Silently
yet determinedly in the last two years, the shape of the steel frame has been
getting moulded at the Government of India level. ‘How Bharatiya has been the
Indian Bureaucracy,’ ever since the Modi government was formed.
My
initial feeling was that the changes brought about are at best piece-meal. It
persisted until I got first-hand taste of the silent yet titanic change a few
days back when I saw the empanelment list for Additional Secretary of my batch
officers in IAS. I was taken aback to know that out of about 102 officers of
1988 IAS batch, only about 40 figured in the said list. My surprise was over
the radical weeding out of more than half of them. It was a radical shift from
the past where about 90 percent of those who joined early could easily aspire
to retire as Secretary to the Government of India. Not any more.
Changes
unleashed at the top level bureaucracy, when the new regime took over at the
Centre, were at a small level of ensuring office punctuality irrespective of
rank, which graduated to keeping track of frequenting IAS officers to golf
clubs in Delhi, to posting non-IAS officers to assignments held traditionally
by IAS officers, to weed out the rotten eggs through the traditional mechanism
of compulsory retirement in good numbers, and it climaxed at unheard
performance based mid-term transfers at the level of Joint Secretaries. All
these new changes were at best piece-meal, because they did not attempt to
alter the fundamental character of Indian bureaucracy. As a result, I heard how
reluctant were officers increasingly becoming in joining the government of
India. They felt the changes will not affect those who stay back in states.
But
the radical-most of all is what started two years back, and it affected each,
irrespective of one’s placement in state or the Centre. The Government of India
made a move to shortlist names of IAS officers for senior most empanelment
based on what is known today as the 360-Degree Review. It is an out of box
appraisal system to select, promote and even punish officials. It has changed
the rules played hitherto in that each officer’s suitability to hold the
senior-most post is judged not only by what his immediate seniors hold for
him/her. He/she is judged today by what the juniors, peer group, or even social
circles think of him/her besides his immediate superiors. This essentially
reduces the reliance on annual confidential reports as the key basis for
short-listing and empanelment. This, in turn, has a significant bearing on the
final selection of a bureaucrat to a top job.
The
striking fact about the radical most shift is that its mechanism is the least
revealed to even those who are part of the system. Surprisingly, the names of
three retired secretary–level officers is a tightly guarded state secret, not
known to an ordinary senior officer.
As a
result, over the past three years, this new system has slowly unhinged certain
basic assumptions in a bureaucrat's zone of maneuverability-like lobbying the
minister concerned for a job in his department, or even other top bureaucrats.
This
is not to say that any of these methods has turned obsolete. But their
effectiveness, or ‘rate of return’, has sharply dropped. While some of it has
to do with the erosion of coalition era multiple power centres, the simple fact
is that new rules have replaced old rules. It is feared that grounds are
prepared that in few years from now, more than half of the Secretary's level
post in the Government of India will be held by private sector experts.
360-Degree System
It’s
said that so devoted is the prime minister to the 360-degree system that he
doesn't even want himself to be exempted. He has reportedly chosen to drop
names forwarded from his office if they don't pass the 360-degree test.
Three
questions arise: What is this review? How is it done? And why is it so
important to GoI?
A way
had to be found to counter a decade of Congress rule in which the bureaucracy
held sway, allowing for long-lasting loyalties to be cultivated across services
and beyond retirement barriers. For new equations to be built, old ones had to
be disrupted.
But
how? After all, lines and rows of batches-cum-cadres seemed well sorted with a
string of ‘outstanding’ reports and recommendations. There was no way that they
would fail the existing evaluation and selection system, unless there was
outright political high-handedness, which would have invited avoidable
bureaucratic opprobrium.
Then
there was the mandate against corruption. This provided the perfect setting for
a systemic overhaul by a newly elected political leadership. This is also the
reason why GoI could carry out more senior bureaucratic reshuffles than usual
in the past three years.
It was
in this context that the 360-degree system was put in place. What does it mean?
Quite literally, like in many corporates, it amounts to conducting a holistic
evaluation across talent, skills, social and personal parameters instead of
simply looking at filework. In bureaucracy, this meant don’t go by confidential
reports alone. GoI’s highest echelons were convinced that this system had been
rigged, and that many officers were not making it to the shortlist because they
had one ‘outstanding’ less than the other. Few important calls were made.
One,
all eligible candidates, regardless of their average performance on their
appraisals, will be considered for this assessment. Two, the minister’s
recommendation of the post being filled will not override the outcome of the
360-degree process. And three, integrity will also be assessed by way of
reputation, not just by a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) clearance.
A Tightly Held Secret
So how
is the process conducted? The exercise is a tightly held secret conducted by
three retired secretary-level officials. They have been appointed for a
two-year period, subject to health considerations, and their identities are
supposed to be classified.
This
group is expected to work pretty much independently, sharing all the cadres
among the three, collecting information from myriad sources in an unsuspecting,
unassuming manner, figuring out the general reputation of the officer among
subordinate staff, paint an overall perception picture on integrity, besides
making any other relevant observations. At the same time this group wouldn't be
made aware of the job an officer is being considered for. Now, whom they talk
to, and whose views count is still more or less a grey area. But what we know
is that this report is placed before a panel headed by the Cabinet secretary in
case of secretary-level appointments, and the establishment officer, who heads
the panel for joint secretaries. Both panels have PMO representations.
All
other inputs, including intelligence reports and ministerial recommendations,
are on the table. But the contents and conclusion of this report have a
definitive bearing. The recommendation of this panel is largely final. In other
words, the measure of perception and reputation has come to matter more,
regardless of what appraisal reports say. And while that may give a second
chance to many who have lost out in their careers for the wrong reasons, the
system has also introduced new variables, including subjective elements, that
have drastically altered the field of play.
This bold article on Indian
Bureaucracy is by Uday Sahay, A
former IPS officer
No comments:
Post a Comment