The NDA government has been introducing a slew of administrative interventions with the ostensible purpose of making the higher bureaucracy responsive and resilient to the changing needs of the country. The administration has to meet the challenges of a globalised economy driven by technology, a complex international trade regime and a dynamic socio-economic environment fraught with contradictions and distortions, rising aspirations and unprecedented challenges.

The All-India Services and Central Civil Services have been managing the diverse affairs of the government. These include regulatory, administrative and development functions both at the Centre and the states.

External affairs are almost entirely the prerogative of the Indian Foreign Service officers who specialise in certain areas of diplomacy or in specified geographical regions, while Indian Administrative Service officers manage a wide spectrum of functions.

During the average 35-37 years of service, an IAS officer gathers knowledge about a number of departments, gets exposed to several administrative challenges and gains considerable experience in managing politically charged situations with fortitude and fairness. Officers belonging to the Central Services are employed by the central government in various departments directly under it such as income tax, railways, posts, audit and accounts and such others.

In the initial two decades, the officers of these services gain considerable practical knowledge in their respective areas. In the last 10-15 years of their career, they all move upward in the hierarchy and many of them occupy positions in the central government as joint secretaries, additional secretaries and secretaries. As a secretary, an officer is in a position to influence government policies (often through the minister) and sometimes directly through other institutional mechanisms. In any case, it is the domain knowledge, coupled with long years of valuable experience of negotiating the administrative labyrinth, that makes an officer useful and effective.

This administrative arrangement has earned the sobriquet of being the “steel frame” on which political dispensations get elected and come to power for a limited period of five years (or less). This bureaucracy ensures continuity and stability amid phases of political turmoil and instability. However, the services of experts from various areas of specialisation are also required by the government to deal with specific and emerging areas. This is often availed by appointing consultants in the respective ministries and getting inputs from specialised organisations and scientific institutions.

For instance, in areas like space research, atomic energy and defence production, organisations such as ISRO, Atomic Energy Commission and DRDO have a technological upper hand in decision-making than the generalist bureaucrat. In fact, in such ministries, the practice of appointing the chairpersons of these organisations as ex-officio secretaries to the government has been in place for several years now with a view to bridging this gap.

However, of late, the Union government seems to have felt some kind of inadequacy in the existing bureaucracy of generalist civil servants to deal with new situations. NITI Aayog has recommended lateral entry at a higher level as an opportunity to bring in fresh talent and to augment the availability of specialised manpower in the government.

This may be a response to rapid changes in the techno-economic global architecture within which governments have to function. Or it may be that the government is getting impatient with the style in which administrative machinery is being run in the ordinary course. Admittedly, administrative systems both at the Centre and the states are known for delays and procrastination, justified by archaic laws and practices.

Another reason could be the technological and attitudinal gaps being felt in the bureaucracy. As the economy opens up and private investment becomes a catalyst for economic development, the old-world attitude of controls and dithering can be anachronistic.

All these are plausible explanations behind the Union government’s decision to directly select qualified persons and appoint them as joint secretaries. Recently, the government decided to induct 40 private sector experts as deputy secretaries and directors in various ministries.

This departure from the prevailing practice has evoked widespread criticism and considerable resentment. It has been pointed out that it is unwise to tinker with the tried and tested administrative set-up. In order to get outside expertise, there is already a system of engaging consultants who work outside the normal hierarchy of civil servants. But lateral entry by direct selection at the level of joint secretary or deputy secretary is an effective subversion and a message of disapproval of the capability of the civil servant.

An officer at the joint secretary level has behind him/her nearly 25 years of experience and has been selected through a highly competitive civil services examination and further sieved by a system of empanelment after proper scrutiny. It has been pointed out that knowledge gaps in the top bureaucracy could have been bridged either by better HR planning, including the opportunity for specialisation and advanced training.

Another critique is that the newly inducted officers will find it frustrating to work within the complex web of government systems, to which they will be totally strangers. Unless backed by radical administrative reforms, these cosmetic changes might finally result in alienating the existing bureaucracy without any incremental value addition from the lateral entrants.

As the Union government’s ambitious schemes are mostly implemented through the state governments and their rather lethargic official machinery, such top dressing may have little effect on the ground.

However, lateral entry sends out strong signals to the bureaucracy on the need to change and acquire investor-friendly, tech-savvy attitudes and proactive decision-making skills. The freshly inducted officers could bring in new experiences, fresh ideas, bold ways of thinking and decision-making. It could lead towards new linkages and information sharing in unprecedented ways with global institutions and individuals, ordinarily outside the usual horizon of the government.

Though the idea cannot be faulted, its implications and the debit side consequences cannot be easily glossed over. When systems that have managed government business for several decades are disturbed on the strength of (well-meaning) smart ideas, it would definitely leave scars and create imbalances. It is feared that this measure could dilute the political neutrality of the civil service. It is the political neutrality of the civil service that gives India its administrative fairness and credibility. If lateral entry opens the doors to corporate and political interests in the upper echelons of bureaucracy, its damaging consequences need to be viewed with concern.

The government’s decision to proceed with lateral induction should be matched with measures that facilitate integration of the lateral entrants with the mainstream system.

The government cannot shy away from the immediate task of addressing and undoing the disenchantment and possible alienation in the civil service. It could also lead to the exit of competent bureaucrats to the private sector where emoluments are far more attractive than in the government. Frustrated with the self-defeating bureaucratic system, the lateral entrants (with result-oriented, private sector backgrounds) could also opt out.

For this experiment to yield optimum result, the government has to urgently take up bold administrative reforms on a war-footing to make governance hassle-free and transparent and address the issue of capacity building and specialisation in the civil service. Without these urgent ancillary measures, the experiment of lateral induction could prove to be more of a disruption than value addition.

K. Jayakumar is a senior IAS officer from Kerala who retired as the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala. The views expressed here are personal.