The Sunday Guardian had carried an article titled “PM Modi has entrusted reform to IAS, IPS, IFS” by M.D. Nalapat in December last year. The thrust of the article was that many in the various administrative services of India have their own agenda, and they, therefore, do not feel obliged to undertake the various programmes initiated by the present government since May 2014. Prof Nalapat says in the article: “The guiding principle of the IAS Plus must change from the belief that control by them of all key sectors of national endeavour is essential for the future of India.” Thus, a government that comes with a promise to make drastic changes from the past paradigm will not be able to implement their programmes if members of IAS Plus do not agree with them. In effect, they are the true rulers of the country, and not the democratically elected regime.

In any system, there has to be checks and balances. Thus, if a political regime wants to do things that are against the Constitution or against the standard moral principles, the IAS Plus has to resist the implementation of such programmes. But, is the present regime, elected with due majority in Lok Sabha, doing things that are against the Constitution or against the interest of the people? I think the answer is a clear no. If any in the IAS Plus tries to put spokes in the implementation of the programmes, they are actually being dishonest to the people of India whose taxes provide them sustenance.

However, there is enough evidence to prove that at least some of the members of IAS Plus have been pliable in the past, giving a lie to their claim of being a genuine guardian of the resources that belong to the people at large. A prime example in the previous regime was the manner in which the gold import scheme was pushed through by the then finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, belonging to the Indian National Congress (INC) led by Sonia Gandhi. This scheme enabled Nirav Modi to swindle large sums of money from banks in India—money that belongs to the people of India through the deposits they keep in the banks. A telling disclosure by the present Law and Justice minister is:

TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) tweeted at 4:14 PM on Wed, Mar 07, 2018:

P Chidambaram signed this 80:20 scheme on 15th May 2014. Did he ask the Election Commission? The file was cleared by 9 desks in just one day. It was on the same day (15th May 2014) that the file was sent to the RBI: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad

(https://twitter.com/TimesNow/status/971335651558875136?s=03)

The voting for the elections for the Lok Sabha had concluded on 12 May 2014, and the counting was to be held on the 16th. There was a high degree of probability that the Congress would not continue to be in the government. Furthermore, the code set out by the Election Commission of India is that once the dates of the elections were announced, which was sometime in early March 2014, no policy decisions are to be taken till the new government is sworn in. This code is very well known to the bureaucracy. Thus, the very fact that some members of the IAS participated in making a change in the policy clearly shows that they had no wish to conform to the rules of governance.

All over the world, bureaucracy is a slow moving machine, and India is no exception. Hence, for nine different people to clear a policy decision in one day is something unheard of. Can it really be believed that this act was done without any monetary consideration being offered to these nine people, leave alone the politicians?

The present system of governance is partly an inheritance of the British colonial system. Post-independence, the IAS, along with the assistance of many “intellectuals” with a strong Left ideology, “refined” it further. As Jaswant Singh said in his budget speech of 2003, the system was designed to be “suspicion-ridden, harassment generating, coercion-inclined regime”. What evolved is an administration that was not completely unaccountable, even as they were paid salaries (along with perks) that enabled them to lead a most comfortable lifestyle.

Nearly all the policies and programmes that have been implemented had a strong influence of the bureaucracy and the “intellectuals”. Thus, the basis of the five-year plans started in the Nehru era was set out by Prof P.C. Mahanalobis. Manmohan Singh was a career bureaucrat before he became the finance minister in the Narasimha government. When he was the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Rajiv Gandhi had said that the members of the Commission were jokers, since they had fossilised ideas and did not understand the changes that were taking place in India.

It is the responsibility of the members of the IAS Plus to not just be sensitive to the people, but also work out programmes that benefit them. Thus, if someone makes a suggestion for the latter, they need to ensure that the programmes are implemented in the true spirit. While he was the chief minister of Gujarat, he set out to motivate the bureaucracy in a positive way. He was largely successful. He tried the same method when he became the prime minister, and tried to make a few administrative changes, even of those bureaucrats like the nine who signed on to the gold imports scheme. However, if instead of appreciating Modi’s approach, the IAS behaves in the same manner as the colonial bureaucracy and continues their methods, this needs to change.

It is time to call out those members of the IAS Plus who have clearly shown that they do not have loyalty to the principles of civil service while recognising and rewarding those who have been faithful to values.

(Arvind Singh writes on current affairs and is working on a book on Sardar Patel.)