Why in the News?

The recent government initiatives, such as “Mission Karmayogi,” aimed at enhancing the capacity of civil servants, underscores the ongoing dialogue about reforming India’s “steel frame” of governance.

What is the current state of India’s bureaucratic structure?

India’s bureaucratic structure, particularly the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), often referred to as the “steel frame” of Indian governance, has historically been crucial in administration but is now struggling with several issues:

• Politicization: Frequent transfers and promotions based on political loyalty rather than merit have undermined the professionalism and morale of IAS officers. 
  • This politicization hampers the development of domain expertise, as officers are rotated across various departments without sufficient time to specialise in any particular area.
• Corruption and Inefficiency: India ranks moderately on the World Bank’s government effectiveness index, indicating persistent corruption and inefficiencies in policy implementation. 
• Centralized Governance: The current governance model under the Prime Minister has led to increased centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). 

How do proposed reforms impact the independence and specialization of civil servants?

The proposed reforms aim to modernize India’s bureaucracy by enhancing independence, accountability, and specialization among civil servants.  

• Lateral Entry Initiatives: The government has introduced lateral entry into senior bureaucratic positions to bring in domain experts from outside the traditional IAS framework.  
• Performance-Based Promotions: Recommendations from various administrative reform commissions (Second ARC, set up in 2005) suggest linking promotions to measurable performance rather than seniority. 
  • This shift could enhance accountability but may also meet resistance from entrenched interests within the IAS.
• Protection Against Arbitrary Transfers: Proposals such as the Civil Services Standards, Performance, and Accountability Bill aim to protect bureaucrats from politically motivated transfers. 
  • Implementing such measures could bolster the autonomy of civil servants.

What risks are associated with centralizing decision-making in the bureaucracy?

• Reduced Autonomy: Centralization can diminish the independence of senior bureaucrats, making them more susceptible to political pressures. 
  • This undermines their ability to act as effective policy executors and can lead to a culture of compliance rather than innovation.
• Bottlenecks in Implementation: A centralized approach may create bottlenecks in policy implementation, as decision-making becomes concentrated at the top. 
  • This can slow down responses to emerging challenges and reduce the overall efficiency of governance.
• Neglect of Bureaucratic Expertise: By sidelining bureaucratic insights in favor of top-down directives, there is a risk that valuable expertise within the civil service goes unutilized. This could hinder effective policymaking and lead to poor outcomes in governance.

Way forward: 

• Empower Decentralized Governance: Strengthen local and state-level administrative autonomy to reduce over-reliance on centralized decision-making, enabling more responsive and effective governance.
• Implement Performance-Based Reforms: Institutionalize meritocratic measures such as performance-linked promotions, lateral entry, and protection against arbitrary transfers to foster accountability, specialization, and independence among civil servants.
• Efficient bureaucracy: India can draw valuable lessons from the proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative to make a more efficient bureaucracy in India.
  • DOGE is a proposed initiative introduced by USA President which aims to streamline federal bureaucracy.

Mains PYQ:

Q Has the Cadre-based Civil Services Organization been the cause of slow in India? Critically examine. (UPSC IAS/2014)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now