Generalist Administration In India

The debate on Generalist versus Specialist in the administrative hierarchy of India has been on since the time of independence. We place the generalist IAS office above specialists in almost all departments and rare is the occasion when an outsider occupies a Secretary post in the Union and State governments and the promotion to the post of Joint Secretary is virtually assured to all in the IAS. This has lead to discontent among the specialists as, for example, the Indian Audit and Accounts Service is headed by the CAG who is an IAS officer, department made of IA&AS officers lead by an IAS officer. Complaints of civilian administrators not heeding the demands of the armed forces chief are common. The question has come up again in my mind due to an article in the Economic Times and the book 'The Honest Always Stand Alone' (by C.G.Somiah who joined IAS in the early 1950s and was the CAG from 1990 to 1996).

I have read about the disagreement artists, writers, social activists and intelligentsia have against banning of certain books and works of art. I have always thought artistic freedom should be absolutely uninhibited and only then will we have a free country. But while reading C.G.Somiah's book, I got a perspective of the other side that has to take the decision on whether to ban the book or not, when he narrated the banning of 'Satanic Verses' in India before it was even banned in Pakistan. To say that administrators are pandering to wishes of fundamentalists and pretentious religious sentiments would border on the blasphemous and be totally unfair to them. Artists, while trying to defend freedom of expression, do not realise that it is not their freedom that is being restricted by the government on behalf of narrow-minded sentiments nor are these sentiments attempting to attack this freedom. What happens is an attempt to defend a blind belief based on false and uninformed interpretation.

I would like to explain using an example. During the Anna Hazare strike in August 2011, there were several individuals who took part in processions and wore support badges for Anna Hazare. But very few of them had taken the effort to go through the Jan Lokpal Bill and the Bill introduced by the government in Parliament. These individuals were also mistaken in their understanding of the bill as they thought this would end everyday corruption that we as the common man experienced. They were also unaware of the severe deficiencies in the bill civil society had come up with. What this shows is that, individuals follow the herd, we accept popular opinion and this may or not be correct and this becomes the voice of the masses, which may or may not reasonable. (I do not attempt to tarnish the power and importance of mass opinion, but I am merely trying to show the dynamics of what happens and how)

Based on this understanding and acceptance, it becomes clear that the demands to ban books and other creative works do not stem always from a reasonable, informed and logical demand but a mass opinion. So the demand is not against artistic freedom but against hurt to their beliefs and we all know that in India and elsewhere in the world, religion is an emotional subject which can get out of control. In the interest of maintaining law and order and protecting society from such out of control interests, the government has had to act at times. Only administrators and government can take a whole view of the situation and come to a decision. Only a generalist can come to such a decision and that is why they are important to any administration as it deals with multitudes of divergent interests that can come into conflict with each other, which if not contained or settled at the earliest, can spread causing widespread chaos and uncertainty. The basic purpose of any administration is to maintain law and order in the country and it is merely fulfilling its duties while taking such decisions on sensitive issues.

Yet, I must add that such decisions must only be sparingly be used in situations like the one I mentioned. Frequently conceding to such demands would give the impression of a weak administration that has little authority over the country or state. It must be used only when situations can spread out of control over an area  beyond the capacity of our law enforcement agencies. Politically twisting such situations for petty gains are also common, as we saw when Salman Rushdie had to withdraw from Jaipur Literary Festival as a death threat was purported to have been issued against him by some religious factions. This was merely done to avoid a law and order issue, which although could be interpreted as a smart way to avert a crisis. It was the threat of violence that prohibited the screening of the movie 'Dam 999' in Tamil Nadu, whereas the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case related to prohibition of the screening of the movie 'Oru Gramathinte Katha' had said that possibility of law and order issues is not a valid reason for such bans. Such ad hoc measures would not do, the government must assert its authority over such issues and should be able to control law and order issues and not be held hostage by threats of violence, law and order and politics.

This is a justification as well as an explanation for the need for generalist administrators in our country. Administrators are in a position to take a neutral view of issues only because of their generalist specialisation and this is absolutely important in a country as diverse geographically, culturally and linguistically as ours. But there definitely is a need to overcome politics, vulnerabilities in enforcing the rule of law and authority over mob mentality and all the facts on the ground must be considered while taking a balanced decision which is what the IAS is meant to do and has been doing (albeit with a few exceptions and individual misfits) in its history.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/editorial/ias-officials-expertise-is-administration-not-finance-banking-technicalities/articleshow/15176674.cms - article in ET blasting IAS officers who are not specialists and the comments show a certain degree of animosity towards them from the public, albeit misinformed and unreasonable

Emotional Authority and Fraternity

The infant mortality rate is 47 in India, that is, 47 children out of 1000 die within 42 days of their birth. 212, the number of maternal deaths per lakh live births. 237 million or one fifth of the whole of India remain hungry, 29.8% or 36 crore Indians are classified officially as poor by the planning commission. 44%, proportion of children under five who are underweight in India and only 4 countries outside of Africa have figures worse than India. Global Hunger Index ranks India 67th out of 88 developing nations. I could go on and on with numbers and statistics, they never end as each day brings more than I can ever comprehend.

Under this flood of numbers, I am losing my sense of reality. Sufferings and situations become mere numbers, numbers to be analysed, quoted and used to make a point. The fact that these numbers correspond to individuals- each and every one of them with the same set of feelings and emotions as me, all of them with parents and perhaps brothers and sisters, all of them suffering in ways I can hardly imagine- is seldom registered. It simply cannot be comprehended since it is too huge and too frequent that my brain does not have the ability to see beyond the numbers.

This is what happens to everyone beyond a certain point, a numbness at first and perhaps indifference and then they merely stay as numbers. They become an end in itself, to change those numbers we can modify their measurements, throw in some money hoping that it will change and we merely chase results. Our intension change to merely changing the numbers without understanding what lies beneath- the pain and suffering is too deep to be ever realised.

When policies are made under such circumstances, by those with no understanding of the true meaning of those numbers, then their impact too will be limited. We can talk on and on about developing administrative mindset to be more people-friendly and people-oriented, we can build complex policies to wish away these numbers, there can be reforms in the structure of administration to take it to the grassroots and more responsive to the people's needs, but if they lack the commitment to eradicate the underlying cause of suffering- which can happen only if the policy makers have some humanity and kindness in them along with the ability to realise the extent of the pain and suffering- then these become merely an exercise in futility.


Max Weber's legal rational theory of Authority is the model of administration and government we follow- a set of rules that prescribe the relationship between those who rule, those who are ruled and the system that implements these rules. Initially it was merely about implementing rules and regulations and we have now reached development administration where it is about delivery of services and ensuring socio-economic development. In theory, these are given as objective goals to be achieved, but I find the lack of emotion quite disturbing.

The need to ensure political-social-economic development is not just to make it a fair deal so that everyone has a set of basic rights, access to health, safety, education and purchasing power. I believe what should drive us is an acceptance and understanding that when there is even one person left on this planet who is suffering, the entire human race cannot be free of that pain and suffering. It might be emotional, but then that is what we are, social and emotional beings which cannot be denied. If our siblings or parents are in pain, we too are affected and we try to relieve that pain. It must be the same with all human beings, see them as our own self and as part of our lives.

It is with such emotions that we need to work, one could say it lacks the objectivity needed to work without succumbing to weaknesses, for sympathy and fraternity is exactly what we need to better our world. I say it is better to understand the need, purpose and impact of our actions than to deal in cold, detached and indifferent observations, recommendations and proposals. Policies for development should be made and implemented with such feelings and understanding of its purpose, this will surely achieve results.

A humanistic attitude towards life, towards everything we do is all I am talking about. But then, it is too silly to expect it from everyone because if everyone thought like this, we would never have had to make rules and regulations in the first place. The answer to those who do not think of humanity as one family lies in those who believe in "Vasudhaiva Kudumbakam" and lives accordingly. The answer to all the problems of the world lie in us, in each of us becoming better individuals and enabling others to be the same too. It is naive and simple and so the practical way is to deal with the good, poor and nice people in the world in simple terms (or even naively) but use our brains and all its devious learnings while dealing with the devious.