IAS cadres should not monopolise top posts, writes Shashi Tharoor

The Seventh Pay Commission has recommended parity between the elite IAS (Indian Administrative Service) and the 36 other central services, setting the cat among the bureaucratic pigeons.

The IAS has long enjoyed a two-year “edge” over the others, as the service joined mainly by those who score higher in the UPSC examinations that govern entry into government service. The IAS also enjoys quicker promotions and dominance (but not monopoly) of the top positions in the bureaucracy. The other services have long bridled at this disparity, and the Pay Commission award has been welcomed by them with great enthusiasm — and equally vehemently opposed by the IAS.

The debate has spilled into the public space, with battle-lines being quickly drawn in social media. The key issue appears to be — should better grades in a one-office exam in your mid-20s guarantee an edge in postings, promotions and salaries even in your 40s and 50s?

The IAS officers argue that it should — not just because they are an elite, but because their normal career progression gives them broader experience of the challenges of Indian administration, from district level “Collector” duties to ministries in state capitals and eventually in New Delhi. IAS officers, they argue, develop decision-making and crisis management skills on the job that are invaluable as they rise to the top and cannot be matched by officers in other services.

This is highly contestable. Is an IAS officer necessarily more experienced in handling crises than, say, a police officer from the IPS who has quelled riots, or a railway official who has dealt with the complexities of the world’s largest railway system? What does giving the “edge” achieve for the government in terms of morale and service delivery? Should a lifelong advantage be given on the basis of marks in an entrance exam without any reference to continued performance and further acquisition of relevant skills?

An alternative model of the civil service would recognize the value of different services but would link rank and reward to positions, not to individuals. So every government official would be eligible to apply for every position that his or her experience and ability qualified him or her for. The rank and salary would be linked to the position. If a smart, creative and quick-thinking IPS cop was a more impressive applicant for a position of Joint Secretary in the Home Affairs ministry, he or she would not necessarily lose out in selection to a less competent officer who happens to be from the IAS.

This approach would keep those who fell short in the UPSC examinations still keen on improving their performance to demonstrate their capabilities. It would end complacency amongst IAS officers who currently feel they will get the plum positions if they just serve long enough and acquire the seniority that keeps accruing to them, thanks to their “edge”. 

And it will recognize the essential principle that position and authority should be a reward for performance, for continued self-improvement and demonstrated expertise, rather than flow inevitably from success in a one-off examination. 

The “political” appointments in government already recognize this by allowing Ministers to appoint Private Secretaries (PS) and Officers on Special Duty (OSD) from any service. In my last position at the Ministry of Human Resource Development, I had a PS from the IPS and an OSD who was a Customs&Excise official, both of whom served with me and then returned to their parent services. They brought their different backgrounds and experience to the work and showed the skill, talent and professional abilities that their jobs required. I could not have expected better from IAS officers.

A country with the diversity and wide-ranging challenges that India offers cannot be the fiefdom of any small group, however elite. We need to be able to draw on the best in government, whatever initials they sport after their names.

The top posts in India cannot be the monopoly of the IAS. It is bad for the government and bad for the wider public interest.

The writer is a member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram