When an IIT Delhi engineering graduate topped the civil services examination this year in India, a controversy broke out. Should graduates of professional colleges, especially engineering and medicine, join the civil services to become administrators? Is this not a wastage of resources? The country spends considerable amount of money to train engineers and doctors and this would go waste if such professionals choose to become public administrators. A committee headed by the former finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee added fuel to the debate by coming out with the recommendations to debar professional degree holders from competing at the civil services examinations that select these administrators. Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is obviously in error for attempting to debar engineering and medical students from joining the civil services. That he has always been in error is beside the point but worth noting. Yet, he has done a service by initiating debate about the nature of bureaucracy in India. A number of retired civil servants, too, jumped into the discussion- something they tend to do better out of service than within, but this too is beside the point of discussion. However, instead of taking the debate to a higher level where the issue should be the nature of bureaucracy and its place in the Indian system of governance, these retired 'babus' [permanent bureaucrats of the Indian administration] prefered to focus upon the bureaucrats and reduce the discussion to one of 'generalists versus specialists'.

Again, this seems typical of Indian babus who cannot or will not transcend issues except in terms of familiar arguments. The generalist-specialist controversy was debated even during the early period of British rule and if these babus continue to hold the reins, as they do till today, the controversy will continue for another hundred years. The babus after all are smart and know very well that the resolution of this issue will affect the administrative service so thoroughly that it will change beyond recognition. If generalists are preferred, then, in the IT age all decisions pertaining to technology, science, finance, law, industry, defense etc. will slip out of their hands. The matter whether government offices should adopt Linux over Windows operating system, will not be decided by a person schooled in memorizing the nine jewels of Akbar's court, but by one knowledgeable about computer systems. If on the other hand, the decision is for the specialists, then, the administrators will have to confine themselves to their limited areas of expertise in which they are always required to update their knowledge. A secretary working in the ministry of law will not be able to claim expertise to move to the finance ministry as happens now.

Clearly, a resolution of this debate is not in the interest of the folks in the Indian Administrative Service. The IAS will not be the Indian Avtar Service unless its members , metamorphose and dip their hands in every pie of the government. It is far more prudent to skip from post to post so that there is never any possibility of being held responsible. For the ambitious joint secretary, it is better to join the ministry of shipping, travel to distant lands to understand the nature of shipping industry, enjoy its perks and then move on to other pastures. The glorious three years of posting can be explained away as the time to learn about the new job. And before someone demands why Chennai docks cannot handle half the cargo of Singapore docks, the time to move on has come! Imagine getting stuck in the department of education and being asked to advise the minister about the importance of historical methodology in dealing with the shrill voices of the saffron brigade. At present, all these matters can be left to the academic community [for shouldn't they decide about the curriculum?] and concentrate upon transfer and posting of school teachers where the grass is greener and easy to chew.

The retired members of the IAS and ICS who claim to have run a clean administration during their days have ,now,become anachronistic. They never dealt with the likes of Laloos, Mayavatis and Amma. Yet, when the opportunity to recast the administration was there, they simply squandered it away. It was perhaps only during the early days of independence when politicians were idealists, the country was tolerant of mistakes and people were willing to display patience that a new system could have been experimented. Every school going child knew that there was a need to change the bureaucracy established by the British for their colonial objectives. That the educational system was created by Macaulay for producing babus and that the police were corrupt, brutal and totally unaccountable to the people was acknowledged even by the British officers and commissions. As early as in1853, an East India Company memo mentions 'that the police in India is all but useless for the prevention and sadly inefficient for the detection of crime is generally admitted. Unable to check crime, it is with rare exceptions, unscrupulous as to its mode of wielding the authority and has a very general character for corruption and oppression.' Nehru himself mentioned that the ICS babus were a pompous bunch aloof from the travails of the common people.

Yet, the Indian bureaucracy has continued unchanged even after 55 years of independence. Perhaps the only change is the induction of people with professional degrees and many coming from rural and lower class backgrounds. These two changes are of course insufficient to bring any radical transformation in the system, nevertheless, a modest change is possible. A research study {IJCCJ 2001} that I undertook of IPS probationers, found that during the first few months of joining the service the rural and lower class recruits [described as 'Bharat'] were more idealists and concerned about the miseries of the people. Their perceptions and motivations of joining the IPS were different from those belonging to 'India' [urban and upper castes]. Although, the number of such people are small, the new entrants, coming from poor, low socio-economic background and suffering from caste discrimination did show a very different motivation for joining the IPS. They are aware of the potential of power accorded by joining the senior bureaucracy. Coming from the lower strata of the society they are cognizant of the discrimination and perhaps victimization that occurs due to the elitist nature of Indian society. For them, desire to gain this power is greater than the perks and privileges it accords to them. Moreover, they are also conscious of the need to use this power for the service of the people.

Unfortunately this research concluded that just after a year of institutional indoctrination and exposure to the field realities,this idealism washed away. The responses of the senior batch of probationers who had done a year at the academy and undergone field training in the districts, were statistically different. The exposure to the harsh realities of the field, interaction with the citizens in the capacity of senior officers, appear to have changed the perceptions. There was less optimism, more inclination to violate the laws and less concern about the rights of the offenders.

We need a system of governance where the civil servant is truly a servant of the people, responsible and accountable. In a developing economy the need is for well-trained personnel, specializing in a given area and able to adapt to the technological transformations rapidly overtaking the world. A centralized system like ours, monolith, slow moving and functioning only for its self-interest, cannot administer the country properly, whether the bureaucrat is a generalist or a specialist. A generalist will never be able to comprehend the challenges and a specialist will never find the opportunity to exercise his or her skills. The debate is not between the two but one of examining its very basis. The present Indian administrative system [and of course the police] needs a radical surgery.

Reference Verma, Arvind. 2001. 'Making of the Police Manager: Bharat versus India' International Journal of Comparative Criminology V1 N1.