 Hello and welcome to Newsclick. Today we have Shikabal Jaswal who has retired from the Indian administrative services. When did you retire, sir? 2004. 2004. Long time ago. Long time back. And we're going to discuss the lateral entry into the civil services. Recently, a lot of induction is supposed to be underway. The first lot has entered, I think, nine offices. Joint Secretary level. Joint Secretary level. How do you look at this scenario that is unfolding? Is it, shall we say, graded, you know, few people joining specific to requirements that is there in the civil services and civil services may not have? Or is it a change in fundamental policy with respect to civil services? I think it's been made quite clear by Niti Ayogh when this first dose of nine, induction of nine joint secretaries was administered. Actually, it was ten, but then they took nine. That the intention is to have a much larger exercise going down to the middle management level. Up to deputy secretary. Up to deputy secretary director level. And it has been unfolding in that direction. So, while these nine people who have been selected are yet to join, the government has already announced its intention to induct 400 officers at the level of deputy secretary director, which represents a significant proportion of the posts at this level. So, it's not a symbolic exercise. It's not a small undertaking. It's an extensive overhaul virtually of the system of induction. And also, how the civil services have been till their date. Yes. So, this is, shall we say, of the politicization process by creating an independent and relatively insulated civil services. Unlike the United States, for instance, and this has been the two kinds of civil service, shall we say, paradigms we have. One is called the spoiled system, that whichever party comes in power, whoever is the president, who works the entire civil services suit his politics. And the British one, which kept the, shall we say, the civil services insulated relatively from the political parties in power, expecting that the civil services will carry out whatever the political direction is given by the government is. Yeah, this is how in the popular mind it appears, but the reality is different. In the US also, there is a permanent civil service, which accounts for the quasi totality of the public servants in the US. Small proportion is open for what is called the spoiled system. So, and in the UK, it was just the kind of civil service that we have in India today, but things have changed in the UK. So, they also have a very significant induction of people from different walks of life at a higher level. So, nothing stays as it is, and keeps evolving, but we seem to be frozen in time, and we are still following the Whitehall model of the 19th century, by and large. So, you feel that there is an argument. There is a strong argument for lateral entry, but then it should be, it should not be a one-off exercise. It should not be something which is done in a knee-jerk fashion. It has to be an integral part of the process, and then it should answer certain specific questions that are arising from the way the civil services have been operating. And at the same time, we should also look at the problems in the civil service, which have necessitated resort to measure like lateral entry. Lateral entry has taken place in small measure of earlier. Yes, all along. All along. All along. But at a very high level. The bond takes in Aluvalia was for instance an example. I think starting from… It told us in other words. Yes. Even earlier, going back to the time of Lalbhav Shastri, Korean was inducted to head the National Dairy Development Board, and the process continued through successive governments. You have been referring to private conversations, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, which had also suggested lateral entry. What does those recommendations differ from what is being sought to be done now? See, as you say, there are two distinct models. One is of a permanent civil service, where one rises from the induction level to the highest post that is available in the civil service. And the other is a more open position-based recruitment system, where people are inducted at the appropriate level in a way in which qualifications match the requirements of the job. So, what the Commission suggested, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission suggested was a modification of the permanent civil service system by incorporating certain features of the position-based system. Such as what are the criteria? They suggested that a proportion of posts at the higher level, which is the higher administrative grade level, additional secretary and above. In fact, they should be open for lateral entry, and that would have the advantage of induction of fresh blood, a new perspective, and domain experience. But then the focus was on making the existing civil services, the existing pool of talent which is available in the service, more effective and capable of delivering the organizational objectives. So, it had said that in certain areas where the normal skill set may not be enough for the existing civil service, where you may need special skills to handle certain specialized disciplines, or even looking at outside talent for other reasons, you could have the upper echelons of the civil service open to this induction from outside. From outside and from inside as well, because normally the career progression is within vertical silos. So, the idea was to break down those walls and allow talented individuals to compete for positions which are available in this pool. But that is not what is being followed by what the Niti Aayog has recommended. So, this is a 2008 document. So, it's not a very old one. It's only 10, 11 years old. So, this has been jettisoned completely. And what the Niti Aayog has said, basically wholesale induction from deputy secretary to the secretary level. So, information is scarce. There is very little information in the public domain. There is lot of conjecture in the reporting that happens in the media. But it appears that after the induction of these nine joint secretaries, the Niti Aayog has gone about identifying 54 positions for induction within itself. For meeting its own needs. But then it is recognized that in bodies like the Niti Aayog requirement is for advisory personnel by and large staff function. So, that is not very unusual even in the planning commission it used to happen. Now, this is the third dose. So, it's a large dose and counts for a significant proportion of the total positions which are available in this at this level. Certainly, government services. And you are talking of something like 400 as you said. And that would be deputy secretary to the director level as well. Yes, yes. So, it's about 30 percent of the total post at this level. So, what of course is a little constrained the number of people who continue to be promoted. Particularly those who are filled traditionally from not the IES ranks or the IRS ranks, but from the lower ranks. That would actually become. So, that's one of the concerns that it would affect the career prospects of the people who are already in position. There are other concerns that have been articulated like this is like the affirmative action dimension. Already, we have seen that 9 posts did not have any affirmative action. Yes. Each of them were treated as a single entry position. Yes. And therefore, not considered as 9. Yes. So, this is one. And then there are certain ambiguities about the career progression of those who have been inducted. I mean, how are they going to be treated? If you take a position that each post is a carder in itself, single post carder, which allows you to circumvent the requirement of reservations, shellcast, for shell traps, shellcast, etcetera. Then you cannot post that person to another posts in the universe. It restricts the mobility of that person. And what happens to? You can't have it both ways. Yes. You can't have it both ways. But, at least in theory, you can't have it both ways. But, it does not prevent the government from, you know, Later on. Later on changing its stance. And we have seen, yes, we have seen this happen in so many cases. You know, the goalposts keep on changing all the time. The objectives are redefined as you go along to muddle through. But the other bigger issue for me is that if 400 people are being inducted in this particular fashion. Are to be inducted. Are to be inducted. But this government can change the composition of the civil service by inducting in quote-unquote fellow travelers. And they become a permanent, shall we say, 30% injection of a certain kind of ideological outlook which this government will be comfortable with. So, there is a risk of also changing the basic, shall we say, not political nature of the civil service, which is what it is supposed to be. But we know in practice that doesn't really happen. But nevertheless, this is a very large structural change that could take place. And get what was, Mrs. Gandhi's time was being called as a committed judiciary. We can get a committed bureaucracy which will then obey or keep on working for the kind of ideology this government has. It will depend on how this process is actually conducted. By and large, the Union Public Service Commission has a certain reputation of objectivity and fairness. And even in the times of Mrs. Gandhi, I think nobody ever said that the examinations, competitive examinations conducted by the UPSC were influenced so as to allow for entry of certain kind of candidates. So, there is no reason to believe that the UPSC, if it is assigned this responsibility, will certainly, you know, relinquish its stance and its position. But then, we also know that institutions change, evolve. We have seen this happen in the case of the election commission. It has become much more pliable than it used to be in the past. So, one doesn't know. But this is a concern that has been articulated. But I think it will be unfair to pre-judge. And we will see how it actually pans out. But objectively, there is a risk. There is a possibility. Possibility. And particularly, as we do not know, this will be through civil service examinations or through other means. So, we have to see what this process of induction is done. Because the civil service is a very large process, therefore, to influence it in micro-senses is more difficult. But to influence 100 at a time of 400 people may, in theory, be much easier to do. And we could move to a quasi-spoil system, but one of a kind, because once inducted, they cannot be removed that easily. That is also not certain, because from whatever information is available in the public domain, the idea is to give contractual terms to the inductees. But then, as I say, information is scarce. One doesn't know. One can't hypothetically assume that it is going to be a particular arrangement. So, while at the moment, we cannot objectively speak about what's going to happen unless we have a crystal ball. So, what is really the issue is there are threats that could actualize in future, for which we need at least bodies of which you are a part of the constitutional responsibility group. And also keep its, shall we say, its vigilance of the issue. But my main concern is about the rich pool of talent and expertise and competence that is available to the government currently and which is functioning in a suboptimal way and which is given this popular image of bureaucracy, which is preoccupied with its own material comforts and which is insensitive to public needs, which is bereft of consideration for the toiling masses, all kinds of popular and which has entered into those expedient compacts with influential politicians, compacts of convenience and mutual accommodation with business interests and politicians. So, the question is why has this situation arisen? Because even now there are people who are doing a remarkable job in spite of all the limitations of the system and as we have seen that it is possible for them to become, once they are out of the system and go to other organization, multilateral organizations or abroad, then they become domain experts like the induction of permission and IR and in the Bhushan by this government, in the government has shown. So, these are the people who are available to you and you are not using them properly. And then there is another concern that you go through this process for the federal government, for the union government. What about the states? Because in the scheme of constitutional scheme of things, most of the functions are assigned to the state governments. So, you cannot have one system for the union and a different system for the states. So, the states should have been a part of this exercise. So, together they should have evolved a scheme and which should have factored in the recommendations of bodies like the Second Administrative Reform Commission which came out with an excellent report which is here refurbishing of personal administration scaling new heights. So, a lot of domain knowledge and expertise and consultative collective wisdom has gone into these reports but these reports have been ignored and suddenly we have this scheme, a new policy which has been formed in an opaque manner. One does not know how the policy formation has taken place and what are the issues that have been considered and what are the real motives behind this scheme. You know, Mr. Jaiswal, we used to say on the earlier reforms in the government that quite often the government tries to solve a problem that is not there, that they are solving a different problem than that exists and therefore we get two problems rather than one. Quite right. This seems to be another one of those trying to solve the problem which does not exist and not addressing the problem that really does. Thank you very much Mr. Jaiswal for being with us. We will continue to discuss with you this and other issues that are of interest to you and to us. Thank you. This is all the time we have in NewsClick today. Do keep watching NewsClick.