Nistula Hebbar: A new political bureaucracy

In democracies, two different government models are used to compare the multiple global variations. One is the US system of a committed bureaucracy, where bureaucrats are drawn from non-government services, and leave Washington with the change in guard. The other is the British system wherein the focus is more on continuing policies due to the entrenchment of systems rather than people.

For nearly 60 years, by virtue of India having been colonised by the UK and not the US, we've followed the second system. So, youngsters who join our administrative services get a similar training and are expected to serve the government of India and its people, regardless of who runs the government. While politicians are thrown out of power, bureaucrats merely retire to be replaced by yet another cog in the wheel. With fixed tenures, even the official retirement age of 60, holds no terrors of redundancy to the chosen three.

That's why the UPA government's decision to fix the Cabinet secretary's tenure at three years and the home and defence secretaries' respective tenures at two years, defies the logic of the system.

The government's main argument on this issue "" the continuity of governance and policy. This argument was first presented by the NDA government when Kamal Pande was made cabinet secretary for a fixed term, the first time that this happened. Several Congressmen protested the move then, only to repeat the same thing when the UPA government came to power.

Earlier, the bureaucracy was to remain politically neutral, objective and uphold the discretion of their office and the Indian government, whoever ran it. Above all, bureaucracy maintained a hierarchy that rewarded seniority. The new system of fixed tenures will end even the idea of such a bureaucracy. By fixing the Cabinet secretary's term at three years, the principles of hierarchy, rules and rewards are all being destroyed. The issue warns young aspirants that unless they attach themselves to the political masters in power, they'll be unable to reap the rewards of their profession. The hopes of holding the top available positions would also end for the next three batches of the IAS who follow a chosen cabinet secretary.

Those who defend the move opine that the bureaucracy offered continuity earlier, as most governments were Congress-led then. Changing political masters resulted in the politicisation of the bureaucracy in the 1990s.

Is the move to fixed tenures then an open acknowledgement of a hopelessly politically compromised bureaucracy? In this situation, India appears to be moving towards a system of a committed bureaucracy, where the head of government chooses his/her team from people who are not necessarily bureaucrats. But are we ready to cut loose from the iron frame completely?