Prevent IAS steel from becoming bamboo

     Is it possible to run a 21st century economy, galvanized by 22nd century ideas and social networks, with a 20th century bureaucracy, interpreting 19th century laws? One of the few institutions created by the British, which has survived the test of time in more ways than one, and yet had some notable failures is the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). 
         Despite prodigious reforms, the IAS has seen limited change. This is a cause for concern. The classic Westminster model, on which the IAS is founded, postulated that while politicians would debate and legislate policy, the civil service would execute it. This has, over the years, been turned on its head. Politicians have found it profitable to get into every aspect of execution and indulge in rampant corruption, while the civil service is left to write something that passes off as policy. Add to this the increasing criminalization of civil servants' political masters and the influence of money power within the system. The IAS urgently needs reform if it is not to become increasingly irrelevant to development or be co-opted by the corrupt.
         What must be done? First, the IAS must not be a lifetime appointment. Initial appointment should be for 15 years. After that, every officer's performance should be evaluated by a constitutional authority such as the UPSC. The evaluation should be based on a 360-degree kind of appraisal, which is considered superior to traditional forms of assessment. Inputs should be sought from everyone — superiors, peers, subordinates and clients. The World Bank and the UK's bureaucracy successfully follow this system.
    Those who do not make the grade after the evaluation and an interview should be 'put out to pasture'. They could stay on at the same level, pay and position for three years, after which the commission would evaluate them again. Alternately, they could collect a pension proportionate to their years of service and move on.
       If the officer does make the grade, he can be hired through a competitive process on sevenyear contracts, with specific performance targets. For example, if a new airport needs to be designed and implemented, or if a Right to Food Act needs to be drafted, the respective ministries must advertise and recruit IAS officers competitively, based on their experience, aptitude and education. The terms of the contract should incentivize performance. Their accountability should be to the result, not just to the process. Further, they should be given the freedom to pick their own teams and to reward or punish them.
           Second, there must be quick and visible punishment for deviant officers. The IAS, which mirrors Indian society, has its share of people who shoplift, are corrupt, access internet porn or harass people sexually. They must be punished and removed from the service after a fair and speedy trial. This will have a salutary effect on those who join the IAS for the wrong reasons. Recently, Himachal Pradesh removed two officers ; Tamil Nadu did so too a few years ago after they were convicted of corruption.
         Third, promotions in the IAS continue to be based on a mix of seniority and merit and the latter is evaluated in a very subjective way. In an era of intense scrutiny by the media, CAG, CVC, CBI and the judiciary, the natural incentive for an honest officer is to shun initiative and try not to make decisions, to sign every file only after 20 others have signed it. In contrast, E Sreedharan broke with procedure to give Delhi a world-class Metro. There are several CAG reports on his violations but had he not taken the initiative to violate procedure, the Metro would not have been completed in time and under budget. Unless the honest within the IAS are protected, unless the all-India conduct rules and their implementation become more nuanced and less mechanical, initiative will be stifled and officers will be prevented from leaving the system to learn modern tools, gather rich global experience and return. Officers will become frogs in the well rather than eagles in the sky.
           In what is considered to be one of the most rigorous contests in the world, 500,000 of the brightest in India write a year-long, multistage examination, competing for just 80 seats in the IAS—half of which are reserved. The percentage of success is just 0.02%, roughly the same as the IIT entrance exam. Yet, something goes wrong and it needs to be urgently addressed. Countless IAS officers work selflessly every single day in difficult circumstances. I challenge any corporate CEO in India to report to a Mayawati or a Pappu Yadav rather than a Ratan Tata or a Narayana Murthy and still turn out a market-friendly performance. The IAS is merely one subsect of Indian society and reflects both the bright sparks and its problems.