REFORMS CIVIL SERVICES; NEED OF HOUR

PRODUCING CIVIL SERVANTS OR PUBLIC SERVANTS ?
Central Civil Services in India is all set to become ebonite coated so that it is insulated from undue political interference as a bill in this regard is likely to be tabled in this session of Parliament itself. Reforms in Central Civil Services have been on the government’s priorities. In fact an Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) had been constituted under Veerappa Moily to look into the entire gamut and recommend reforms in administration. Selection of new DGPs and Chief Secretaries by new government at State has always been a matter of debate. Similarly appointments of key functionaries at Centre like Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary and Principal Secretary to PM by govt have also been under scanner of opposition. Need has been felt for few years to evolve a transparent and an institutional system in such appointments. The proposed legislation is perhaps aimed at addressing these core issues.
Proposed Bill is bound to trigger a National debate because Civil Service, in spite of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG), has still been embedded into the socio-economic, political and almost every walk of life with varied degree of penetration.
Government said it would bring a Bill just after the Budget. The proposed Bill seeks to constitute Central Civil Services Authority (CCSA) consisting of 3-5 members headed by a Chairman who would be selected by a committee of PM, Judge of Supreme Court, and leader of opposition in Lok Sabha. The Chairman would be placed at par with Chief Election Commission (CEC), that means his mode of appointment, service conditions, tenure and procedure of removal etc will be similar to that of CEC.
Many State governments have raised voices of concerns on the pretext of, what they call undue interference of Union Government in State’s matters. It is a scathing attack on, what they call, on the federal structure of government as enshrined in the Constitution. States are particularly averse to the provision in which consent of leader of opposition in matters of appointments of DGP and CS would be must. However one can hardly deny the fact that Civil Services in India do require some sort of overhauling and revamping in view of changing socio-economic, politico-administrative and global milieu.
Civil Service in India is a British legacy and still continue to exist with least metamorphosis. In fact posts of Collectors were created as early as in 1773 itself by the British. The Regulating Act of 1773, which was perhaps the first legislation of British in India to extend, consolidate and institutionalise British Raj created these posts. But it is only from 1853 when Civil Servants began to be selected through a competitive examination in which Indians were deprived from appearing into. Post of Divisional Commissioners (DC) and Sub-divisional Officers (SDO) were later created by governor general Lord William Bentick to lessen enormous powers of Collectors. Even after Independence this structure remained so strong that even Nehru called ICS as steel frame of India.
This steel frame work of India now requires anti-corrosion treatment to make it more resilient and vibrant so that it can suit and adapt according to the needs of our people. The PM has taken the initiative, but a lot of other provisions are required to be made to rejuvenate, revitalise and renovate this institution. The indolent and battered bureaucracy is urgently required undergo some drastic changes keeping in mind the contemporary socio-economic and politico- administrative situation of country. We have to ruthlessly trash vestiges from this structure, which is eating up vitals of our system, without fear and affection. Bureaucracy has become inured to miseries of people, therefore it has to be sensitised. We must not forget that there is an intense rancour in masses against the indifferent, lackesaidial and insensible approach of most of civil servants in our country.
The proposed move is plausible, but only cosmetic surgery and its insulation from political interference would not do। Here are some changes would should be made to make Civil Services more sensible, vibrant, accommodative, responsive, responsible and public servant rather than govt servant.

1. The entry into Central Civil Services should be from intermediate level rather than graduation। It would help diminish the chances of entry of huge number of engineers, doctors and professionals including from IITs, IIMs. Civil Services are generalist job and Civil Servants from engineers and doctors community virtually have no use of their studies in this career. Moreover technical education in our country is still highly subsidised and public money is spent on them and in a way when these students enter into Civil Services, the cost incurred on them by government goes futile. It is therefore prudent to discourage such entries. By making Intermediate as entry level into Central Civil Services we can help eradicate this trend.

2. Period in field posting should be enhanced and the officers especially IAS and IPS should have longer years in fields on sub ordinate posts. At present IAS and IPS become DMs and SPs within 3-4 years time and therefore have little experience in grass root level problems. We should not forget that we are not producing Corporate Managers in UPSC; rather we are producing public servants. Longer duration in fields especially in rural areas would enable them to understand Bharat i.e. rural India in much big and better way. IPS officers become SP even less than one year. Thus the posting profile should undergo structural and functional change to make them understand the problem in bigger way.

3. Concept of fixed term is a welcome idea, but it should not be linked with extensions। In fact the very practise of giving extensions to favourite officers has lured the Civil Servants to do act of favouritism in order to win over their political masters. At the same time it discourages officers of next junior batch because it mars their chances of coming to top posts. For instance if the serving Chief Secretary, Cabinet Secretary or Home Secretary is given extension, the just junior batch officer will be left with no motivation because by the time the officers whose service has been extended would retire, the most of the officers of just junior batch would also retire. The fact of the matter is that the practise of giving extensions have helped germination of resentment and created aberrations also. This practise should therefore be discontinued immediately.

4. These days post retirement assignments are being offered to most of the top bureaucrats। Many retired IAS especially at secretary level in govt of India get assignments immediately after their retirement. Post of CEC, CIC, Member Planning commission, Advisors in different ministries, RBI governor, governors of states, and a host of such posts almost invariably go to retired Civil Servants. There is no denying the fact that officers of huge administrative experience should be tapped for country’s welfare, but such trend helps develop tendency and chances of nepotism, favouritism and other such ‘ism’ which in long run are detrimental and deleterious for our politico-administrative tapestry. Provisions should therefore be made that no officer shall be given post retirement assignment before three years after their retirement. Not only that persons retiring from posts like Judge, CEC, CIC, governor etc should not be given any post whatsoever because it is affecting the system very adversely.

It is happy to see that Civil Services are being insulated from political interference but at the same time it should also be ensured that such immunities are utilised for good of democracy, federalism, welfarism and politico-administrative structure rather than protecting non-performance and lobbyism. Merely providing security in term and conditions may make them more obstinate and non-performing because they still have enough protection in Constitution (Article 311).

REGULATION VERSUS INNOVATION

(SANK ALONG WITH DREAMS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLLE)

The collapse of financial institutions including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a host of such Banks has raised the issue of regulation versus innovations in financial institutions across the world. The immense financial leverage, excessive and bottomless greed amognst the money managers of the financial markets are among the most important causes of the present global economic meltdown and subsequest recession.

According to one estimate, the financial leverage which hovered around 108% of the Global GDP in 1980s, swelled and balloned upto 600% in 2007-08. The global GDP in 2008 is estimated to be around 54 Trillion dollars, it means that the financial markets inflated this ammount to about 32400 trillion dollars. What a greed and what an illusionary state of affairs in the financial markets!

Anyway, the catastrophe in the financial markets has spread like contageion and the subsequent infections are taking tolls in sectors other than the financial market.The world is facing a situation which is even worse than that of 1930s, the first depression the world experienced. Jobs are being cut and rate of unemployement is soaring.The most robust economy of the world is begging money from China, the asian dragon. The financial ailment is menifesting in social and political spheres in forms of suicides, pychiac problems, social tensions, strikes and processions.

All these unrests have compelled the govt as well as civil society to recommend to and prescribe for certain restrictions and regulations in the financial sectors in particular and other sectors in general. The financial sectors especially Banking sectors and stock markets are averse to these regulations. They advocate against any regulation because, they say that it is against the principle of free market economy. They argue that regulations would stifle and nip the pace of innovations.

The questions which obviously everyone would like to ask that all innovations so far made, have they come from these instituions? Have these institutions been architect of any such innovation in the past? If it is true then they have a valid point in favour of their arguments. But the facts available with the financial history says that a very few or negligible number of innovations have come from these institutions. Conversely these institutions have prescribed for complications only. They do mame innovation, but not for the shake of common people or for the betterment of the nation as a whole, but for making money, fudging balance sheets as they have done it Satyam, enhancing the price of shares and above all for the overall interests of big corporate houses. The fat documents which one common investor has to sign before investing a penny in the stock market is beyond the understanding of even a savvy investor. The jargon of words printed in tinny alphabets which cannot be read without a magnifying glasses is certainly not an innovation, these institutions are talking about.

Moreover, there is no synchronisation whatsoever between manufacturing sector and financial sector. The amount of money involved in speculatory markets are much more higher than the real value of the manufactured goods at a given point of time. This over stretching of financial markets have been going on for years. This resulted in extremely inflated balloning of financial transactions. In fact it reached to a point of burst, because it was bound to burst as it happened in case of America or other parts of europe. We call it 'housing bubble.'

On the other hand the innovations per se have mostly or perhaps invariably come from government institutions rather than private commercial or investment banks. In India for instance, the new economic policy of 1990s propounded by Narsingh Rao govt with Manmohan Singh as finance minister had been architect of financial reforms. This came from govt not from private institutions. Infact the private commercial and investment banks in India and around the world also always innovate for their own monetary interests and not for private individuals.

In America, Eugene Fama's 'efficient market hypothesis'which later became the basis of less regulations in financial markets did not belong to any commercial or investment bank, rather Fama belonged to academia. Thus the very logic of these institutions that the regulation would stifle the pace of innovation sounds hollow and is without any merit.

The time has come that we should strive for framing rules that protect the interests of the common investors in general and poor citizen in general. After all the govt can not be allowed to be minimised to a titular authority and a hopeless and silent spectator. The manner in which AIG has spent the hard earned money of tax payers which it received as bailout package from the federal govt, has revealed the urgency of some statute which can prohibit such reckless, shameful and irresponsible actions on part of such financial institutions. Even after Obama's clearcut instructions and warnings with regard to bonus being paid by company which has received money from govt, AIG in an outright desregard spent or better call it misused the money on the executives at whose fault the catastrophe occurred. Thanks to Obama who lost no time and framed a law which would levy 90% tax on bonus given in the company which has received money by govt to bail them out.

Few months back, Man Mohan Singh made similar requests from the Corporate houses to trim the fat salaries being paid to executives, but it was laughed at by many CEOs saying that grams can attract only monkeys. Such nouns are utter disregard to our constitution and authority of the land. We too require such laws, after all how can we allow oasis to develope in the deserts. 600 millions have no electricity, similar number live in BPL, 700 million can not spend more than 12 Rs/ a day on them. These facts and figure are not only the statistics of economists but are the hardcore and harsh realities of our nation.

BIHAR TO HAVE RULE FOR KHAS MAHAL LAND AT LAST

GOLGHAR;THE VESTIGE OF LOST GLORY

The state govt has finally decided to frame Khas Mahal bylaws for managing about 7,000 Hectares of Khas Mahal land which spread over 38 districts of the state. Draft of this bylaw is already in its final stage and is likely to get cabinet’s nod within a couple of days from now.

Till date there is no law or rule with respect to Khas Mahal land in this state and it is being regulated by collection of circulars and adhoc procedures called Bihar Government Estates(Khas Mahal) manual.

Khas Mahal are those lands which were vested into the State after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and came directly under the management of the state govt.

All such lands are situated in towns and are very costly. The present manual is slanted towards lease holders and most of the land are held by the lease holders at a throw away price. The renewal process is so simple that even if the lease not renewed, the govt cannot claim the land. At present most of such lands are located in districts like Munger, west champaran, Patna, Bihar sharif, Sasaram and Arrah and are either encroached or have been transferred to different persons for which govt did not get any revenue whatsoever.

If the said Bylaw is approved by the cabinet, the govt will be in a position to reclaim majority of such land and lease out to other persons at market value. This would enable govt to use such land for commercial and other govt purposes also.

On the other hand some people are apprehensive about the real motive of the government. It is pertinent to mention here that most of the Khas Mahal lands are either under illegal possession of influential persons of political or bureaucratic circle.

If the provisions are not implemented in letter and spirit, the Khas Mahal land may discriminately leased out to the people who are close to the political establishement.