departmental levels. Similar things have taken place in almost all the States where the Opposition parties came to power. Such tendencies have resulted in the development of a nexus relationship between the politican and the civil servant leading to demoralisation on the part of the honest and efficient officers.

Another important trend noticeable in India is that of the civil servants developing political ambitions during their career, and using their position to get into the good books of politicians and political parties through their official actions and at the opportune time resigning or taking voluntary retirement from the service and joining political parties of their liking. Some of the well known instances are that of Krishna Kumar leaving the IAS and joining the Congress and becoming a Minister at the Central level, and Mani Shankar Aiyar and Natwar Singh joining the Congress party. After that it becomes, common to others to follow the path. While there is nothing wrong in people leaving their jobs and entering politics, what is objectionable is the manner in which they utilise their positions (as civil servants) to confer benefits on political parties while being in service, with the expectation/plan of joining such political parties later.

There are also cases of civil servants going out of their way to promote the interests of ruling parties during the fag end of their career and being rewarded by the government with attractive post-retirement positions, be it Governorship of States or Governorship of the Reserve Bank or even as Ambassadors to foreign countries.

The following suggestions are offered hoping they will—if implemented—lead to a qualitiative improvement in the relationship between the politicians and civil servants:

To put an end to the whimsical manner in which governments resort to transfer of inconvenient officers, it is high time an Act of Parliament/State Legislature is passed which would lay down the duties and responsibilities of the IAS officers, including the minimum period of posting. If an officer has to be transferred before the completion of his/her tenure, the reasons for the same should be recorded. Of course, the government will have the power to exclude certain sensitive posts from these provisions, but it should be done after due notification. 

As for selections and promotions, the process should be more transparent. There was, for instance in Maharashtra, an Establishment Board with the Chief Secretary as its Chairman which was entrusted with all such matters. This Board often made it difficult for the Chief Minister to disagree with the recommendations of the Board. Such a Board should be made mandatory and should form part of the Act of Parliament/State Legislatures.

In order to address the grievances of the civil servants, either the existing system of Administrative Tribunals could be restructured and strengthened appropriately or a civil service Ombudsman could be created.

The Cabinet Secretary at the Central level and the Chief Secretary at the State level occupy the most pivotal position and act as buffers between the party in power and the vast administrative machinery. Unfortunately there is no fixed tenure for these posts nor strict guidelines as to how such positions are filled up. As noted earlier, many governments at the Central and State levels have ignored the seniority of officers and appointed men and women of their 

choice as Cabinet/Chief Secretaries. Many Cabinet and Chief Secretaries have been removed from their positions after short durations whenever governments have changed. The absence of fixed tenure for such posts has given an opportunity to governments to change officers at this level according to their whims and fancies. Unfortunately the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission asking for a fixed tenure for Cabinet and Chief Secretaries has gone unimple-mented. It is time this recommendation is taken up seriously by the Central and State Governments.

In conclusion it should be affirmed that no amount of suggestions will contribute to the development of a healthy and positive relationship between the politicians and civil servants in India unless both of them undergo a transformation of their mental attitudes and start respecting one another. One must resist the temptation to use the other for personal and institutional ends.