On 20 July, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar addressed a batch of new entrants to the civil services at the Samkalp Foundation in New Delhi. A portion of his speech made it to the media, mostly the bits related to his interview for the civil services examination in 1977, the year he joined the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). But what could have been an inspiring anecdote turned into a political speech.
Jaishankar revealed that he was interviewed on 21 March of that year, the day the Emergency was lifted by the Indira Gandhi government, which was heading towards a massive defeat. Much of what he said about his interview shows not only his personal inclinations but also the attitudes of the ruling dispensation to what it calls the "Lutyens Delhi".
Spoken as they were to newly minted civil servants, the comments deserve a closer, critical look for what they mean and imply.
A Pitch for 'Viksit Bharat'
First, however, let us review how the EAM, in his own words, anticipates the next two decades for the world and India, and the homilies he gave to the young officers.
Jaishankar’s message to the new civil servants was mostly in the context of the world they will inhabit in the next two decades and India’s journey towards 'Viksit Bharat'.
And though he (rightly) congratulated the entrants for succeeding in an examination he dubbed as "unique" in the world, what Jaishankar entirely failed to address is an important question: Does the present Indian bureaucratic system really have the capability to achieve the Narendra Modi-led government’s vision of 'Viksit Bharat' and the wherewithal to meet this new nation's demands?
The Indian administrative system has been inherited from colonial times and has not changed, though the examination to recruit civil servants has undergone drastic changes over the decades.
Is it not time, especially in this 'Amrit Kaal', to comprehensively examine if the inherited colonial system is valid for the present and the future?
Here, a word on the current and past civil services examination system.
The civil services examination is now conducted in three stages. The first is what can be considered a screening stage for the lakhs of candidates appearing for the examination. Those who succeed move on to the written examination, in which they can select subjects of their choice. Those who cross this hurdle have to face an interview.
Around five decades ago, when Jaishankar—and for that matter, this writer too—appeared in the examination, there was only one written examination followed by an interview.
In the written examination, all candidates had to appear in three compulsory papers. Those who appeared for the Indian Police Service (IPS) had to appear in two additional papers chosen from a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) list, those for the Central Services in three additional papers, while those for the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in five additional papers. Thus, the examination was more demanding for the IFS and the IAS. All that has now changed, and a common examination is now the norm.
The old system required work, but it also depended, like all aspects of human life usually do, on chance and luck.
It is doubtful if the element of the latter—chance and luck—has changed. However, few successful candidates and fewer civil service officers climbing the slippery slope of success—or failing to do so—would publicly concede the role of ‘bhagya’.
This writer has, from the time he joined the IFS, maintained that he was very lucky to get through the examination and manage a sufficiently high rank to be able to make it to the IFS.
What the EAM Failed to Note on Duty of Civil Servants
Jaishankar rightly told the newly joined officers that they will have to work in a more demanding environment when popular expectations of governments and administrations were high. He also spoke of a transforming India and of the changing concept of national security. All this was fine, as was the flourish about the great privilege an officer has of representing India.
Then came the pitch of how much India was moving up economically during the Modi government.
He reiterated his conviction that India will become the world’s third-largest economy by 2030 and spoke of how much work would thereafter be required to close the gap between India and the economies at numbers two and one.
In all this, there was no mention at all—and this is characteristic of the ruling dispensation’s approach—on focusing on how great the difference is in poverty levels between India and the other major economies. Neither on the fact that disparities are, indeed, increasing instead of decreasing.
There was no word on the necessity for civil servants to ensure that the welfare of the poor and the powerless is their first duty. But such attitudes perhaps do not even cross the mind of the political and administrative classes, all their populist rhetoric notwithstanding.
Jaishankar said a successful democracy is “one in which opportunity is given to the entire society”. Our Constitutional scheme, nevertheless, mandates that greater opportunity has to be given to the historically disadvantaged.
That is what ought to have been conveyed to civil servants, though it was not.
Besides, Jaishankar eloquently spoke of the need of an inclusive society. At least some of the new civil servants may have wondered if this was really so when the ruling party itself cannot claim to be inclusive in the members it has in the Lok Sabha. And, this was so in the earlier two Lok Sabhas as well.
Separating Office from Politics
Now, to Jaishankar’s reminiscences of his interview for the UPSC, when he was asked by the interview board in 1977 about the reasons for the Lok Sabha election results post the Emergency. It is at this stage that he betrayed an attitude contrary to the basic principles that govern our Constitutional bodies. Jaishankar recalled how he was the first candidate to go in for the interview. Since he was a student of political science, the interview panel deemed it fit to ask him to explain what happened in the recent elections, which had handed a massive defeat to Indira Gandhi.
It is obvious that Jaishankar continues to interpret the question asked of him that day not as a natural question that any interview panel would have asked a political science student but a politically loaded question a group of very senior people “connected and sympathetic to the government of the day” asked him, seemingly seeking ‘gyan’ from a 22-year-old!
Our Constitutional scheme simply does not envisage that members of a Constitutional body, irrespective of the process of appointment, would be sympathetic to the ‘government of the day’.
Members of such a body are expected to function independently once they are appointed. Hence, Jaishankar can be legitimately asked if, in his view, all those who have been appointed to Constitutional positions should be sympathetic to the ‘government of the day’ or perform their duties in keeping with their Constitutional oath.
The most problematic part of his comment was perhaps the fact that it was said during an address to new civil servants who have to perform their duties in accordance with the law and not the diktats of the 'government of the day'.
Naturally, in policy matters, they have to give advice and thereafter carry out instructions. This does not apply, however, to those who have to apply, for instance, criminal statutes. Jaishankar would do well to deeply ponder over his comments, for they are simply contrary to the foundations of our Constitutional scheme.
The Lutyens Conundrum
The next takeaway he mentioned from his UPSC interview—and the last part of our dissection—was that "Lutyens Delhi" was far divorced from India’s ground reality. The term "Lutyens Delhi", as far as I know, was coined by the Sangh Parivar spokespeople for those they pejoratively call ‘Macaulayputra', the symbolic children of colonial-era historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay, and not for those who inhabit a locality in Delhi.
Indeed, if it refers to a locality, it can be said that the term applies to the ruling dispensation as well today, the latter having remained in office since 2014.
The obvious implication of such statements would hence be that the current dispensation is getting cut off from the ground realities of India, outside Delhi. Perhaps Jaishankar needs to think more deeply about the use of a term which is now seldom used by the Sangh spokespeople themselves.
Jaishankar’s erudition is indubitable, but he must think deeply before reiterating the hackneyed political phrases of the dispensation he has joined, especially before a group of recent entrants to the civil services. It is true that new civil servants must prepare to do their work in the massive technological changes that are about to come. But their adherence to the Constitution has to be above all.
(The writer is a former Secretary [West], Ministry of External Affairs. He can be reached @VivekKatju. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)