The article titled “Appraising the IAS on Civil Services Day: Decline in the Quality of the IAS Cannot Be Denied” by Uday Kumar Varma has struck a chord and evoked responses from those who have had distinguished careers as members of the Indian Administrative Service, as well as from officers of other All-India Services and the Defence Forces.

Uday Kumar Varma, a 1976-batch IAS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, served as Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; as a member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT); and as a member of the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council, a self-regulatory body for general entertainment channels. As Secretary, I&B, he spearheaded the nationwide digitisation programme.

Kewal Krishan Sethi, a 1963-batch IAS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, is regarded in knowledgeable circles as one of the most upright officers. He has carried the debate forward after Varma set the ball rolling.
Sethi served as Chairman of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh; Chief Secretary, Manipur; and Head of the National Commission for Linguistic Minorities (NCLM).

Reproduced below is Mr Sethi's response:

The Steel Frame and Its Corrosion
A very thought-provoking write-up by Shri Uday Kumar Varma. He writes feelingly about the rusted and corroded steel frame. From its heights, it has plunged and is now deep in trouble, being assailed by the people for its alleged nexus with corrupt politicians. Much was expected from the services, but they have let down the people. “Most of the cognoscenti sincerely believe the ‘steel frame’ to have already fatally corroded,” he says.

Serious doubts have been raised from time to time about the relevance and efficiency of the services, especially the IAS. He goes on to say that a handful of officers, in their ugly and reprehensible pursuit of power, have denigrated the lofty ideals of the service. A little later, however, he expands this “handful” to “many of the members”. The “services” referred to earlier are sought to be mollified by saying that “the isolation of IAS can be primarily traced to their patronising and condescending attitude towards their sister All India Services”.

Of course, the manipulation of politicians and their pernicious political interests comes as a handy tool to be mixed with the arrogance of the IAS. A little later, the number again dwindles when he says that there are “still a large number of extremely competent officers whose integrity and commitment is beyond question” and only a “few unrepentant and unrelenting black sheep”.

So, where does that leave us? Is the whole lot bad and on the way out, or can the extremely competent personnel still pull the service around? The bottom line is that members of other services are coming forward and that “today the representation of the IAS in central staffing is at an all-time low and it is likely to be even less represented in times to come”.

It is not my intention to defend the IAS, as I have already been denied this privilege by the assertion that “those who defend this service on this count are not so different from the ostrich that buries its head in the sand and denies the existence of a storm”. This is reinforced by a statement I read somewhere that the brain of an ostrich is smaller than its eye. I would not like to be in that company.

Yes, the black sheep are there. But are the other services all white—paragons of virtue and diligence, with officers keen on taking India towards an ideal society? Do they not dance to the whims of politicians? Are they all development-oriented, with their only concern being the creation of a model society?

Perhaps not. But stories about the IAS receive publicity that is often denied to other services. It merely reinforces the popular adage: “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.”
It is a cut-throat competition out there, and let the “worse” man win. The criminal mafia is very much there, and it is certainly not due to the doings of IAS personnel. Singling out one service for all the ills of society is simply not convincing.

The Changing Position of the IAS
Yes, the IAS is losing its supremacy vis-à-vis other services. The underlying reasons may be manifold and not merely the alleged arrogance towards personnel from other services.
Ever since the Supreme Court, in its wisdom—or lack of it—decreed that all All-India Services are equal and none is superior, the hold that the erstwhile steel frame exercised has been loosened.

If the IAS still has the privilege of being considered synonymous with government in the districts, it is due to the intricacies of governance. Much as the generalist is decried by the specialist, the generalist has his own merits, which refuse to let the cadre fade into oblivion.
The Prime Minister, in the address referred to in the article, called upon the services “to inculcate a ‘people-centric’ and ‘development-centric’ mindset and to assess their success not in terms of what they are able to do for themselves but instead what they have been able to do for the nation.”

The generalist is best placed for a people-centric approach, quite distinct from the specialist, who is trained primarily in a technology-oriented approach. This is not to belittle the importance of specialisation, but to assert that the so-called generalist has his own specialisation, which deserves to be given its due.

The Real Issue: Erosion of Values
But to return to the point at issue—the decline in the standards of the service—it is an undeniable fact that morality has been eroded over the years. This is true of society as a whole, and no one has remained untouched by the phenomenon.

The presence of a black swan, even though rare, does not disprove the existence of white swans. Similarly, the presence of black sheep does not rule out the existence of white sheep capable of producing white wool that can be dyed in all shades, including black. The fault probably lies with the dye and not with the sheep.

It follows that we must take care of the dye and not the sheep.

But where does the dye come from?

If we look closely at developments since India attained freedom, we will notice that sectionalism has been given preference over integration.

Recall the case of Japan at the time of the Meiji Restoration. Japanese society was very much divided into mutually exclusive categories. With one stroke, the new dispensation did away with such sectionalism and declared all Japanese to be equal. The call for patriotism became the war cry of the new regime. No privileges, no special treatment and no discrimination became the norm. The non-privileged were expected to pull themselves up rather than be propped up by the State.

We did not.

We created sections, created discrimination, allowed differences to grow and glorified them. We developed the pet theory of celebrating diversity.

The new rulers, who had depreciated the British policy of divide and rule, followed in its footsteps, enshrining sectional distinctions in the Constitution they drew up—not in a hurry, which might have provided an excuse for short-sightedness, but at leisure, over a period of more than two years.

While making loud protestations about moral behaviour, they worked against it by continuing policies that exalted material possessions over noble virtues. The pursuit of rapid economic growth through heavy industry and a guided economy led to the neglect of character-building, which is the adornment of a noble and progressive society.
This is not an essay on economics. The point is merely to underline how the path we chose led downhill as far as morality was concerned.

The enforced correction of that path in 1991 merely made matters worse as the pendulum swung to the other side. Consumerism has been on the rise, and the worship of the God of Mammon has taken hold of people at large.

Those who enter the higher civil services come from this very society. They are not outsiders. This is true of all the services and not merely the All-India Services. In fact, it is true of all people, whether in government or outside it. No one who has even an iota of opportunity to participate in the system is completely excluded from its influence.

Mission Karmayogi and the Road Ahead
All said and done, Mission Karmayogi is welcome. At least someone has thought about issues of ethics and values and tried to place them at the top of the agenda.

The new education policy is also welcome since it talks about the virtues of the past—the distant past—and the values associated with them.

Obviously, there are difficulties. It is an uphill task.
The lack of opportunities for the virtuous to reach the decision-making level is a major hindrance. The old generation, steeped in an inherited and outmoded mindset that cares primarily for procedure, process and formalities, often remains oblivious to the needs of society, the need for coherence, the need to restore spiritual well-being and, finally, the importance of patriotism and nationalism.

Changing this mindset will require a coordinated approach involving all sections of society. Perhaps starting at the school and college level would ease the process, though it is likely to take time.

Let us hope that we can reform the recalcitrant and usher in people-centric, society-centric and morality-centric conduct in our daily lives, in the discharge of our official duties and in our behaviour outside the office.

The steel frame may have suffered corrosion, but the answer is not to discard the frame. The answer is to identify the forces that are corroding it—and to address them.