By
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
Former Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his address to the National Development Council meeting held on February 19, 1999 said: “people often perceive the bureaucracy an agent of exploitation rather than a provider of service. Corruption has become a low risk and high reward activity. Frequent and arbitrary transfers combined with limited effect, are harming the work ethic and lowering the morale of the honest officers. While expecting discipline and diligence from the administration, the political executive should self critically review its own performance. Unless we do this, we may not regain credibility in the eyes of the people who have elected us to serve them.”
The approach paper to the 10th five-year Plan published by the Planning Commission mention that the government faces three critical challenges in the area of civil service reform. It goes on to elaborate; “[the government] may enhance the productivity of the civil service and make certain each employee is performing socially relevant tasks. It must ensure the long term affordability of the civil service, and it must enforce procedures for rewarding and promoting merit, discipline mal function and misconduct, to strengthen accountable and performance quality.” While the above lines paraphrase the direction for the future, it is appropriate now to briefly review the state of progress of administrative reforms in India since Independence.
India since independence, has, set up more than forty five committees and commissions to strengthen its administrative capabilities, some of them being not readily available today for any required reference. Among those forty five and odd, there were committees, which made large number of recommendations but only a few are of a nodal nature, they being of critical significance and thus capable of producing multiplier effect. The ultimate fate of the administrative reform recommendations-the success in this respect-has been only partial, the principal reason for this being weak follow up action and absence of watch dog organizations in the civil society.
The year 1858 was a landmark in India’s public administration as the political power was legally transferred to the British Crown from the hands of the East India Company. The first task of the new rule was, to appoint, Ricketts to examine the then prevalent administrative system of India. Ricketts report, called “Report on Civil Establishments and Salaries” was submitted to the government in 1866.
India after gaining independence in the year 1947 should have followed the same path. However, in July that year, the “Secretariat Reorganization Committee” was appointed and it functioned like an Officers’ Shortage Committee. It warned the government not to take up new activities until additional personnel became available. The Committee also recommended for change of the then existing method of business of the government involving multiplicity of officers.
But, before independence, “Tottenham Report on the Reorganization of Central Government of 1946” supported a sleek and streamlined secretariat. He was against the post of deputy secretary and recommended waiving of the tenure system of staffing after fifteen or twenty year’s of service. In 1948, the Government had set up, the “Economy committee” to review the increase in the civil expenditure of the central government since 1938-39 and to make recommendations for the promotion of true economy in the administration by the elimination of unnecessary, wasteful or extravagant expenditure. A prominent industrialist, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, headed this committee and had members drawn from the legislature, the business and the bureaucracy. The committee’s report submitted in 1949 supported abolition of the post of Additional Secretary in the government and the Joint Secretary should be the head of a block of activities in the department. Setting up of O&M Organization was also one of the important recommendations of that committee.
A year later, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a civil servant on organizational and procedural changes, in his “Report on Reorganization of the Government Machinery”, recommended for grouping of central governmental ministries into four bureaus: Bureau of Natural Resources and Agriculture; Bureau of Industry and Commerce; Bureau of Transport and Communications; and Bureau of Labor & Social Services. Ayyangar drew a distinction between the general framework of the machinery of the government and the internal structure of this machinery. His basic plan of reorganization comprised of four distinctive activities. They are: (a) the central secretariat was to be divided in to 37 primary units of organization consisting of 28 departments, 8 central administrative offices and Cabinet Secretariat. The 28 departments were to be accommodated in 20 ministries. (b) A department was to be identified with Secretary’s charge and a ministry was to be identified with minister’s charge. (c) A new grouping of ministries responsible for economic and social services was to be established under the name bureaux. (d) The cabinet organization was to be strengthened by establishing certain standing committees of cabinet on a permanent basis.
Ayyangar recommended for the setting up of an Organization and Methods (O&M) division, which was to be made responsible for continued maintenance of efficiency in the government officers and public services and methods of transaction of public business. It was to be located in the home department of the Ministry of Home affairs. Ayyangar was of the view that improvement of administrative organization and methods, needed to be supplemented by improvement of organization and methods of financial control. In pursuance of the Gopalaswami Ayyangar recommendations the government in May 1950 set up the Defense Committee, the Economic Committee, the Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Committee as well as the Administrative Organization Committee. The Administrative Organization Committee was set up on an ad-hoc basis.
The special position which Ayyangar sought to accord to the Cabinet Secretary was accepted by the government. He was to be regarded by the civil service as an adviser and conscience keeper in whom the civil servants would have great confidence. The government turned down the recommendation on the grouping of ministries into bureaux, which was the linchpin of the Gopalaswami Ayyangar report. In short, the major recommendations made by Ayyangar were rejected, as had been the usual fate of most reports on administrative reforms submitted in India.
In 1950, at the instance of Planning Commission A.D. Gorwala, a retired Civil Servant submitted two reports namely: Report on Public Administration and Report on the Efficient Conduct of State Enterprises. However, nothing specific could be achieved through these beyond focusing popular attention on administrative reforms. Among others, few important recommendations made by him were: (a) Creation of an O&M branch in the government and a board of two members to provide necessary drive and direction to administration. (b) Training besides aiming at precision and surety in the conduct of business and improvement of staff morale, encourage the civil servant to see his work in its widest context and to persevere his own educational development. It was to prepare him for higher work and greater responsibilities and attune his outlook and methods to the needs of changing times. The Government of India accepted Gorwala recommendations to set up an O&M branch in the government and allowed the rest of the report to lie in the shelf.
Another Civil Servant, R. A. Gopalaswami submitted in 1952, his one man committee report on the “Machinery of Government: Improvement of Efficiency”. It was treated as a ‘Confidential Document’! A milestone in the history of administrative reforms was in the form of two reports by Paul H Appleby an American expert on Public Administration submitted in 1953 and 1956. Among the twelve recommendations, he made, the two on the setting up of an O&M (Organization and Methods) organization in the central government and “Institute of Public Administration” were realized. Organization and Management of Public administration office to be directly under a minister of the Government of India and it should focus attention and study on proposals concerning the improvement of governmental structure and procedures. The Institute of Public Administration for India should serve as a nucleus of a professional journal, expansion of studies and development of literature towards advancement of administrative knowledge.
Appleby observed: “Even as it is, the structure of government diffuses responsibility. It retards action before the fact and insufficiently evaluates its course after the fact. ‘There are on the whole too much scrutiny and too many impediments to action before the fact and too little systematic review and scrutiny of action after the fact’. The structure of administration restricts and inhibits formal delegation. But there is more unconscious than conscious delegation. The view of the man at the bottom of hierarchy who writes the first note on a file is all-important in most instances. Imperfect and insufficient conscious delegation is an important factor in making the heavy overload that grievously burdens ministers and secretaries”. Appleby submitted his second report in 1956.
In 1954, Asoka Chanda submitted his report entitled “Notes on changes Necessary in system of Budgetary and Financial Control and in other Matters to eliminate delays in execution of projects” at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru. Ashok Chanda report was never discussed in the cabinet. Meanwhile proposals from a civil servant in the finance ministry lead to the creation of “Financial Advisors’ Institution” later.
In the same year 1954 standing machinery for administrative improvement was set up in the shape of the O&M division. In 1964 the O&M division was merged with the Department of Administrative Reforms. The O&M division was located in the Cabinet Secretariat so that it could function directly under the Prime Minister and thus secure better cooperation and collaboration from other ministries and departments in the central government as well as from the states.
In 1960, the Planning Commission asked V.T. Krishnamachari to study the questions relating to administrative personnel at different levels in the states and the issues arising from the introduction of democratic institutions at the district and block levels and make suggestions for improvements. The report was submitted in 1962 and by and large the government accepted all his recommendations. The important among them deal with the expansion of the Indian Administrative Service cadre to meet the needs of economic and social development and inclusion of courses in rural development at the Mussoorie Academy of Administration (now LBSNAA). The second part of his report dealt with one major problem of district administration namely, the effect of Panchayatiraj. It recommended for: (a) coordination of the elective and administrative elements (b) Coordination of the administrative and technical services and (c) progress of the cooperative movement and community development program in close cooperation with Panchayatiraj system.
The Department of Administrative Reforms was set up in March 1964 and was located in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It now operates on a wider area than before and seeks to effect improvement in administration on a large scale by shifting emphasis from mere economy and routine office procedures to administrative reforms in broader sense.
“Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption”, when published its report in 1964, focused popular and parliamentary attention. The committee examined the extent of corruption and came to the conclusion that corruption was not confined to the lower ranks of public service and the number of cases in which Gazetted Officers were involved was alarming. It recommended for setting up of an organization to be called “Central Vigilance Commission” armed with adequate powers. The committee recommended a code of conduct for ministers on par with the Chief Ministers of all states.
The Government appointed a high-power Administrative Reform Commission (ARC) in 1966, with Morarji Desai (Later to be Prime Minister of India) as its Chairman and on his becoming Deputy Prime Minister, K. Hanumanthaiya, took over from him. The Commission had submitted 20 reports making over 500 recommendations. The Government for processing those 500 and odd recommendations spent the period from 1970. The single most important recommendation submitted by the ARC is on personnel. The commission was determined to open the road to the top to every competent personnel. It envisaged entry in to the middle and senior management levels in the secretariat from all services. Its recommendation pertaining to holding of a mid-career competitive written examination for filling middle and senior level positions in the government was not agreed to by government. The ARC made a number of recommendations on Public Service Commissions and majority of them were turned down by government. On training the government accepted all the recommendations of ARC.
Under the leadership of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Government relied heavily on in-service training to strengthen the administrative capabilities of its public functionaries. ‘Administrative Reform through Training’ became the new concept. The country’s economy was sluggish and to respond to this the “L.K. Jha Economic Administrative Reforms Commission” was set up. The most notable contribution of this commission’s report was the recommendation envisaging a paradigm shift from regulation to development as the governmental emphasis.
In 1990 January with the announcement of New Economic Policy the reform process in administration entered a different phase. The new buzzwords downsizing, right sizing, privatization, contracting on etc., became popular.
The conference of Chief Ministers held on 24th May 1997 discussed an Action Plan for Effective and Responsive Government at the Central and State levels. The then Prime Minister I K Gujral presided over the deliberations. The conference recognized that, as the country completes 50 years of independence, and as the people are assailed by growing doubts about the accountability, effectiveness and moral standards of administration, Central and State Governments should move together to justify the trust of faith of the people in the Government by taking up the implementation of the Action Plan endorsed by the conference in a time bound manner. It was agreed that immediate corrective steps must be taken “to restore the faith of the people in the fairness, integrity and responsiveness of the administration”. The Prime Minister emphasised the urgent need to develop strategies for “Responsive and Effective Administration” to rebuild the credibility of the government. The Chief Ministers representing different political affiliations and Central Ministers attended the Conference and strongly endorsed the Action Plan.
The Prime Minister agreed to review the progress in the implementation of the Action Plan. This considered being a major step towards “Reform Initiative in Administration” in the country adopted a resolution welcoming the initiatives by the Prime Minister towards more effective and responsive administration and stated that these initiatives are important and timely. It was agreed that each state would work for the implementation of the Action Plan, making appropriate allowance for variation on local circumstances. Necessary political will to implement these, which is essential, would be sought. They agreed to review the progress.
The Conference resolved that the Central and State Government would work together to concretise the action plan dealing with the themes of [i] Accountability and Citizen Friendly Government [ii] Transparency and Right to Information and [iii] Improving the Performance and Integrity of the Public Service. Formulation of Citizens’ Charters for Departments and Offices; Facilities at various levels for the prompt and effective redress of public grievances; Simplification of existing laws, regulations and procedures; Strengthening peoples’ participation in government; Steps to provide the Right to Information; Cleansing of Civil Services at all levels were among other things as part of Action Plan.
There was considerable progress initially and a majority of state governments promptly responded in implementing the Action Plan. Formulation of Citizen Charters and establishment of Public Facilitation Centres were important among them. Though the Freedom of Information Bill was passed, the governments at the centre and states failed to formulate rules and regulations resulting in non-implementation of the Act. It was only after Manmohan Sing heading the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government became Prime Minister in 2004, the Right to Information Act could be passed and being effectively implemented.
Against this background on 31 August, 2005 the President of India set up a Commission of Inquiry to be called the “Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)” to prepare a detailed blueprint for revamping the public administration system under the Chairmanship of former Chief Minister of Karnataka Veerappa Moily. The Commission was asked to suggest measures to achieve a proactive, responsive, accountable, sustainable and efficient administration for the country at all levels of the government. The Commission was supposed to consider, Organisational structure of the Government of India; Ethics in governance; Refurbishing of Personnel Administration; Strengthening of Financial Management Systems; Steps to ensure effective administration at the State level; Steps to ensure effective District Administration; Local Self-Government/Panchayatiraj Institutions; Social Capital, Trust and Participative public service delivery; Citizen-centric administration; Promoting e-governance; Issues of Federal Polity; Crisis Management and Public Order.
Four areas have been taken up for study in the first phase. They were: Effective implementation of Right to Information Act, Crisis management, Public Order and Implementation of the National Rural employment Guarantee Scheme. The Commission submitted its detailed fifteen reports beginning with June 2006 on Right to Information- Master Key to Good Governance; Unlocking Human Capital-Entitlement and Governance-a Case study; Crisis Management; Ethics in Governance; Public Order; Local Governance; Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution; Combating Terrorism-Protecting by Righteousness; Social Capital-A shared Destiny; Refurbishing of Personnel Administration-Scaling New Heights; Promoting e-Governance-the smart way forward; Citizen Centric Administration; Organizational Structure of Government of India; Strengthening Financial management Systems and State and District Administration
The consideration and implementation of the recommendations are awaited. How many of them will see the light of the day is a million dollar question!
(Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao while working as Additional Director in Dr MCR HRD Institute of Andhra Pradesh-the Premier internationally recognised Training Centre for Public Servants including Indian Administrative Officers posted to the state- was a Member of the “Core Group” constituted by the Government of India. A Report was prepared by him on “Status of Administrative Reforms in Government” based on questionnaire cum survey of seventeen states and union territories (of India) in March 2002. The other member was from LBSN Academy of Administration, Mussoorie.
AND
Under the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) Project for strengthening of State Administrative training Institutes, Jwala developed a training module on “Reform Initiatives in Administration” for senior officers of state and central governments and conducted training and trainer training programs on the module. Government of India deputed Jwala for the “Indian Trainer Training Program” at Slough, Thames Valley University, United Kingdom in 2003).
For full text of "Reform Initiatives in Administration"-UNDP Module Please visit:
http://www.persmin.nic.in/otraining/UNDPProject/undp_modules/Reform%20Initiatives%20in%20Admn%20N%20DLM.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment