To All

Abolish IAS,educate the politicians

From Daily News and Analysis

For a country accustomed to gloating about GDP growth figures and taking these as
a measure of achievement,here is a sobering advice from NR Narayanamurthy,founder of
Infosys Technologies,India's second largest infotech firm.Stop focussing exclusively on 8 or
8.5 percent growth:look at the sorry state of affairs on the government front.
Drawing a contrast between the success of the private sector and the decay and corruption in
the government,he said''In areas where public governance is involved,we have hardly made
any progress''

Murthy said the politicians and bureaucrats are trapped in a colonial mindset.''They feel they
are the masters and there is no need to show fairness and transparency'' he said.
The Infosys founder,who is seen as an idealist by many owns less than 5 percent of the total
shares of the company which is admired the world over for its high corporate governance
standards and transparency.He will step down as chairman of the companyin about 10 months
time from now.While admitting to some exceptions,he noted that many of the leaders and
bureaucrats in India were completely out of touch with the dynamics of the current
world.''Once I was with a senior bureaucrat discussing how badly our high school students
had performed in an international competition and he said 'we must stop participating in such
competitions' '' he said.

The outdated mentality of the political class,he said is accentuated by an equally apathetic
population which has almost accepted corruption and inefficiency,he said.''For over 1,000
years the government belonged to someone sitting either 2,000 miles or 4,000 miles
away.There is no sense of societal ownership'' he said ,adding''the penalty[for corruption'] is
minimal.as a result there is no fear of repurcussions and there is no accountability''

Murth's cure,besides tougher punishment,is to abolish the system of generalised

administrators under the Indian Administrative Service[IAS] and replace it with specialists
under a new Indian Management Service.The new breed of government servants would have
specialised knowledge to manage projects in a particular area,such as transportation,health
etc.Their salaries must also be increased to near private sector levels,while making 60 percent
of their remuneration variable according to how well they are able to implement projects.''If
we had kept track of activities using a project management software,we would not be where
we are'' he said commenting on the delays in setting up the Commonwealth Games
infrastructure.Murthy ,however refused to encourage speculation that he would join public
life.

''I am too old.Besides there is already someone from Infosys'' he said,referring to Nandan
Nilekani,the former CEO of the company currently heading the Unique ID Authority of India
project.

Mr.Narayana Murthy had described about the IAS correctly.

They (The IAS) are more concerned about form than content, about procedure than purpose.
I fully agree with this view. In my day to day interaction I keep hearing these words and
advices from my superiors "This is not according to rules. What would happen if you are
charge sheeted? Or if a hostile government comes to power who will protect you?"

These officers forget public interest very conveniently. Primarily the IAS is meant for
ensuring public interest in administration. When something is done in public interest, no one
can do anything against an IAS officer. The IAS is one of the most protected services in the
country. One has to go through the Indian Constitution to understand the level of protection
enjoyed by this service. Though everyone of these officers knows the level of protection
given to the IAS officers, many of them conveniently take a negative view only to shake off
their responsibility.

This sorry state of affairs continues till today because of a faulty promotion system. The
Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are written mostly on personal likes and dislikes basis
rather than on merit basis. All the pro active officers invariably get negative ACR remarks.
These officers are forced to fight their own battle to get a fair rating. On the other hand an
officer who does nothing for the public can continue to get "Outstanding" ACR if he is able
to forge a good relationship with his superior. Caste also has a major role in it. Public interest
is the last priority in the IAS officer's ACR format. With the present system in operation,
there is no guarantee for a successful bureaucrat to reach Government of India. Some one
who does extremely good work in the public area may not reach the Government of India at
all as he may have certain negative remarks in the ACR. And these negative remarks might
have been given by an officer who may be corrupt or inefficient or both. That is the pity of
the system.

Fortunately, the system still has safeguards against these tendencies as the reviewing
authority usually expunges such negative remarks. But then justice is still not there as these
officers get only Good or Very Good rating whereas they are eligible to get only Outstanding
rating.

I have been watching for the past 5-6 years that only the most inefficient get the best of
postings. Such people have extremely longer tenure in such posts. Whereas a proactive
officer who looks at public interest as the first priority does not get such postings easily. Even
if such officer gets such postings he/she stays there only for a short while.

So, the lesson we have all learnt is that in Government service do not show much interest in
public service. First look at what the superiors want and what the politicians want. If they all
concur then look at public interest or public service (How is it?).

Only people who strongly believe in "status quo" alone can survive the system successfully.
These people can easily climb up the ladder, get the minimum 5 Outstanding ACRs and reach
the Government of India.
No doubt that we have people in Government of India who look at only the rules and not the
end. You may still have the odd men in Govt of India who may look at the end and not just
the rules. If you come across someone like that then you are very lucky. (Mr.Vittal is a good
example for the pro-active officers)

This situation cannot continue for long. It is heartening to see the views of Mr.Narayana
Murthy. More such top ranking people should speak out so that the Indians could get
the better out of the Civil Servants.

The IAS isn’t the problem; the real villain is klepto-capitalism

R Jagannathan

Infosys Technologies’ chairman and chief mentor NR Narayana Murthy has the ability to say
it like it is. A year before he hangs up his boots, Murthy has cut loose on our unspeakable
netas and babus, accusing them of a fundamental lack of ethical behaviour — though in not
so many words.

Our netas, he said, saw no need for transparency and behaved like masters. Our IAS babus
were no better. Their general administrative skills and colonial mindset were largely
unrelated to the needs of the day. As for governance, there’s no such thing, and accountability
is largely absent in the system. His solution: abolish the IAS and set up an Indian
Management Service manned by specialists who were paid market-clearing wages.

Murthy is only half-right. He has diagnosed the symptoms, and said little about the
underlying disease. The IAS as such is not the problem. The question is: why does the IAS
cadre behave like it does? Why does it treat its customers (citizens) like chattel? Why do their
bosses (the babus) focus more on accumulating wealth than on delivering governance? The
answer lies with us. Murthy himself excoriated citizens for apathy, which allowed corruption
to flourish and criminals to go unpunished.

Article continues below the advertisement...

To understand the malaise at its roots, we need to start with our flawed democratic system.
The cost of winning elections creates
a huge demand for unaccounted cash to bribe the voter with. This is why no honest person
can hope to get into politics. Even the not-so-dishonest politician needs lots of moolah to win
the next election. This can only come from corruption.

The system is built around this fundamental flaw. This brings us to the next big stakeholder
in corruption: business. Since businessmen cannot afford an unstable policy environment,
they have a stake in funding sleazy politicians. Businessmen running competitive enterprises
cannot afford to divert huge sums of money to bribery and skullduggery — unless there is
another source for it.

This is one reason why they get into rent-seeking behaviour. In order to generate volumes of
cash without business risk, they seek opportunities to make money out of scarcity. In the past
this was done by manipulating the licence-permit raj.

In the post-liberalisation era, the focus has shifted to land (“they ain’t making any more of it
no more”) and spectrum (again, a limited resource).

Ever wonder why no one can afford a decent home in Mumbai or in any of India’s big cities?
Politicians and businessmen have ganged up on you to bottle up available land and make
money for themselves. Land is released by netas and babus in driblets, so that prices can be
raised forever, and slush funds generated.

Former World Bank chief economist Raghuram Rajan makes the same point in his latest
book Fault Lines. He told DNA in an interview: “The predominant sources of mega wealth in
India today are not the software billionaires who have made money the hard way by being
competitive in a global economy. It is the guys who have access to natural resources or to
land or to particular infrastructure permits or licences. In other words, proximity to the
government seems to be a big source of wealth.”

This is why when Murthy talks of lack of transparency, it is a mere description of the
problem, not its underlying cause. If the neta, the babu and the lala (the rentier class of
businessmen) are hand-in-glove to make a pile for themselves by generating scarcity, why
would any of them want to be transparent?

The neta-babu-lala combine is replacing genuine, participative democracy with a narrow

kleptocracy laced with populism. To bring in the vote, the politician prefers the grand feudal
gesture (doles for the poor) to genuine empowerment and reform; the businessman prefers
land-grab (klepto-capitalism) to building a genuinely profitable business model through hard
work; and the bureaucrat prefers to block change rather than facilitate it since he has more to
gain personally from it.

The only way to weaken the nexus is by making democracy cheaper and election funding
transparent. This may not eliminate corruption altogether, but would take away the main
reason for it. Elections can be made cheaper by state funding of political parties and tax-free
contributions, but we also need to use technology better.

If, for example, we create a countrywide broadband network that can reach every village, no
neta will need to hire hundreds of jeeps and helicopters to reach his message to voters. He can
do it from anywhere. He can communicate directly with his voters — just as his rivals can.
Voters, armed with Nandan Nilekani’s unique ID, will even be able to vote over the internet.
The only way to stymie a corrupt kleptocracy is to make democracy less expensive