The hegemony of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) has never seemed as complete as it does today.

Evolving Role of IAS officers in India

• Colonial System: Under the British Raj, a dedicated economic management pool existed within the Indian Civil Service (ICS). This ensured that key economic ministries were led by officers with specialized knowledge.
  • Prominent administrators like S Bhoothalingam and LK Jha emerged from this system.
• Reclaiming Key Positions: The IAS has reasserted control over SEBI after a short-lived tenure of a non-IAS chief. The RBI governorship, which briefly saw an economist at the helm, returned to IAS leadership in 2018. 
  • The official who reclaimed the RBI post now holds a key position in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
• Exclusion of Experts: Unlike in Indira Gandhi’s era, when experts like PN Dhar were included in policy decisions, today’s governance structure excludes non-IAS professionals from leadership roles.
  • The devaluation of expertise means that important policy roles are now monopolized by career bureaucrats, rather than specialists with domain knowledge.

Challenges in Governance Due to IAS Hegemony

• Lack of Specialization: IAS officers are frequently transferred, preventing them from developing deep expertise in any particular field.
• Tenure System: Short tenures further weaken institutional knowledge, leading to ad hoc decision-making.
• Over-Reliance : In several ministries, consultants perform key policy tasks, often exceeding the domain knowledge of IAS officers. Tasks such as:
  • Drafting replies to parliamentary questions.
  • Ghostwriting articles for senior officials.
  • Managing policy frameworks and reforms.
• Insecurity: These consultants, despite their expertise, remain in insecure positions and must navigate bureaucratic politics to keep their roles.
• Inconsistent Policy: Frequent transfers and lack of expertise result in poorly scrutinized policy decisions that are often revised after implementation. Citizens and businesses suffer due to unpredictable and inconsistent government policies.
• Dominance of Generalists: In 1998, former civil servant Prabhu Ghate criticized the generalist nature of the IAS, arguing that it hindered policy analysis.
  • Ghate noted that India is one of the few large economies where generalist officers monopolize policy-making, rather than experts.

Way Forward

• Call for Reforms: In 1984, LK Jha proposed reviving this system to improve economic administration
• IAS-F (Field Division): This division focuses on administration, law enforcement, and grassroots governance. 
  • Officers in this cadre specialize in on-ground implementation and state administration, ensuring efficient public service delivery and law enforcement.
• IAS-P (Policy Analysis Division): A specialized cadre dedicated to policy research, economic planning, and regulatory roles. 
  • Entry norms should be liberalized to attract professionals from academia and the private sector.
  • IAS-P officers should be encouraged to work outside the government to gain real-world experience, and external work experience should be valued positively during performance appraisals.
• Crossovers from IAS-F: To prevent the IAS-P from becoming an exclusive bureaucratic elite, Officers with field experience should be allowed to shift to policy roles after undergoing specialized training.
• Inclusion of other central services: Officers from the Indian Economic Service (IES) and Indian Statistical Service (ISS) should be integrated into IAS-P, bringing technical expertise in economic policy-making.
• Performance-based evaluations: Promotions and rewards should be linked to policy innovations, rather than just seniority-based career progression.

Conclusion

Without such reforms, the bureaucracy will remain rigid and resistant to expertise, failing to meet the evolving demands of policy-making in a dynamic global economy.

DOWNLOAD PDF