Union
Public Service Commission Chairman Purna Chandra Hota’s observations on the
crisis of identity in the civil services are timely. In a lecture at a function
in New Delhi the other day, he deplored the politicians’ attitude towards the
civil servants and said that the former expected the latter to be “meek” and
carry out their orders as “submissive agents”. Going a step further, Mr Hota
said that if a civil servant “dares to revolt”, he is transferred, denied
promotion or recognition. While these observations are broadly true, the UPSC
chief must surely be aware of how and why this has of late been more pronounced.
Clearly, the steel frame (or what replaced it) did not bend and twist on its own
volition: it was bent and twisted by those who saw the vulnerability of the
bureaucracy as an instrument of achieving political aims. The distortion
occasioned little comment until 1977 because many people subconsciously accepted
the ruling party at the Centre at its own valuation as being synonymous with the
government and the nation. Few among the bureaucrats then thought of protesting
against this distortion. The situation did not change after the Janata Party
came to power. The civil servants compounded their previous subservience with
uncalled-for truculence. Not once did the bureaucracy assert that it was
expected to discharge its duties objectively and that professional integrity
demanded that it subjected even political orders to dispassionate scrutiny.
Sadly, the malaise has struck deep roots at both the Centre and in the states.
The civil servants seem to have created an impression that they are often only
too ready to safeguard their careers by living up to the expectations of their
political bosses. Surely, things can change only if upright officers, even at
the cost of their career growth, inspire their colleagues with courage and
confidence so that the bureaucracy can stand up to the political establishment
at the Centre and in the states.
Mr Hota’s other observation on the growing regional imbalance in the merit
list of successful candidates in the civil services examination is also
noteworthy. He says that out of 304 universities, only seven — Delhi University,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, Panjab University, the University of Rajasthan, the
University of Lucknow, Osmania University and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
— and the IITs are cornering 90-95 per cent of the top positions in the civil
services. Admittedly, this is bound to create a sense of alienation among the
regions unrepresented in the civil services. However, if this imbalance shows a
disturbing trend, it is also a sad reflection on the image of over 290
universities which have so far produced few IAS or IPS officers. The malaise
needs to be tackled with the attention it deserves. The main reason for the poor
performance of students from most of the universities in the civil services
examination stems from the falling standards in education. More than the poor
calibre of these students, teachers themselves do not seem to be motivated and
up-to-date in their knowledge, teaching skills and trends. Some universities
have restructured their syllabi for graduation and postgraduation courses in
tune with the syllabus of the civil services examination with a view to helping
aspiring students. This too has failed. The less said the better about the IAS
coaching institutes. Part of the problem lies with the faculty members. Merit
has become the first casualty in the recruitment of lecturers. Mr Hota’s
suggestion to expand the social base of the civil services seems to be
well-thought out. It is surely not an impractical idea. But the moot point is:
Who will take the responsibility for improving the work ethic in the
universities which alone can contribute to students’ success?
Taken from
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030221/edit.htm#2, from an editorial of
The Tribune.
