Towards Good Governance-A Half Century of India's Admn Devt

This article was downloaded by: [University of Jammu] On: 03 January 2012, At: 00:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Public Administration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20
TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

R. B. Jain
a a
Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India
Available online: 16 Aug 2006
To cite this article: R. B. Jain (2001): TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT, International Journal of Public Administration, 24:12, 1299-1334 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-100105941
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
INTL. J. OF PUB. ADMIN., 24(12), 12991334 (2001)
TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012
R. B. Jain Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India
ABSTRACT Since independence, India has undertaken a number of efforts to establish an effective development-oriented, citizen-friendly and responsive system of administration to contribute toward good governance. While the traditional system of public administration was appropriate for the pre-independence period, subsequent social, economic and political changes necessitated radical changes in policies and their implementation. A set of new issues called for a thorough reorientation of the system of public administration. Administrative development had, therefore, to be planned and executed in the face of ever-growing conicts between various non-state actors=institutions and the state. The strategies for administrative development adopted not only included evolving appropriate politico-administrative institutions for democratic governance, but also a consistent effort on reorienting the formal and informal aspects as well as improving the
1299
Copyright # 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com
1300
JAIN
techno-professional skills of bureaucracy at all levels. In addition to this an appropriate balance and cooperation between the public and private sectors was essential in the context of growing liberalization and globalization.The experience of India emphatically demonstrates that an active and consociational association of citizens at all levels of the governmental structure is critical to the process of modernization of the state and administration. The dispersion of political and administrative power among various groups and regions emerges as a useful strategy for ensuring the continuity of the state and democracy in a vast country with numerous ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions.
INTRODUCTION When after Independence in 1947, India embarked on the experiment to constitute itself into a sovereign republic and modernize the state and its administration through the adoption of a parliamentary democracy, not many scholars and analysts in the world had believed that India will survive as a democratic nation negating John Stuart Mills contention that democracy is next to impossible in multi-ethnic societies and completely impossible in linguistically divided countries, as well as Robert Dahls belief that widespread poverty and illiteracy are anaethema to stable democracy a concept that is supposedly linked with the level of socioeconomic development.(1) However, these early forebodings and later predictions that the odds are almost wholly against the survival of freedom and . . . the issue is, in fact, whether any Indian state can survive at all(2) have not only been proven wrong, but Indias existence as a democratic state since the last 53 years of its Independence has compelled scholars to evolve a new consociational interpretation of the survival of democracy in deeply divided societies.(3) Over all these years, while evolving a consensual framework of a democratic government, the leadership in India has also from time to time attempted to devise strategies for good governance, which is associated with an efcient and effective development-oriented, citizen-friendly and responsive administration committed to improvement in quality of life of the people. This paper is concerned with a review and evaluation of the various efforts and strategies adopted in India for bringing out administrative development for good governance, and points out some further directions of reforms, which are immediately needed in public management system in order to meet the challenges of the advent of the 21st Century.
INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT
1301
COLONIAL LEGACY AND THE INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Inheritance At independence, India inherited from the British a monolithic, strictly hierarchical administrative structure, with the line of command running unimpeded from the Viceroy and Governor-General in Delhi to the farthest village, but with certain well established traditions.(4) The purpose of such a system was to keep the interest of the British power in India dominant, make sure that the government got the revenue it needed, and, in terms of peace and security, maintain law and order. The system of administration that had evolved in India during the 18th Century from the time of Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallisfrom imperial rule until independence had ve distinguishing features: a) the district as the basic unit of administration, and the ofce of the district collector as a prototype of a District-Maharajah the alter-ego of the vice-regal authority controlling, directing, and coordinating all administrative activities in his district; b) centralizationas the recognized principle of administration both territorially and functionally and centralization of decision-making in almost all policy areaspublic nance, legal and judicial systems, education, health and even public works; c) the steel-frame of administrationstrong institution of a single dominating civil service, with the Indian Civil Service (ICS) the elite generalist service, occupying the top position among other allied and subordinate services down the levels of central and provincial hierarchies; d) a system of elaborate rules and regulations designed by the British as a means of maintaining control over the decision-making power of their large number of Indian subordinates, who had varying levels of training, outlooks, and goals, and who were dispersed far from the administrative centers: and e) a system of Secretariat and Executive ofcesa split system prevailing at both the central and provincial levels, ostensibly separating questions of policy from those of administration.(5) Such a system of administration suited the British. This was the status quo regime. It maintained and preserved broadly the structure of society in India as it then existed, particularly the large proportion of rural society. It did not concern itself with any radical or specic socioeconomic changes. The impact of the administration on the large proportions of Indian citizens was minimal. Thus, when the time for transfer of power came in 1947, the administrative system was not appropriately prepared to handle the massive developmental and post-independence tasks.(6)
1302
JAIN
The Impact of Independence and the Constitutional Imperatives The period since independence has witnessed most changes in the administrative system. The attainment of independence brought in its wake momentous problems, simultaneously needing multiple revolutions: rst, the transition from a colonial system of government to a full-edged parliamentary democracy with a federal structure of government and commitment to a welfare state; second, the transformation of a semisubsistence economy into a modern industrial economy to solve the problems of poverty, unemployment, and want; third, a social revolution changing a caste ridden stratied society into a progressive community oriented to social justice; and fourth, a technological revolution to shine the light of modern science on the crusted traditional ways of a conservative people. The broad strategies adopted by the Indian leadership, to usher into a new era, were a) the political integration of the country; b) the framing of a new Republican Constitution; c) the adoption of adult franchise; d) a policy of rule of law and independence judiciary; e) a policy of a mixed economy and democratic socialism for agro-industrial growth; f ) a policy of equal opportunity and protective discrimination to further social justice; and g) a policy of nonalignment in foreign affairs. All these strategies have led, since then, to a number of veritable changes in the policy process and the administrative system. But some of the old problems still persist in one form or the other, while the processes of modernization and socio-economic changes over the last ve decades have given rise to a new set of problems pertaining to policy and administration. The new set of problems that have arisen in the modern times relate to various issues such as: i) the empowerment of women and the downtrodden and the social upliftment of the poor and the backward; ii) growing incidence of social and political violence due to terrorism, communalism, regionalism, linguistic and group conicts; iii) environmental security and sustainable development; iv) challenges of globalization, liberalization and market economy and world capitalism; v) constraints of the emergence of a civil society; and vi) the challenges of the revolutions in information, communication and other technologies. The Public Management System in India has had to respond to these continuing problems and challenges faced by the polity from time to time, and it did so by rst establishing a constitutional framework of a republican democratic government. The pattern of administrative development in India was thus largely guided by the imperatives of the republican Constitution, which came into force on January 26, 1950. The structure of colonial administration not only had to adjust to the system of democratic
1303
parliamentary government and the principle of federalism enshrined in the Constitution, but was also expected to implement the new policy goals inherent in the preamble and a number of its provisions relating to socioeconomic dispensations. Some of these are discussed in the following sections.
Federalism: The Administrative Implications Indian federalism has retained the earlier principle of centralization of the British era in the structure of administration; it has vested imposing powers and responsibilities in the Union government. The emergency powers contained in the Indian Constitution enable India, under certain circumstances, to transform itself into a unitary state. Under emergency provisions, the Union Executive and the Parliament can direct a state government in the use of its powers or assume all of its powers, the Union Executive acting for the state executive and the Union Parliament enacting legislation as if it were the state legislature. Apart from the fact that the central government has the constitutional right to modify the distribution of powers between the center and the states under certain circumstances, the central government also has vast powers over the collection and distribution of revenues, which make the state heavily dependent on the central government for nancial support. However, despite these centralized trends, each state has a personality of its own and can no longer be treated by the central government as merely a piece of territory for administrative purposes. The number, territorial size, and composition of states have changed many times since independence in response to the demands of the people of various regions. Currently (October 2000), the Union Government in India is involved in creating three more states (in addition to the existing 25) of Uttaraanchal, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh, thus taking the number of states to 28 and seven Union territories, including Delhi and Pondicherry, which have at times staked their claims to be elevated to the status of states.
Democratic Decentralisation: Evolution of Panchayat Raj System To achieve the goal of participatory democracy, the Government of India embarked upon a series of experiments with community involvement and participation at the grassroots. The rst experiment in the 1950s was the Community Development system in which each district was divided into
1304
JAIN
blocks and Panchayat of villages. Both the Block Development and Panchayati Raj system received a big boost in 1993 when the 73rd Constitutional Amendment revolutionized and transformed the representativeness of democratic institutions in India. The 1993 amendment brought the Panchayats under the jurisdiction of the Justiciable part of the Constitution.(7) Now, its elections are mandatory at a regular interval, and state legislatures have been directed to endow sufcient power and authority necessary for its functioning. Further, Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) are to be involved in preparing and implementating development plans for: agriculture, land improvement, soil conservation, sheries, khadi, village and cottage industries, poverty alleviation programmes, education, health and sanitation, family welfare, woman and child development, social welfare, welfare of the weaker sections (in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes SC=ST) groups, etc.(8) The Amendment also made provision for reserving seats in Panchayats for women and SC=ST candidates. Finally, state legislatures have been empowered to authorize state governments to make grants-in-aid to Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the State. The constitutional amendment has been implemented in nearly all states as legislative formalities have been completed including constituting electoral procedures but elections are yet to be completed in several states, hence, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this innovation in participatory democracy. However, it is likely that in future, PRIs would have to play an important role in accelerating socio-economic development in the rural areas.(9)
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy: Imperatives for Administration The Constitution of India is committed to providing fundamental changes in the socio-economic order through its provision on fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. While the Fundamental Rights guarantee for each citizen certain substantive and procedural protection against the state, the Directive Principles of State Policy, although not enjoying legal force through the courts, provide direction to the nation to promote the welfare of people by securing and promoting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic, and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life.(10) Taken together, these provisions have meant a number of mandatory obligations that are required to be observed by administrative personnel in the discharge of their functions and the emergence of a large number of
1305
different types of administrative institutions at all levels to carry out the purposes and aspirations of a new nation. Thus, for example, the right of equality under Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection before the law, provides for equal opportunities in public employment, abolishes untouchability, and prohibits discrimination in the use of public places on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. At the same time, it protects the rights of minorities and provides protective discrimination for the downtrodden and the backward class of the population, the so-called Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as mentioned in the Constitution. The administrative implications of such constitutional provisions are far-reaching. Besides the additional administrative costs to implement preferences for these classes, such provisions have led to allegations of lowering of administrative standards and compromises on meritocracy due to the induction of candidates with questionable capabilities; there have been public riots and violent protests in some states as a result of perceived reverse discrimination.(11)
The Public Services Perhaps India is the only country whose public services have been accorded constitutional status, and their rights and privileges have been safeguarded. Article 311 of the Constitution provides a safeguard to a public employees right to be served with a notice to show cause notice before be can be dismissed from the service on charges of misconduct, inefciency, or corruption. Such legal and constitutional guarantees, which were intended to protect civil servants from arbitrary actions and unjust administrative decisions, have come to be used as the guardian of corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats.(12) Such legal guarantees have now become somewhat diluted with the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of the Union of India versus Tulsi Ram Patel (1985).(13) The Supreme Court has upheld the governments claimed right to dismiss any employee without a formal inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. All that the authority concerned has to do is to write down the charges warranting the termination of his services. But the most unique feature of the provisions of the Indian Constitution is Article 312, pertaining to the creation of all India Services, which retain the same prestige and status once accorded to the old ICS. The special characteristic of these services is that although ofcers are recruited and trained by the Union government, they serve both the Union and the
1306
JAIN
state governments and occupy top policy-making and executive positions in both the central and the state governments. Moreover, they cannot be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank, except for cause and only with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. Apart from the all-India Services, the Constitution also provides for Central Services for the Union Government and State Services for the state governments. While the all-India and Central Services are recruited by the Union Public Service Commission, the State Services are recruited by the State Public Service Commissions. The Commissions have been established as constitutional agencies to protect the services and the merit system from political interference. The Central Governments public services are managed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which was created in March 1985. It formulates all policies and procedures pertaining to recruitment, training, promotion employer-employee relations, service conditions, etc., and coordinates other personnel management issues such as administrative vigilance, reservation of posts for Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (SC=ST), compulsory arbitration, staff welfare, pension administration, Administrative Tribunal, Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission, Indian Institute of Public Administration, the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration (Mussoorie), and the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (New Delhi).(14) The Ministry functions under the direct control of the Prime Minister through a Minister of State.
The Statutory Authorities The other independent bodies for various administrative purposes provided in the Constitution are: a) the Election Commission to conduct elections for various legislative bodies and all elective ofces under the Union and the states; b) the Finance Commission, appointed every ve years for determining the principle of distribution of revenues between the central and state governments; c) the ofce of the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit accounts of the Union and the state governments; and d) the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes Commissioners to look after the welfare of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in India. The independent and impartial working of these bodies has been ensured partly by the methods of their appointment and conditions of their services, and partly by the fact that the expenses of these ofces are the rst charge on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to the vote of the Parliament.
1307
The above is a brief summary of how the various constitutional previsions have inuenced the growth of the administrative machinery in India. Given the socio-political background at independence, the Constitution makers did well to specify the principles on which the foundations of a new administrative state were to be laid.
POLICY OF PLANNED ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT In pursuance of the objectives of a welfare state and rapid economic growth, India had adopted ve years plans as a major instrument of public policy and the principle of mixed economy as the guiding ideology for planned developmental efforts. The planning objectives and social premises were derived from the Directive Principles of State Policy set out in the Constitution. Attempts to formulate and implement development plans have been accompanied by a vast expansion of various administrative planning institutions and agencies, and phenomenal growth of public services for developmental purposes. In the process, administration has become more and more hierarchical giving rise to problems of coordination at the horizontal level. Although the various plan documents also provide directions and strategies for developing administrative capabilities and effecting administrative reforms to meet the challenges posed by the policy of planned socio-economic development, efforts to achieve greater administrative decentralization and a larger measure of planning have not been able to bridge the large and ever-growing gap between planning and implementation. The strategy of planned economic growth and the consequent formulation and implementation of plan policies have put tremendous strain and responsibilities on the administrative system. The success of developmental plans and policies depends to a signicant degree upon the effectiveness and capability of the administrative machinery. The structural and organizational problems of administration, posed by planning, start with the establishment of the planning machinery itself; determining its location; dening its powers, functions and responsibilities; dening its work -vis the other administrative departments; establishing effective vis-a channels of communication with the political organization; establishing units for supervision and evaluation of plan implementation; establishing relations with the states and their administrative units, the private sector, interest groups, trade unions, cooperatives, and so on. All these pose structural, behavioral and attitudinal problems. The availability of qualied and efcient personnel with development orientation poses problems not
1308
JAIN
only of managing human resources, but also of evolving behavior, a distinct administrative culture for development.(15) In many ways the process of planning has also made a deep impact on the character and functioning of the traditional administrative units and institutions. Two specic aspects of planning need further discussion: i) the framework of planning; and ii) its impact on traditional administration.
The Framework of Planning The new institutions that have come into existence as a result of the adoption of the system of economic planning are: a) the National Planning Commission, an expert advisory body at the Center responsible for formulating plans, assessing resources, providing for all technical and statistical details needed in planning activities, determining the nature of machinery needed for implementation of plans, and appraising the progress achieved in the execution of plans in each state from time to time; and b) the National Development Council, a kind of super cabinet consisting of the chief executives of all the states of the Indian Union along with the Members of the Planning Commission, which has emerged as an apex body to promote national cooperation between the center and the states. Further, in almost all central government ministries and organizations, planning cells have been established to assist in the formulation of plan projects and targets in each substantive area. Similarly, planning boards and state planning departments have come into being at the levels and various state governments for the preparation of state plans and their integration in the national plan. Because of various historical and political factors, the planning system in India continues to be highly centralized. However, the unsatisfactory performance of centralized planning has led to demands for radical decentralization. The increased scope of plan activities at lower levels, recent emphasis on area development, and adoption of a target group development approach tend to make the argument for decentralization stronger. The issue is not so much whether to decentralize, as how and what to decentralize.(16) However, efforts to establish planning machinery at sub-state levels, which have been under way for some time, have been halfhearted, with the result that no worthwhile organization for plan formulation has emerged at these levels. As a sequel to the Directive Principles of State Policy provided in the Constitution and with a view to involving people in the process of plan formulation and implementation, a scheme of community development programs, Panchayati Raj institutions, block development ofcers, and
1309
a host of village level workers were introduced in the decades of the fties and sixties in various state governments. But in the majority of cases, these institutions have been virtually languishing as a result of government indifference and in some cases the tacit hostility of political leadership at the state level. The so-called experiments in district planning introduced since 1969 were reduced to a mere collection of felt needs or of disaggregated departmental gures. The later attempts to strengthen district and block level planning in the early 1980s were also not very successful. Deciencies have been particularly marked with respect to the machinery for project planning and establishing linkages and coordination between projects. The successful operation of decentralized planning within a framework of multilevel planning requires appropriate organizations at these levels, which must be staffed with personnel of requisite technical expertise, especially for preparing sound projects and working out linkages among them.(17) Controversy has arisen in recent times over the issue whether a new level of service named as Development Services be created to ll this gap, or requisite training be imparted to the existing personnel for enhancing their capacities, or some strategies of the New Public Management e.g. contracting out of some selected services at the grass root level to private and non-state organizations be adopted. However, none of the alternatives has so far been successfully implemented in any of the states in India. Thus to what extent, the 1993 constitutional amendment empowering Panchayats to make direct input in the planning process will result in a better planning at the grass root level remains to be soon. Until now the results of some experiments tried in various states have not been very encouraging, although very recently (early 2000), some progress seems to have been made in the state of Madhya Pradesh by making the district as the basic unit of developmental planning and activities in the state under the provisions of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. This mode, if proved successful, may perhaps be replicated in other states.
Impact of Planning on Traditional District Administration The planning system has placed a heavy burden and responsibilities on the district as a traditional unit of administration and on its head, the district collector, the district ofcer or deputy commissioner, the various designations with which such ofcers have been known by in India. Different patterns of administration exist in different regions. There is therefore a need to develop a common model of administration which may permit exibility for adjustments due to regional variations.(18) The question
1310
JAIN
whether the District Collector, who has traditionally been performing the law and order and revenue collection functions, should be associated with developmental functions has been continuously debated since Independence. The impact of the British legacy, namely, the centralization of decision-making, the system of rules, the generalist concept of services, has further affected the pattern of behavior of the district ofcials. This pattern is characterized by inexible adherence to and dependence upon rules, a focusing of decision-making upward, and its reverse, a lack of delegation of authority and a generalized rigidity that prevent the organization from adapting readily to changing demands upon it. It is further complicated by situational elements of social, economic, political and cultural nature. Notable among the particular situational elements are the tendency for any group of people to divide into small groups on the basis of particularistic ties, heightening a lack of trust and reluctance to delegate authority, a tendency encouraged by the ideology of the caste system, and thinking of human relations in hierarchical terms; and a tradition of deference towards authority.(19)
Administrative Development Through Five Year Plans The formulators of Five Year Plans for planned economic development did realize the imperatives of change and improvement in existing administration system if the goals of planning were to be realized. To this extent, every plan document has contained a specic chapter outlining suggestions for improving the administrative machinery. Thus in the First Five Year Plan (195156), in a separate chapter on Reform of Public Administration it was laid down that the principal objectives of administrative changes were to secure integrity, efciency, economy and public cooperation. Suggestions for changes in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and the machinery for departmental enquiries were made to secure integrity. Similarly, proposal for changes in methods of work and organization and the establishment of an Organization and Methods (O&M) Division; a system of intensive training in economic eld and grounding in development administration for the IAS and constitution of industrial management cadre were made to increase efciency. A system of adequate participation, systematic evaluation and a practice of reward and punishment for securing results for large scale projects was proposed for nancial control and economy in developmental projects.(20) The Second Five Year Plan (195661) also emphasized the importance of integrity, provision of incentives, continuous assessment of personnel their training and speedy, efcient and economic methods of work; and
1311
recommended the establishment of a vigilance ofce in every Ministry and Department. Proposals were also made to establish O&M directorates in the State Administration. It also urged the creation of an Industrial Management Service for the administration of public sector enterprises.(21) The Third Five Year Plan (196166) also contained a chapter on Administration and Plan Implementation, which emphasized the importance of reduction in construction cost, improvement in maintenance and simplication of work procedures, and the need for a line of communication between the planning for the country as a whole and for each district, block and village, preserving the broad national priorities while adapting the plans to conditions and needs of each area and each community.(22) Noting the increasing gap between planning and implementation, the Fourth Five Year Plan urged the need for constant appraisal of economic policies and performance so that gaps were noted with sufcient precision, integration of plans for production, imports and exports, improvement in the system of reporting and information, introduction of performance budgeting, economy in construction of projects through pre-planning, program management, avoidance of short tenures and frequent transfers, and emphasis on quality of performance.(23) The Fifth and Sixth Plan documents pointed out that planning, implementation and evaluation should be looked upon as an integral process, and need for the strengthened particularly at state, district and block levels. It suggested the projection of the anti-poverty program and the strengthening of district administration by appointment of district development ofcers, and strengthening of the national information centers for data storage, retrieval and processing.(24) Similarly, the Seventh Plan suggested the decentralization of planning from the state to the district and block levels, and a scheme of effective functioning and nancial decentralization, establishing appropriate budgeting and reappropriation, making district ofcers accountable to district planning body and establishing data and information centers at district levels. It also laid emphasis on responsiveness in the administration of public enterprises involving questions of autonomy, accountability and coordination between different sectors of government, ensuring speedy resolution of controversial issues. The management and administrative systems have to be improved to eliminate inefciency, cynicism and lack of integrity.(25) The Eighth Plan (199197) took into account some of the changes expected to come about due to the liberalization of the economy. The Ninth Plan (currently in operation) envisages a basic change in the new era of people-oriented planning wherein, not only the central and state Governments, but also the people at large are expected to participate in the
1312
JAIN
planning process. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments are expected to pave the way for the ourishing of the Panchayati Raj institutions and the municipal bodies. In this new era of participatory planning process, the Ninth Plan is expected to attempt to accelerate economic growth, along with equity and social justice.(26) Despite the plea that the Planning Commission has outlined its utility in the changed context of liberalization in India,(27) and should either be disbanded or relocated, the recent meeting of the Planning Commission held on 30 September 2000, with the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Chair, has reiterated its continuance as the governments main think tank.(28)
REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM The problem of administrative reforms has received continuing attention in India both at the Center and in the states during the last ve decades of its Independence.(29) Indeed since the British period, there has been a time-honored practice of examining particular areas of administration and to make recommendations for improvement.(30) Since Independence, there have been a large number of changes in the structure, work methods, and procedures of the administrative organizations. Although these changes have been gradual, at times not too perceptible, they do indicate the efforts made by the government to effect procedural and policy innovation in the administrative system and to keep pace with the changed situation, growing needs and exigencies of the government. In order to understand the impact of such changes, it is appropriate to recount some of the important suggestions made by the various committees, commissions and experts on the subject of administrative reforms in India.
The Aftermath of Independence Beginning with the Tottenham Committees Report immediately after the Second World War in 1945,(31) which sharply advocated a proper division between secretarial departments on the one hand and executive directorate and services on the other, with liberal delegation of powers to the heads of departments, the question of secretariat organization was further debated by the Secretariat Reorganization Committee, headed by Girija Shanker Bajpai immediately after independence in 1947. The Committee suggested a reorganization of the methods of work in the secretariat. In 1948, the Economy Committee headed by a prominent industrialist,
1313
Kasturbhai Lalbhai, made many suggestions for effecting economy in central administration and to tune up general efciency and mould of the civil service.(32) Shortly thereafter, the rst comprehensive review of the central government was undertaken by the committee headed by N. Gopalswamy Ayyangar in 1949. It dealt with organizational changes, improvement in the caliber of personnel, and in the methods of transaction of governmental business. One of the recommendations that was adopted by the government was the strengthening of the organization of the cabinet through the constitution of the standing committees of the cabinet such as the Defense Committee, Economic Committee, Parliamentary and Legal Committee etc.(33)
Appleby Efforts at Reforms However, none of the above attempts at administrative improvement received as much public attention in 1950s as did the three subsequent reportsGorwala Committee Report of 1951, and Paul Applebys two reports on the Indian Administration in 1953 and 1956. Gorwala Committee, headed by a former ICS ofcer, A. D. Gorwala, was appointed by the Planning Commission in 1951 to assess the adequacy of the administration to meet the requirements of planned development. Gorwalas report on the Planning Commission served as the basis for the formulation of certain crucial administrative proposals, which were later included in the First Five Year Plan. In the same year, Gorwala submitted another report relating to the efcient conduct of State Enterprises. Applebys Reports in 1953 and 1956 made signicant impact on the thinking and interest in administrative reforms amongst the government ofcials, educated elites and the academics, primarily because it was perhaps the rst appraisal of the Indian administrative system by a foreign expert. Although the reports were critical of the administrative machinery, they were complementary of the administrative system as a whole. Applebys rst report dealt more with changes in the basic principles and concepts including the structural changes in the Indian administration rather than with details of the administrative machinery.(34) The two main recommendations of Appleby, relating to the setting up of an Institute of Public Administration at the national level and the other, the creation of O&M organizations at different levels of administration that were implemented immediately, helped the nation towards developing necessary infrastructure for research, teaching and improvement in public administration. In his second report, Appleby made several proposals for streamlining the administration, work procedures, recruitment and training,
1314
JAIN
and relationship of administration with Parliament, the Planning Commission, and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India; Appleby also underlined the need for delegation of powers.(35)
The Post Appleby Period: The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) Phase In the post-Appleby period (195366), a number of other committees and commissions made piecemeal recommendations relating to the qualication for public services, salary structure of public services, district administration, work procedures, corruption and reorganization of foreign service, but no comprehensive study of the administrative system was attempted until the appointment of the Administrative Reform Commission in 1966.(36) The attempts at reforms till now had been far too narrow in their scope to make any appreciable impact on the administrative system as a whole. Because of the widespread deterioration in administrative efciency and standards, the idea of setting up an independent commission on the pattern of the Hoover Commission in USA gained ground.(37) Accordingly, the government on January 2, 1966 constituted an Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), under the Chairmanship of Morarji Desai (who was later replaced by K Hanumanthaiya). The objectives laid down to guide the Commissions investigations were: a) to give consideration to the need for ensuring the highest standards of efciency and integrity in the public service; b) to take into account the need for making public administration a t instrument for carrying out the social and economic policies of the government and achieving social and economic goals of development; and c) to make the administration responsive to the people.(38) The two additional objectives, viz.the promotion of national integration and the maintenance of efcient standards of administration throughout the country were implicit in the Commissions terms of reference. The ARC had stressed that in the above investigations, it was guided by certain basic considerations, such as: the intensity or magnitude of the administrative deciency or inadequacy, the requirements of adapting the administrative system or procedure to the demands of developmental functions or tasks; the availability of the proposed reforms in terms of administrative, social and political challenges; the need for improving efciency, effecting economy and raising administrative standards; the need for maintaining a balance between administrative innovation and change, and administrative stability; the need for improving the responsiveness of
1315
the administration to the people; the urgency for reform; and nally the demands of the present and the needs of the future.(39) Some of the most signicant recommendations made by the ARC pertained to the: a) the appointment of Lok Pal (at the center) and Lokayuktas (in the states) to deal with complaints of corruption and public grievances; b) constitution of inter-state councils under Act 263 of the Constitution to deal with centre-state relations; c) establishment of a central personnel agency at the centre (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) under the Cabinet Secretariat and independent personnel departments in each ministry; d) introduction of the concept and technique of performance budgeting; e) procedural reforms relating to the elimination of delays in sanctioning of pensions to retired ofcials and payment thereof; f ) constitution of a policy advisory committee, policy cells and policy ofcers in each department or ministry; g) establishment of internal standing committee on planning and planning cells in each ministry, constitution of state planning boards, and preparation of project manuals and training program for project management; h) the constitution of several corporations for management of the public sector; and i) constitution of consumer consultative committees. Perhaps the two most important areas touched upon by the ARC in its reports were: i) minister-civil servants relationships, wherein the ARC emphasized the need for the depoliticization of the services; and ii) the creation of a climate and culture of administration that would help arrest the growth of unhealthy personal relationship between civil servants and the ministers. Another important but at the same time the most controversial recommendations, which if implemented, would have meant a radical departure from the past traditions and structure of the civil services, was to change the character of the Indian Administrate Service (IAS). The ARC had suggested the regrouping of all the present services in the Government of India into eight functional categories, so that the IAS shall no more be a generalist service, but shall have a purely functional role of revenue administration.(40) This recommendation, which could have changed the entire civil service structure from being based on a generalist character to a specialist system of service and would have ended the primacy of the erstwhile steel-frame, had evoked sharp and bitter reactions from amongst the top hierarchy of the civil services.(41) No wonder, the proposal was not only shelved, but perhaps was responsible to some extent in the development of an indifferent and apathetic attitude amongst the top civil services for the implementation of the recommendations of the ARC. In retrospect, it seems that despite the extensive work done by the ARC extending over a period of four years, it failed to make any real impact on the administrative structure. There was no attempt made to
1316
JAIN
overhaul the original administrative structure. The ARC seemed to have no philosophy of administration and made no attempt to articulate one. Indeed it had no overall core report on public administration as a whole. It did not ask such basic questions as what constitutes good administration and in reference to those norms of good administration, what could be considered to be the major reforms in Indian administration. In not raising these basic issues of administrative reforms, the ARC lost a major opportunity to suggest some fundamental changes in Indian administrative system.(42) Most of the ARCs recommendations had failed to arouse the authorities to take positive action to implement them. But the fact, as observed by a political commentator, was that the Commission never came to tight grips with the day to day administrative lacuna, lapses and shortcomings, much less produced a single, coherent report spelling out in precise and concrete terms the steps needed for effecting a complete overhaula real breakthroughin civil administration. The eminent individuals who headed the various study teams and their learned colleagues took only an overall view of the issues entrusted to them and dealt with the larger questions of administrative policies and procedures, but lost sight of specic issues affecting the core of administration. As a result, whatever reforms they have recommendedand acted upon by the government have hardly touched the core of administration, which remains as cumbersome, outdated and red-tape ridden as it was before the Commission was brought into being.(43)
The Post-ARC Reform Efforts After the ARC, there have been no major committees or commission on administrate reforms per se except for three isolated attempts: a) to improve the examination pattern of combined services by introducing a preliminary tests to eliminate a large number of candidates having less potential for success, as a sequel to the Kothari Committee Report;(44) b) to revitalize the Panchayati Raj system at the grass root level by converting the three-tier structure into a two tier structure;(45) and c) to change the system of economic and scal administration.(46) Besides the above, the Indian government also constituted a National Police Commission (197779), under the chairmanship of Dharam Vir, a former ICS, which examined various aspects of police and law and order administration in India and submitted eight volumes of its reports to streamline the police administration, but most of the many worthwhile and important recommendations made by it have been gathering dust on the
1317
government shelves, as the political leadership which came into power after the 1979 elections did not feel interested to act on these. In addition, the Government in 1983 appointed a high-powered commission led by Justice Sarkaria to enquire into the entire gamut of center-state relations. The Sarkaria Commission regarded federalism as basically a functional arrangement for cooperative action rather than a static institutional concept. It emphasized the need for decentralization of the planning process and adoption of certain well-meaning conventions in respect of the appointment of governors and the use of Art. 356. Nevertheless, action on the above recommendations has been very slow because the center-state relations are still being conducted in the same old hierarchical top-down approach and as a matter of political bickering and bargaining. Another development in the history of administrative reforms in India has been the appointment of the Satish Chandra Committee to review the examination system for the recruitment in the civil services. The Committee reported in 1989, and some of its major recommendations have already been put in operation effective the 1993 competitive examinations for All India and Central Services.(47) One of the reasons for a lack of general interest in administrative reforms and improvements had been the domination of administration by politics in the 1970s, and the political leaders being too much preoccupied with buttressing their positions rather than be interested in administrative reforms. There was some toning up of administration in the period during the Emergency (197577), but this was more due to draconian measures taken to impose the discipline rather than through any systematic reform of administration. All these improvements were washed away in the backlash after the emergency, and administration actually lapsed into a still greater measure of inefciency. This only reiterates the danger and futility of undertaking ad hoc measures to tone up administration.
POLICY OF LIBERALIZATION AND DEREGULATION: THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS The major policy issue confronting the government during the last one and a half decades has been the issue of liberalization for industrial progress and the changing role of the public sector in Indias economic development and its implications for administrative developments. The policy of a mixed economy adopted by the government in the spring of the Indian Republic has led to the establishment of almost 200 public sector projects at the central level and approximately 700 at the state level, each
1318
JAIN
representing an investment worth approximately US $25 million. However, a majority of these enterprises have failed to come up to expectations. Many have incurred heavy and continuing losses, and far from contributing to the resources available for development have become a drain on the public exchequer. Such a phenomenon has been attributed to the growth and persistence of bureaucratic culture rather than commercial culture in the management of these enterprises; backseat driving by the ministries leading to the constriction in the autonomy of managers of public sector enterprises, which is so necessary for decision making: lack of manpower planning and training of executives; and lack of development of marketing techniques. Some of these shortcomings were noticed at the very outset. The adoption of the company form of organization for public enterprise in mid-fties was thought of precisely to provide them management autonomy. But while the form was there, the reality of autonomy was missing. The government at present is trying to remove some of the unwarranted advantages which accrue to public sector undertakings, the most over fed part of an under nourished economy. About half of the public sector plants are working at 75 per cent of their capacity and more than a fth at less than 20 per cent of their capacity. Although policymakers have not yet openly advocated privatization as the possible remedy, public monopolies in such areas as oil rening, power generation, and telecommunication equipment have been opened to private competition. The policy of industrial controls and licensing was considered necessary in the early stages for fullling the objectives of planning and for ensuring that scarce resources were allocated to priority projects. The system, which one economist calls command capitalism was originally intended to make India self-reliant, egalitarian and labor intensive. Although some measure of self-reliance was achieved at the cost of the other two objectives, it has led to the emergence of a parallel black market economy and corruption, which far from promoting rational allocation of resources have only led to the growth of the luxury sector. It has been estimated that black or untaxed money amounts to at least 20 per cent of gross domestic project, with perhaps another 15 per cent generated by smuggling, which not only constitute a big drain on public exchequer, but has serious implications for transparency, accountability and public integrity in administration. The policy of delicensing adopted in early 1990s has made little headway in either bringing out technological developments and qualitative improvement in Indias indigenous industrial products or expanding the export market of locally produced high-tech, industrial electronic, and software products. The missing link in the economic policy has been the
1319
marketing of indigenous products abroad. The recent policies of tax cuts and delicensing have only meant relief for the rich without any lowering of prices, improvement in quality, or safeguarding of the consumers interest. No wonder a majority of big businessmen have never been as happy as in the recent times, despite the unpopularity that the government might have earned with some of them, because of the highly publicized pursuit of highly placed tax evaders. Even the Consumers Protection Act, 1987 has made little headway in compelling big business to think about the interest of the poor consumers and make them socially responsive. The process of economic liberalization has led to the demand for retreat of the state in India. The Disinvestment Commission in India established in 1996 as a sequel to the adoption of the policy of liberalization has recently been making some perceptible headway by bringing in the private and foreign capital to share the Governments investment in certain core industries like power, transport, air companies and other industrial manufacturing elds despite some very controversial and agitational consequences due to the opposition of a number of labor associations, trade unions and interest groups, and various leftist political parties. While this may be the logical consequence of the new economic policy, the rolling back of the state has to be very guarded, for private sector cannot effectively provide all of the services necessary for human development in a developing country like India. In a recent statement the present Prime Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, held that the political parties in power contributed to the decline of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) by using them as fast breeders of jobs, instead of making them sustainable, competitive and fruitful players in the national economy. Expediency of the moment was allowed to prevail over the future of the PSUs and the employment security of their employees. While criticizing the PSUs, as faltering due to inadequate competition, inadequate accountability and inadequate motivation and functioning like a government department within government constraints, the Prime Minister called for a new strategy to revitalize the public sector by bringing in competition, granting operational exibility, reducing surplus manpower and upgrading technology.(48) This statement of the Prime Minister reiterates that the state in India can neither possibly withdraw from the basic responsibilities of providing social welfare and necessary infrastructure, nor can it allow indiscriminate and unregulated foreign investments or advent of multinationals to affect social disruption. Unless policies of globalization and competitiveness can be made to lead to the general welfare of the society, it is futile to talk about the prospects of human security. Thus the agenda for the government at the end of this century is clear: continue free trade, begin liberalization in agriculture, improve the quality
1320
JAIN
and quantity of education and health services along with a clean government and reorient administrators to enable them to creatively and actively participate in restructuring the mixed economy in a manner that the liberated private sector is made both responsive and sensitive to social concerns of human security and welfare.(49)
Politico-Administrative System in India: Strength and Weaknesses The fty years of Independence in India has resulted in a new situation of politico-administrative transition towards a multi-level system of governance from the village upwards to the district, state and national level. Despite the apparent appearance of instability of the coalition governments either at the center or in any of the states, the framework of the overall politico-administrative system remains stable. The politicoadministrative institutions in India have undergone considerable changes since Independence. While some have gained in strength, others have suffered decline. The continued internal transfer of power from the urban elites to the deprived masses has been the hallmark of the success of Indian democracy. At the same time, however, political process and the rule of law have suffered heavily, as also the various political institutions in general and the civil services, once called the steel frame of India in particular. The cabinet system has not worked uniformly well throughout India, the executive has politicized the public services undermining the basic values, and the most serious malaise affecting the polity today is corruption and criminalization of politics. Political parties have lost their shine. For a while, the media and, the press in India have won public esteem and acclaim, but in recent years have suffered in their credibility due to sensationalism and unprofessionalism on the part of some of the errant members of the Fourth Estate. The political institutions, which have gained in stature and strength during the last fty years, are certainly the Judiciary, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the ofce of the President. Many NGOs have emerged as important innovative institutions with social commitments in many parts of the country, although the activities of some of these have also brought stigma to the institution of the NGOs. The vastness and complexity of Indias political institutions lend a kind of stability, which few other countries of a large size enjoy. The innate vibrancy of the Indian democratic polity also puts collective pressure on politico-administrative institutions. This selfcorrecting character of Indian democracy gives it a legitimate stability, and strength, which many countries in the Third World have not been able to achieve.(50)
1321
THE ADVENT OF THE NEW CORPORATE MILLENIUM: GROWING STAKES FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE The decade of 1990s has been a decade of exceptional changes in the theory and practice of good governance. The changes in question have increasingly been treated under the rubric of globalization, a catch all phrase which emphasizes the emergence of a truly global economy and a shift towards world capitalism, signifying a movement toward a new era of both vastly more powerful and essentially different corporate forms and processes, which has in all societies affected the existing forms of governance and citizen identity. Three important movements that have made important strides during this decade in meeting the challenges of this transformation have been Reinventing Government, the New Public Management and a call for the downsizing of public bureaucracies. Indian Administration has not completely remained untouched by these global developments and has in various ways attempted to incorporate some of the precepts drawn from these movements. To what extent the administrative system in India has been successful in its efforts to modernize itself, and utilize the lessons emanating from the experiences of other administrative systems undergoing transformation under the spell of one or the other of the above movements is a question which cannot be answered in one way or the other. However, it would be helpful to review what particular steps have been adopted in India for achieving some positive goals of these alternative precepts in public management.
Restructuring Economic Administration During the 1990s, after adopting policies of economic liberalization and structural adjustment, a number of expert committees (such as the Raja Chelliah Committee on Tax Reforms, the Rangarajan Committee on Foreign Investment, and the Goswami Committee on Industrial Sickness and Corporate Restructuring were appointed to study and make recommendations on various policy measures related to economic reforms. Despite the recommendations of the above committees and the emergence of a somewhat deregulated industrial system, clearance and approval of investment proposals still take time because of powerful inherent roadblocks. Bureaucracy is still a powerful component in the decision-making process and with this red-tapism is as much a consequence of the system of rules as their interpretation and application by it. At the same time the new breed of politicians that has emerged after mid-1960s see the bureaucracy as a needless obstacle in the achievement of their political
1322
JAIN
goals which has lead to frequent conicts in the relationship between the political leadership and the permanent executive. The conict of interests between them has further led to increased politicization of bureaucracy and the emergence of a nexus between the politician, bureaucracy and the criminals, thus seriously corrupting the body politic, and a major issue of pubic service integrity, and loss of ethics in public life.(51)
Promoting Efciency and Accountability In the face of continuing challenges of globalization and corporatization, the Government of Indias Department of Administrative Reforms organized in 1997 a national debate on the issue of making administration responsive, accountable and effective and assuring its adherence to constitutional principles. On the basis of responses received from ofcials, experts, voluntary agencies, citizens groups, media, etc., an Action Plan was evolved which was discussed in the Conference of Chief Ministers convened by the then Prime Minister on May 24, 1997. The Conference resolved that the central and state governments would work together to concretize the Action Plan dealing with: i) accountable and citizen-friendly government; ii) transparency and right to information; and iii) improving the performance and integrity of the public services. As a follow up, several measures have been taken to make the administration accountable. For instance, in order to make public agencies more responsive to citizens needs, a number of Citizens Charters have been instituted by a number of central departments=agencies and state governments.(52) Steps have also been taken to strengthen the existing machinery for redress of public grievances by specifying xed time limits for handling grievances and publicizing the names of ofcers handling grievances and establishing a system of computerized monitoring. Government has also initiated measures to simplify laws, rules and procedures by establishing a Commission on Review of Administrative Laws on May 8, 1998 with a view to identify proposals for amendment=repeal of existing laws, regulations and procedures have inter-sectoral impact so as to make them objective, transparent and predictable. The Commission has since submitted its report on September 30, 1998 recommending a repeal of almost 50 percent of administrative laws. On the basis of this report most of the ministries=departments have taken steps to suitably amend=modify or repeal the Acts and laws administered by them with a view to improving service delivery and bring about transparency in administration. In addition, the government has also undertaken certain other steps to improve its efciency and effectiveness through modernization of government ofces, a software
1323
package to track the movement of les, a scheme to grant awards to members of the public and the employees for suggestions made to improve the overall efciency, productivity and work culture of the staff, etc.(53) The Government also stepped its efforts to maintain purity and integrity in high public ofces and eradicating corruption in public life, by introducing a Lok Pal Bill in the Parliament on August 3, 1998. The Bill could not get through as the Parliament was dissolved in April 1999, but is likely to be reintroduced in the 13th Lok Sabha constituted in September 1999. Similarly, although its efforts to confer statutory status on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) have not met with success in the last (12th) Lok Sabha, in recent years the present Chief Vigilance Commissioner, N. Vittal has started a campaign to expose corruption in high places by putting up the names of some highly placed but allegedly tainted ofcials from different services, against whom criminal or departmental proceedings have been recommended for alleged corruption on the web site of the CVC. Such a measure may not have resulted in eliminating corruption in the administrative system and has on the other hand given rise to some legal and moral controversies, but has certainly created utters in the bureaucratic echelons. In order to achieve transparency in administration, the government has recently instituted an Inter-ministerial Working Group under the Chairmanship of H.D. Shourie, the Director of Common Cause, to examine the feasibility and need of introducing a full-edged Right to Information Act so as to meet the needs of an open and responsive government.(54) Based on its recommendation, a Bill is shortly to be introduced in the coming session of the Parliament to ensure transparency in government operations and every department would have an information ofcer to provide information to the people. Certain provision of the Ofcials Secrets Act would have to be repealed to the extent they go against the provisions of the freedom of information legislation.(55) Despite some other things being undertaken by the government such as the creation of facilitation counters, establishing a Code of Ethics for public services, tackling corruption and cleansing the administration and ensuring stability of tenure and a scheme for Civil Service Boards, the one area in which the governments efforts have not borne any fruit has been the downsizing of the existing bureaucracy.
Redening the Role of the State The Fifth Central Pay Commission in its Report in January 1997 had strongly advocated reduction in government through dismantling of
1324
JAIN
excessive controls, disinvestment in the public sector, corporatization of departmental undertakings, privatization and contracting out of many services that are presently being performed by the government. It emphasized that the governments role will be more in evolving the policy of governance and less in the actual governance itself. New regulations will have to be evolved and enforced so as to provide a level playing eld between the public and the private sector enterprises, as also between domestic and foreign companies. The administered price mechanisms will have to be replaced by mechanisms based on market-determined prices. The residual role of the state would have to be conned to the following areas: as a facilitator of economic activity, as a developer of infrastructure, as an investor in social services and as promoter and implementor of poverty alleviation programs.(56) Towards this end, the Pay Commission recommended a step by step approach to public service reforms, which should include: a) redenition of the core functions of the government; b) restatement of the distribution of work between the three tiers of the governance; c) drastic reduction in the number of central ministries and departments and regrouping and redenition of their size, constitution and newly stated roles; d) transfer of all functions that should be performed by Panchayat Raj institutions to them by the state governments; e) delegation of functions not involving formulation of policies to agencies, which may be public sector enterprises, autonomous bodies or cooperative institutions; f ) reduction in recruitment to different services; g) simplication of procedures and formulation of accountability norms in government; h) reduction in the hierarchical and decision-making levels of Government; and i) level-jumping and coordination for quick decisions etc.(57)
The New Governance Model What kind of governance model will be suitable for the Indian polity at this juncture of its evolution? From the foregoing analysis it is evident that the quest for good governance is a continuing one. The changing societal context and the expectations of the people from the government are the two most important factors besides others determining the new model of governance. It demands vigilance on the part of those who carry the responsibility of governance and equally on the part of those who are governed. Thus the new model of governance will basically have: respect for rule of law, accountability, decentralization, honesty or probity in public affairs, independence of judiciary, human rights, peoples participation, equality of treatment, absence of discrimination, protection and conserva-
1325
tion of environment for quality of life, administrative responsiveness, social sensitivity, ethical approach or conduct, effectiveness, and the capacity to anticipate the nature and direction of change to cope with the emerging challenges from time to time. The political dimension of this model involves a continuous process of conict-management and problem-solving amongst the individuals and the groups in a nation as they ght for the fulllment of their expectations, while the administrative one requires how well the policy institutions of a nation are capable to respond to contemporary challenges and devise strategies to shape the policy choices of the people. Thus, in order to secure justice, equity, equality and freedom for its citizens, it is crucial that proximate political and administrative actions must be taken to strengthen the moral foundations of governance. Condence and trust in liberal-democracy and the prevailing politico-administrative institutions can be safeguarded only when the governing process exhibits a higher moral tone deriving from the breadth of ethical sensitivity.(58)
THE CHANGING ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE: A CRITICAL EVALUATION Mapping the political and administrative history of India over a period of fty years is indeed a difcult exercise. Obviously, there have been changes in administrative institutions, structures, style and cultures in postindependent India, and some distinct changes do carry the mark of the political leadership than in power. Thus, administrative development has been an uneven process; and it can best be understood only in the context of the totality of politico-administrative environment. The rst ten years of the Republic represent a period of remarkably smooth change and adaptation from the British Raj to a democratic parliamentary system, during which a bold attempt was made by the political leadership to change the character and values of the administrative system, while preserving its essential characteristics of an effective framework to cope with new problems and situations. There were no visible cracks in the system, rather it developed the necessary resilience, and the capacity to mend, mould, and build itself. The processes of change from this situation were manifest in the next ten years of the growth of the Republic, which is up to the end of the period of Lal Bahadur Shastris term as Prime Minister and the beginning of the Indira Gandhis era (1966). During her time, a new generation of politicians emerged, who were not so much oriented to liberal traditions or values as the rst post-independence political leadership. Despite this generational change, and the many stresses and strains that marked the itinerary of the political system, the trend and
1326
JAIN
temper of the administrative procedures and style of the preceding decade were substantially unchanged. It was, however, after 1967, that one witnessed the beginning of erosion of most of the fundamental values of the administrative system that were consolidated during the earlier years of the Republic. This period marks the beginning of uncertainty and instability in the political system. Whether this happened because of the personal struggle amongst leaders for consolidating and preserving their power-base, or changing economic, local or institutional condition, is a matter for speculation, but the net consequences of this uncertainty was that the policy-making administrative apparatus got disoriented and replaced by some kind of a shot-gun approach to administration. The administration and the administrators reached the lowest ebb both in their performance and efciency at the time of the heightened crisis posed by the imposition of the nation-wide emergency in 1975. The post-Emergency period also did not help to restore the erstwhile standards and morale in the public services.
Changes in the Administrative System Basically, there have been a number of visible changes in the administrative system and style since the British times. The district as the fundamental unit of administration has undergone a metamorphosis both in terms of the importance and the position and status of its chief executive. The importance of both the district and district ofcers has been reduced owing to the fragmented expansions of governmental activities on the one hand, and to the growth of maa politics on the other. Much of a district ofcers time is now simply wasted in listening, persuading and arguing with anti-social elements (with whom local political leadership seems to be in companionship), while the regular ofcial work remains unattended. These developments, coupled with enormous responsibilities that are now put on a youngish district ofcer, have eroded whatever autonomy and authority he used to employ with respect to his assigned duties in the past. An ambitious ofcer now wants to complete his compulsory tenure at district as early and smoothly as he can and looks forward to the day he is posted to a position at the state capital, away from the rough and tumble of the district politics, with the result that district and local administration has suffered heavily at the delivery point and at the cutting edge. Along with the decline of the district level of administration, there has been a simultaneous decline in the strength and morale of the main public servicethe so-called steel frame of the British administration. Although
1327
the Indian Administrate Service still maintains its dominant position despite the various attempts by the Administrative Reform Commission and the Pay Commissions to water it down, its position and prestige in general has suffered, due to various socio-political factors referred to above. Public and political reactions, values, judgments and even sentiments and prejudices have affected the performance and morale of public bureaucracy in India. There seems to be at present a strong reaction and suspicion against the power of the bureaucracy, and the constant hammering that it has received at the hands of politicians, has earned it the name of a villain in the public eye. The bureaucracy is regarded as a big impediment in the attainment of the socio-economic millennium promised to the people by politicians. The ethical values of politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats have gone down so low that there is no aspect of public life today that is free from the incidence of corruption or black money. People in authority seems to have acquired dual personalities; their private actions ill-match their public pronouncements.(59) Finally, political interference, inuence peddling, growing nexus between politicians, criminals and bureaucracy, pervading corruption in all walks of public life, muscle-exing through the unions have made even the most legitimate means of control and accountability meaningless in the administrative parlance. The emerging administrative style and culture of India does not seem to provide any positive orientation to help the ordinary citizenry.(60)
The Positive Achievements of Administrative Reforms The above analyses of changes in the style and culture of administration in India may seem to be pessimistic. However, it is not meant to undermine the achievements and the performance of the administrative system. It has been a ne machine, capable of rendering some excellent performances in the sphere of policy-making and implementation. It has over the years sustained the working of the most politically conscious people. It has been able to maintain its strength, and achieved a strong industrial base for the nation through a system of planned development. There has been an absolute growth in terms of literacy, education, scientic and technical knowledge and even relative prosperity. The bureaucracy in India has responded well in times of crisis and particularly when it was given clearly dened objectives and unambiguous priorities. All these give a ray of hope for further improvement in the style and operations of administrative system in India. But this is only a hope because until now, even taking into consideration the ten years of economic reforms (between 1990 and 2000),
1328
JAIN
one thing which has resisted all suggested administrative reforms is the governments own style of functioning. Prone to overstafng, slow action, the bureaucracy in India tends to be seen as an agency meant to ameliorate the unemployment situation and therefore, not necessarily designed to produce results or be accountable for its decisions. Oversize administration tends to promote lethargy, inefciency and corruption. Government administration in the post-liberalization era in India will have to be result-oriented, service-driven and accountable. This is possible, but only if the political leadership changes its style of operation, and cleanse-up its greedy and corrupt way of governing the nation.
New Directions for Administrative Reforms Given the political will, therefore, the need of the hour in India at present seems to be to adopt a normative model of Good Management Approach towards public administration. This should include: a) a more strategic or result-oriented (efciency, effectiveness and service quality) orientation to decision-making; b) replacement of highly centralized organizational structures with decentralized management environment integrating with the new Panchayati Raj and municipal institutions, where decisions on resource allocation and service delivery are taken close to the point of delivery; c) exibility to explore alternatives to direct public provision which might provide more cost effective policy outcomes; d) focusing attention on the matching of authority and responsibility as a key to improving performance, including mechanism of explicit performance contracting; e) creating of competitive environments within and between public service organizations; f ) strengthening of strategic capacities at the center to steer government to respond to external changes and diverse interests quickly, exibly and at least costs; g) greater accountability and transparency through requirements to report on results and their full costs; h) service wide budgeting and management systems to support and encourage these changes; and i) breaking the growing nexus of bureaucrats, politicians and criminals to restore public condence in public management system amongst the citizenry; j) adapting of innovations and evolving suitable mechanism to eliminate corruption at both political and administrative levels and strengthen citizens grievance redressal system; k) downsizing of bureaucracy and improving the system of delivery at the cutting edge of administration by replacing the existing archaic bureaucratic procedures by absorbing some appropriate precepts inherent in the philosophy of New Public Management; l) effectively utilizing the fruits of technical revolution and the Information Management System for an
1329
effective and quick public service delivery system; and (m) making improvements in the working atmosphere of the government institutions and ofces to reect a new work culture and a changed administrative behavior incorporating the principles of transparency, responsiveness, accountability, and participative and citizen-friendly management.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS In conclusion, however, it should be remembered that no amount of planning and thinking in all these areas would be useful unless the government is capable enough to take hard and unpleasant decisions and has the will and capacity to implement and continuously monitor and evaluate their impact. At the same time, the political leadership has to demonstrate its strong determination to undertake reforms by, rst, cleaning its own stable from corrupt and criminal inuences, and setting ethical standards of good governance both at the political and administrative levels. Given the present political milieu, can the present government rise to the occasion?is a big question. This brief study of Indias experiments with participatory democracy and administrative development also underscores the importance of a number of non-state social actors and institutions (like NGOs and other associational groups),(61) which can effectively perform the role of mobilizing people for development. Such actors and institutions often come into conict with the state, although the goals of both seem to be identical. The gradual changes occurring in the socio-political culture and processes also precipitate such a conict. In India, citizen participation in development administration has been an integral process of socio-economic and political change since Independence. The institutional, managerial technological, infrastructural, participative and human development service oriented changes have also affected its rural and urban social structure in terms of occupational diversication, social mobility, reduction in income disparities and changes in values and social relationship for integrated social living. Other factors, such as leadership, social consciousness, organization and political awareness have also affected the process of peoples participation in development administration necessitating a new relationship between the state and the civil society. Experiments in India have demonstrated that the state by itself can neither initiate technological or societal development nor mobilize people to accept its processes of change. The processes of modernization of state and administration need an active and consociational association of people at all levels of the governmental structure in order to realize the goals and objective that the society sets for itself.
1330
JAIN
The above analysis of Indias continuous quest for good governance also aptly demonstrates that the survival of state and democracy in a deeply divided society is not an impossible proposition, if the arenas of politicoadministrative power are not conned to a particular elite, religious or ethnic group, but are widely dispersed among the various groups and regions in the society through a process of decentralization and empowerment of weaker and vulnerable sections of the population. Adoption of a consociational approach is the key element of governance in such stratied societies.
REFERENCES 1. For a detailed discussion on these two aspects, see Lijphart, A. The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation. American Political Science Review 1996, 90 (June), 258268. 2. Harrison, S.S. India: The Most Dangerous Decade; Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1960; 338, quoted by Lijphart A. The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation. American Political Science Review 1996, 90 (June), 258268. 3. See Lijphart A. The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation. American Political Science Review 1996, 90 (June), 1. 4. This section is based on the authors study, Jain, R.B.; Dwivedi, O.P. Policy Developments and Administrative Changes in India. In Public Administration in World Perspective; Henderson, K., Dwivedi, O.P. Eds.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, 1990. 5. Taub, R.P. Bureaucrats under Stress; University of California Press: Berkeley, 1969; 156. 6. Mangat Rai, E.N. Patterns of Administrative Development in Independent India; University of London: London, 1976; 30. 7. Dutta, P. Village Self-government in Post-Colonial India. Kurukshetra 1995, (April), 52. 8. Dutta, P. Village Self-government in Post-Colonial India. Kurukshetra 1995, (April), 52. 9. Mishra, S.N.; Mishra, S. Future of Panchayati Raj after 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Kurukshetra 1995, (April); 29. 10. Constitution of India, Articles 3738. 11. Jain, R.B. Reverse Discrimination: A Dilemma in Quest for Social Justice and Equal Opportunity. Indian Journal of Public Administration 1981, 27 (JanuaryMarch), 181198; Weiner, M. Preferential Policies. Comparative Politics 1983, 16 (October), 3552.
1331
12. For details, see Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. Bureaucratic Morality in India. International Political Science Review 1980, 9 (3), 205214. 13. 3 SCR 398, AIR 1985, SC 1414. 14. Avasthi, A.; Avasthi, A.P. Indian Administration; Laxmi Narayan Publishers: Agra, 1993; 160; see also Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Annual Report, 199798; 17. 15. Sharma, K.C. Development Planning and Development Administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 1968, 34, 121 129; Maheshwari, S.R. Administering the Planning System. Indian Journal of Public Administration 1984, 30 (JulySeptember), 603612. 16. Prasad, K. Planning in India: Some Basic Issues Relating to Operational and Strategic Aspects. Presidential Address to the 66th Annual Conference of Indian Economic Association, Bangalore, 1983. 17. Prasad, K. Planning in India: Some Basic Issues Relating to Operational and Strategic Aspects. Presidential Address to the 66th Annual Conference of Indian Economic Association, Bangalore, 1983. 18. In a series of meetings with the district collectors, former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi had urged that the district administration be revitalized and the role of district ofce property delineated, see Kallhan, P. Fresh Briefs for Collectors, The Hindustan Times, June 20, 1988. 19. Taub, R.P. Bureaucrats under Stress; University of California Press: Berkeley, 1969; 161. 20. India Planning Commission. The Five Year Plan, 195156; Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1953; 115127. 21. India Planning Commission. The Second Five Year Plan, 195661; Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1956; 274290. 22. India Planning Commission. The Third Five Year Plan, 196166; Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1961; 276290. 23. India Planning Commission. The Fourth Five Year Plan, 197176; Delhi, Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1971; 154171. 24. India Planning Commission. The Sixth Five Year Plan, 198085; Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1983; 8896. 25. India Planning Commission. The Seventh Five Year Plan, 198590; Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1985; xi. 26. See The Hindustan Times, March 2, 1998. 27. See Shastri, P.D. Scrap these Five Year Exercises. The Hindustan Times, February 3, 1997. 28. See The Times of India, October 1, 2000. 29. This section of the paper is based on Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. The Administrative State of India. In Indias Fifty Years of Development;
1332
JAIN
30. 31. 32.
33.
34. 35.
36.
37. 38. 39.
40. 41.
42.
Malik, Y.; Kapur, A., Eds.; APH Publishing Corporation: New Delhi, 1998. See for details, Mishra, B.B. Government and Bureaucracy in India; Oxford University Press: Delhi, 1986. See, Tottenham, R. Reports on the Reorganization of the Central Government, 194546; Government of India: New Delhi, 1946. This Report was discussed during the Constituent Assembly Debates, See India, Constituent Assembly Debates; Government of India: New Delhi, 1949. Ayyangar, N.G. Report on Reorganization of Machinery of Government; Government of India: New Delhi, 1949. Appleby, P.H. Public Administration in India, Report of a Survey; Government of India: New Delhi, 1953. Appleby, P.H. Reorganization of Indias Administrative System with Special Reference to Administration of Governments Industrial and Commercial Enterprises; Government of India: New Delhi, 1956. For further reference, see the following reports: India. Report on the Public Service (Qualication for Recruitment) Committee [Mudaliar Committee]; Ministry of Education: New Delhi, 1956; India. Commission of Inquiry on Enrolments and Conditions of Service of Central Government Employees, 195759; India. Report on Indian New Delhi State Administrative Services and Problems of District Administration [Krishnamachari Report]; Government of India: New Delhi, 1962; India, Report of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption [Sanathanam Committee]; Ministry of Home Affairs: New Delhi, 1964; and India. Report of the Committee on The India Foreign Service [Pillai Committee Report]; Ministry of External Affairs: New Delhi, 1966. Jain, R.B. Contemporary Issues in Indian Administration; Vital Publications: New Delhi, 1976, 398434. India Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Administrative Reforms. Resolution No. 40; 165-AR (P), January 5, 1966. Government of India. The Administrative Reforms Commission and Its Work: a Brief Survey; Administrative Reform Commission: New Delhi, 1969, 8. Government of India. Report on Personnel Administration; Administrative Reforms Commission: New Delhi,1969; 24. Sivaraman, B. Generalist and Specialist in Administration. Indian Journal of Public Administration 1971, 17 (JulySeptember), 384. Dubhashi, P.R. Administrative Reforms in Perspective. In Dr. John Mathai Endowment Lecture; University of Kerala: Trivendrum, 1985.
1333
43. 44.
45. 46. 47.
48. 49.
50. 51. 52. 53.
54.
55. 56. 57. 58.
59.
Narayanan, P.S. ARC Goes: Core in Administration Remains Untouched. Northern India Patrika, 1970. Kothatri, D.S. Report of the Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods; Union Public Service Commission: New Delhi, 1976. Mehta, A. Committee Report on Panchayati Raj; Government of India: New Delhi, 1979. Jha, L.K. Committee Report on Economic Administration; Government of India: New Delhi, 1984. Maheshwari, S.R. Administrative Reforms in India; Jawahar Publishers: New Delhi, 1993; 148. See The Hindustan Times, April 2, 2000. For a detailed discussion on the subject, see Jain, R.B. Globalisation, Market Economy and Human Security: The Indian Experience. Indian Journal of Public Administration 1996, 42 (JulySeptember), 309320. See, Pai Panandiker, V.A. Stability in Diversity. The Hindustan Times, October 19, 1997. For details see, Vohra Committee Report reproduced in Indian Journal of Public Administration 1995, 41 (JulySeptember), 640647. See, Government of India. Annual Report, 199798; Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions: New Delhi, 1998; ivii. For details see, Agnihotri, V.K. Government of Indias Measures for Administrative Reforms (A note submitted for the Indian Council of Social Science Research Symposium on Administrative Reforms); New Delhi, January 3, 2000. Government of India. Report of the Working Group on Right to Information and Promotion of Open and Transparent Government; Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions: New Delhi, 1997 (Reproduced in the Indian Journal of Public Administration 1997, 43 (JulySeptember), 823838. See The Hindustan Times, April 3, 2000. Government of India. Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, Vol. 1; Ministry of Finance: New Delhi, 1997; 83136. Government of India. Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, Vol. 1; Ministry of Finance: New Delhi, 1997; 113114. Dwivedi, O.P. Stewardship of Governance: Ethics and Values of the Public Service. In Governing India: Issues Concerning Public Policy, Institutions and Administration; Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B.; Vajpeyi, D.K., Eds.; B. R. Publishing Corporations: Delhi, 1998; 24. Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. Indias Administrative State; Gitanajali Publishing House: New Delhi, 1985: 122123.
1334
JAIN
60. Dwivedi, O.P; Jain, R.B. Bureaucratic Morality in India. International Political Science Review 1988, 9 (3), 205214. 61. For a detailed analysis of the role of NGOs and other associational groups in development administration, see Jain, R.B. NGOs in Development Perspective; Vivek Prakashan: Delhi, 1995.

Towards Good Governance-A Half Century of India&#39;s Admn Devt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards Good Governance-A Half Century of India&#39;s Admn Devt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Jammu] On: 03 January 2012, At: 00:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa

International Journal of Public Administration

TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India

Available online: 16 Aug 2006

INTL. J. OF PUB. ADMIN., 24(12), 12991334 (2001)

TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

30. 31. 32.

37. 38. 39.

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

INDIAS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

45. 46. 47.

50. 51. 52. 53.

55. 56. 57. 58.

Downloaded by [University of Jammu] at 00:20 03 January 2012

Towards Good Governance-A Half Century of India's Admn Devt

Towards Good Governance-A Half Century of India's Admn Devt