PANI

Jawaharlal Nehru and Panchayats

2022-03-20T11:29:00.002+05:30

By Madhavan K. Palat

Nehru talked of panchayats as if they were bureaucracies, imagining them as elected civil servants rather than political leaders. He wanted “real power to be in the hands of the people” but also that “they must be trained in governance”.

Jawaharlal Nehru restlessly sought to provide Indian democracy with a firm and unshakeable base. The Constitution supplied the framework, Parliament and State legislatures stood as the superstructure, and adult suffrage ensured the possibility of universal participation.

But this edifice lacked an institutional foundation in the villages. Should the top falter, the base would subside. That deficiency would be made up by the village council or panchayat. Electoral democracy would be triple layered — the panchayat at the bottom, the State legislature above it, and Parliament at the apex. But Nehru did not seem to be able to decide whether the panchayat was a political body or a bureaucratic committee.

He sometimes spoke of panchayats as if they were to be political leaders in their domain, but the Constitution had not provided for them and he did not move to correct that omission. He imagined them representing the nation in the manner that Parliament and State legislatures did. In 1951, he expressed the hope that panchayats in Madhya Bharat “can rise above parochial feelings and think of larger issues and the service of the country.”

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution did provide for autonomous districts and regions which he considered “a very wise provision”. They had been formed in the Northeast and he expected them to do well when they could raise finances through taxation. This was the Soviet pattern, with its political hierarchy going from the Union through the Union Republics (the equivalent of Indian States) to the Autonomous Republics; but panchayats were clearly not comparable to even the last of these.

Trained to govern

Nehru claimed to “want real power to be in the hands of the people in villages and districts and states” but that “they must first understand and be trained in the principles of governance and then play an active role in governing the country.” The properly political entities like the District Councils did not seem to need instruction, but the panchayats evidently did.

However, training suggests bureaucracy, not political leadership. Nehru, in many ways, talked of panchayats as if they were bureaucracies: he would delegate power to them, he was decentralising through them, certain administrative duties were to be transferred to them, and they were to “help” because the government “cannot do everything”. In effect, he imagined them as elected civil servants rather than as political leaders like himself. Like centralising states since the 16th century elsewhere in the world, Nehru was providing for an elected village and municipal bureaucracy to complement the bureaucracy of state which could not enter into the minutiae of local life.

Consistently enough, he was eloquent about the panchayat doubling up as a local planning committee, the analogue of the Planning Committees in the States and of the Planning Commission in Delhi. It was the best informed on local conditions and priorities and presumably, therefore, more effective than experts sent down from the capitals. But he regarded them as sources of information rather than as planners in any meaningful sense of the term, even at a subordinate level. He acknowledged that planning proceeded vertically from above, and he regretted that as a result planners knew little of local and everyday needs, about wells, tanks, roads, bridges, schools, dispensaries and so on. The remedy lay in involving the panchayats at this humble level and urging them even to organise voluntary labour for development; he assigned them administrative tasks like conducting crop competitions to raise productivity, and described these initiatives as democratic and “revolutionary”. He informed them that they were “participants in administration”, “shareholders in the task of administration”, and much more along that order.

Nehru’s taking “our democracy to its grassroots through Panchayat Raj” was akin to democracy being distributed like financial subsidies, a democratic boon to the bottom of the power hierarchy. He always spoke of “granting” panchayats and co-operatives financial powers and associating them in the process of planning to “strengthen the development programme”.

This might explain why he imagined the panchayat as a space for non-party democracy. It was not strictly political after all. Party politics entailed demagoguery, populism, corruption, sleaze, oligarchies, and debilitating competition. He hoped to create a clearing in the jungle or an oasis in the desert with such Rousseauvian direct democracy, with Gandhi to stir him and Jayaprakash Narayan to urge him on. From as early as 1950, he was reminding people like his sister, diplomat Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, or U.N. Dhebar, the Congress president, of the corruption of party politics in panchayats; and in 1960, he even instructed the Congress to participate in the panchayats, but not as a party, which must have bewildered his followers. As if to round it all off, in the course of celebrating the panchayat achievement in 1963, he warned of the dangers inherent in democracy and of the tendency of power to corrupt.

Subordinate bureaucracy

He was afflicted by the doubt that panchayats might become adjuncts to the regular bureaucracy. He regularly informed his rural public that officials were there only to help not to command. But the function of bureaucracies is not to help anybody but to impose order and stability; and the frequency of Nehru’s reassurance reflects his justified suspicion that officials acted as superiors, not facilitators, as he fondly hoped. In effect, panchayats constituted a subordinate bureaucracy.

It was democracy constructed downward, like bureaucracy, which may appear wholly opposed to the democratic logic of assertion from below. That argument is persuasive, but there are large counter-examples: America imposed democracy on Germany, Austria, Italy, and Japan after their defeat in World War II, and it has endured. Revolutions from above have been more frequent, with Stalin and Mao providing the most recent examples. Nehru’s pursuit of both democracy and revolution from above were not necessarily futile, contrary though it might have been to many theories of these processes.

He was providing a democratic carapace to a bureaucratic extension by employing the reigning language of power, Democracyspeak, as it were. While he always described panchayats as democratic by virtue of their being elected, he clubbed their work with the social service of the Bharat Sevak Samaj, the self-help of the co-operatives, the small-scale enterprise of cottage industry, and generally of constructive action, community development, and even village handicraft. They approximated to the NGOs soon to come, neither bureaucracy nor political leadership but a supporting actor to both at their respective extremities in village and municipality.

What began as an attempt to extend the parliamentary system ended by providing a handmaiden to both parliament and bureaucracy along with a patrician’s homily on the danger of power passing into the hands of those unfit to exercise it. True to himself, JP disparaged the panchayat as an imposition from above. It could be considered a deepening of democracy to the extent of its expanding the space for an active citizenry, as must happen with volunteer citizen groups, but in Nehru’s mind, it did not rise above that.

Suffocating power

Nehru claimed that parliament and democracy were set on the tradition of the panchayats of ancient India. He drew on European socialist traditions also, especially of British and German social democracy with their impressive research on local government, and perhaps on the early Russian revolutionary experience until 1920 with the councils or soviets which bequeathed that word to the name of the ensuing republic. Gandhi inspired; but he focused on the village at the expense of state structures; and the anarchistic JP was wary of the suffocating power of the state. Nehru however was a state builder and he integrated local democratic bodies to the parliamentary system above, all regarded cumulatively as institutions of State.

But Nehru, as usual, appeared on both sides of the argument. Along with others like the conservative K.M. Munshi or the radical Ambedkar, he feared that caste and class tyranny could flourish in the guise of village democracy. He had said so in his Glimpses of World History but he did not revert to that awkward insight subsequently. However, he did not pose the problem as a choice between bureaucracy and democracy. He regarded them as complementary; if bureaucracy was to penetrate the last village, so should democracy; and whatever the risks, they were worth taking and facing.

The writer is the editor of Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru.

Courtesy: The Hindu

Of bureaucracy, the public and ‘vishwas’ politics

2022-01-24T01:27:00.023+05:30

By Yamini Aiyar

Yamini Aiyar is President and Chief Executive, Centre for Policy Reasearch, Delhi

IN 2021, the bureaucracy or more specifically the Indian Administrative Service, made its way into the headlines in unexpected and unsavory ways. In February, while defending the governments’ disinvestment policy in Parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a sharp attack against the bureaucracy. ‘Babu’s will do everything? What is this great power we have created?’ he asked, ‘What are we going to achieve by handing over the reins of the nation to babus?’

Prime Minister Modi is not alone in expressing deep-seated frustration with the bureaucracy and in particular the elite IAS. Nearly all his predecessors from Nehru to Manmohan Singh (the irony notwithstanding) routinely pointed fingers at the babu for all that was wrong with India’s ‘governance’ – red tape, inefficiency, corruption. ‘The government at every level… is not adequately equipped… to meet the aspirations of people’, said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first address to the nation as Prime Minister back in 2004. But what differentiates February’s attack from frustrations of the past is the fact that it was made in Parliament in full public view and in defence of the private sector.

Almost as though it was responding to the prime ministers’ chidings, months later in those dark days of April and May 2021, the bureaucracy showcased the best and worst of itself. Amidst the ravages of the Covid 19 second wave, as hapless citizens’ searched for hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and medicines, we heard tales of innovation and leadership, of oxygen war rooms and command centres, of scores of frontline workers who put themselves at grave personal risk to respond to the crisis. But these tales of heroism were routinely interspersed with unsavory, vulgar displays of power. Entrusted with maintaining public health measures, Covid 19 legitimized draconian intrusions by bureaucrats into our everyday lives.

The bureaucracy embraced these new powers with unabashed enthusiasm. District magistrates were routinely caught on camera slapping and beating citizens’, smashing their phones, abusing and even spraying them with sanitizer in the guise of securing public cooperation to comply with Covid 19 rules. In the months that followed, even as Covid 19 retreated, instances of routine violence, both through soft coercion and the occasional active use of force repeatedly made their way into the headlines. There was the unsavoury video of the young sub-district magistrate who achieved notoriety by getting caught on camera commandeering the local police to ‘break their (farmer protestors) heads’, the possible complicity of the district administration in the killing of a young man protesting an eviction drive, amongst others.

Taken together these somewhat disparate headlines reveal the deepening fault lines in the relationship between bureaucrats and politics on the one hand and bureaucrats and the public on the other. The two are not disconnected. Political culture significantly shapes bureaucratic behaviour and how it responds to citizens. After all, alignment with political power is a crucial source of legitimacy for the bureaucracy and its organizations. Further, coercion and the occasional wilful use of violence is not unique to Covid 19 nor is it a new phenomenon. In fact, it is an endemic feature of our administrative culture.

Yet, as I will argue in this essay, the intersection of the current political moment (a centralized, technocratic, personality driven politics) with the prevalent bureaucratic culture is leading to a subtle and systemic shift in the dynamics of the relationship between bureaucracy, politics and the public. Understanding the transitions underway in our democracy requires grappling with these unfolding dynamics and coming to terms, fully and frontally with their implications on citizen-state relations.1

In an insightful essay political scientist and my colleague at CPR, Neelanjan Sircar describes the contemporary political moment in Indian politics as characterized by a new type of political mobilization based on what he calls the ‘politics of vishwas’.2 Vishwas politics is a deeply personalized form of politics in which voters expressly prefer centralizing political power within a ‘strong’ political leader, investing complete faith and trust in the leader.

Two strategic tools in the practice of politics sustain vishwas. First, political centralization, which is at the heart of the Hindu nationalist ideological project of the current dispensation and second, the ability to control money, media and the party machinery and deploy this complex toward building a direct relationship between the voter and the leader. Vishwas politics requires the careful crafting of the image of the leader in ways that can, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s describes, ‘colonize our imaginations, our hopes, our fears.’3 This is the politics of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) under Prime Minister Modi.

While money, media and the party machinery, as Sircar argues, are key, there is a strong case to be made for unpacking the role of the bureaucracy, specifically the elite IAS, in producing ‘vishwas’. It is my argument that bureaucracy is central to vishwas politics. On the one hand, the pathologies of the bureaucracy are critical to keeping alive in the public imagination, the image of Modi as a hardworking, decisive, efficient and strong leader, pushing for execution. It is in this leadership that the voter entrusts her ‘vishwas’. At the same time, the politics of centralization necessitates the co-option of the bureaucracy, with all its inherent pathologies, to sustain centralization. The result is a fusing of political and bureaucratic characteristics of the state which risks deepening the political stranglehold over bureaucracy and in the long run, undermining the somewhat utopian goal of bureaucratic autonomy on the one hand and democratic accountability of the state on the other.

Readers will be familiar with the now infamous maximum governance, minimum government slogan of the 2014 election campaign. Throughout the campaign, every effort was made to craft candidate Modi as a strong leader capable of repairing India’s broken governance and apathetic bureaucracy.

Within days of being elected prime minister, Modi got to work, showcasing this strong leadership toward meeting this goal. Ordinances, allowing officers of choice to be appointed in the prime minister’s office (PMO) were passed, biometric attendance to ensure errant bureaucrats clock in to work, PRAGATI (a monitoring platform where the prime minister, Government of India secretaries and state chief secretaries meet to periodically report on performance) meetings were institutionalized, officers penalized (between May 2014 and May 2019, sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was granted against 23 IAS and four IPS officers) and long debated reform ideas like lateral entry, 360 degree feedback, changes in training were experimented with.

These examples of action were complemented with periodic leaks in the media of the bureaucracy being worked literally through sleepless nights under the watchful eye of the Modi PMO. In his second term, the prime minister’s attacks on the bureaucracy have become sharper culminating in his remarks in Parliament that we began this essay with. ‘You have ruined my first five years. I will not let you ruin the next five’, he reportedly told the IAS in a meeting with them in late 2019. ‘The image that has been created about civil services is of power, of aristocracy… you have to pull the civil services out of this image. The public should never feel that you live behind doors’, said the prime minister in a speech in 2019 reflecting a deep understanding of the dynamics of the bureaucracy and its relationship with the public. Since his reflection, new experiments have been rolled out. The most significant of these is the establishment of a Capacity Building Council for Strengthening Training, to implement a new programme called Mission Karmayogi, a training based reform designed to improve the ‘functional and behavioural competence of civil service officers’ and ‘enhance the citzen-government interface.’

Together, these frontal attacks against the errant, distanced, inefficient corrupt bureaucracy combined with the well-publicized decisive ‘reform’ actions, essential to sustaining the prime ministers’ image of strong leadership, have become a critical ingredient in the Modi regime’s political theatre.

However, the attacks and reform initiatives have not been designed to achieve deep structural reform of the bureaucracy. This is because, despite the role that this relationship of adversity plays in the political theatre, bureaucratic support and participation is essential to Modi’s political project. After all, the practice of political centralization requires the co-option of bureaucrats in order to bypass local political bosses and reach voters directly. A close look at the administrative style of the Modi government, through its seven years in power attests to this. The centralization of executive authority within the prime ministers’ office, is today a widely acknowledged characteristic of Modi’s governance style. Ministers (and even chief ministers) are largely invisible to the public when it comes to policy decisions. And the primary instrument through which they have been made invisible is through empowering the bureaucrats.

Policy under Prime Minister Modi is an entirely technocratic affair shorn of consultation and deliberation. Ideas are generated through the PMO and communicated to the public either directly by the prime minister himself or through routine technocratic policy processes. The infamous decision to demonetize high value currency in 2016 and the 2020 agriculture laws, are classic illustrations of this particular modus operandi. Institutional sites for deliberation and consultation, the Parliament and even the Cabinet, have largely been dispensed with; as have informal sites through intra-party structures. The bureaucracy , with all its pathologies, today is far more powerful and more distanced from the public than in the pre-Modi era.

Unsurprisingly, the bureaucracy has responded to the demands of vishwas politics with aplomb. At one level this has meant adopting (and adapting) the culture of centralization in day to day administration. Following the prime minister’s style of centralized administration, bureaucrats too have routinely bypassed administrative and political layers to deal directly with district administrators, tracking performance related to goals and targets of Union government schemes. This is a significant structural shift in the fundamental design principles and accountability mechanisms within the bureaucracy. To explain, the IAS is designed as a system with dual control in which officers have a direct line of accountability to state and central governments but by convention the relationship between the Centre and districts was mediated through state governments. This direct accountability, under the current political culture, to the Centre is unprecedented.

The consequence of breaking accepted accountability systems run deeper than merely blurring boundaries of politics and bureaucracy. They serve to deepen the culture of distance and mistrust which shapes the relationship of the bureaucracy and the public. The egregious acts of coercion and violence that motivated this essay, referenced in the introduction, are but an extreme illustration of the consequences of this centralization. A brief digression to illustrate this is important here.

Studies on the Indian bureaucracy have repeatedly highlighted the extent to which the social location of the bureaucracy, specifically its role as an instrument of social mobility and access to state power, and its internal hierarchies and structures, have shaped the bureaucracies relationship with the public. Mistrust and arbitrary use of state power are legitimate means through which the bureaucracy engages with citizens.

Political scientist Akshay Mangla offers a useful analytical framework through which to understand these relationships.4 Mangla advances the category of ‘legalistic model’ of bureaucratic governance which is based on norms that promote a culture of struct adherence to rules, hierarchies and procedures, often at the cost of being responsive to citizen needs. The ‘public’ in legalistic bureaucracies are passive recipients of an administrative process that functions on the logic of internal hierarchies, documents and laborious bureaucratic processes designed to ensure ‘rule following’. Legalistic norms privilege a social distance between the bureaucracy and the public. In such settings hierarchy is deployed to exercise state power and trust is replaced with a desire to discipline through state coercion.

Legalistic norms thrive on centralization, after all there is no expectation of public deliberation or responsiveness. Throughout the response to Covid 19, a centralized, command and control model was privileged. In the first phase (until the deadly second wave) it was the central government through empowered committees that imposed lockdowns and monitored public health measures. This command and control approach suited, indeed was guided by legalistic norms. States took greater responsibility in the second wave, but here too the approach was largely top down, demanding little by way of decentralized coordination between the frontline and the rest of the bureaucracy, thus establishing a distance from citizens. It was this perfect cocktail of centralization and legalism that resulted in the coercive approach to Covid 19 that caught bureaucrats slapping, lathi charging and abusing citizens in the name of public health, with no demand for accountability.

This culture of coercion was visible in the findings of a 2020, survey by the Centre for Policy Research’s (CPR) State Capacity Initiative, to capture perceptions of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) on public administration in the first few months of the pandemic.5

The survey was conducted between August and September 2020. Responses were received from 526 officers, across 18 different cadres, including 44 former officers.

The survey responses revealed a substantial dependence on public fear of law and coercion by the IAS when it came to managing the pandemic. When asked about imposing lockdown rules and interacting with the public, 45% of respondents stated that it was through the ‘fear of law’, rather than public willingness and cooperation, that compliance to lockdown rules was ensured. This, despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of public communication. Discipline through coercion was still valued over possibilities of cooperation.

The survey also highlights the very low levels of trust between the IAS and the public. When asked about challenges to public health outcomes related to the pandemic such as the capacity to expand testing – the tensions between the bureaucracy and the public were even sharper. Social norms, values, and practices were expressed as the real barriers to expanded testing. And while officers acknowledged the limitations of state capacity and communication failure, much of the responsibility and, significantly, blame was placed on the public. Coercion, policing, and extreme acts of violence are legitimate forms of administration against this backdrop.

But what makes the acceptance of coercion and policing in the midst of Covid 19 distinctive and troubling is that they have been expressed within a political culture that has been complicit in its silence of, if not actively encouraging, violence. This is perhaps the most important and troubling ingredient of the politics of vishwas and the role of the bureaucracy within it. The direct connect that the leader seeks to establish with the voter, requires the bureaucracy to be active agents in generating this ‘vishwas’ creating a culture in which active political propaganda is legitimized as a critical administrative task.

Bureaucracy by design aligns itself to political power and this ‘politicization of bureaucracy’ has long been considered a critical reason for bureaucratic failure in India. But what makes this moment different is that centralization has encouraged bureaucrats to emerge as active propogandists (rather than perpetrators of corruption or victims of political agendas, as has been the case in the past) of the Modi government. It is not uncommon for senior IAS officers to find space in op-ed pages of mainstream dailies and on social media, promoting the policy achievements of the government. This is blatantly partisan, after all the fundamental tenet of the bureaucracy is to faithfully implement the will of the political executive, not actively propagate it.

But when the lines between political propaganda and bureaucratic action are blurred, elements of the political culture find their way in to bureaucratic decision making. There have been several instances in the recent past where bureaucrats have come out in public defence of government policy against critiques

by researchers, activists and practitioners. When bureaucrats defend the government against critics they become active participants in promoting a politics that is impatient with the ‘public’ and seeks to curb dissent in pursuit of vishwas. In such an environment, the distance between soft state coercion in pursuit of administrative goals and the active use of force is relatively easy to travel. And the silence, indeed complicity of violence that has penetrated political culture today, encourages this.

The extreme acts of complicity in violence the SDM ordering the local police to break heads of farmer protestors or the district administration in Assam sending out their photographer to document policing of the eviction drive, are instances of just this. Moreover, the political silence on violence alongside its routine deployment of the troll army in demonizing citizens creates the perfect conditions for bureaucratic capitulation and willingness to travel this distance from administrative coercion to active violence. It is for this reason that the sporadic instances of violence that made their way to the headlines in 2021 cannot be dismissed as mere actions of errant bureaucrats drunk on power and a desire to climb the bureaucratic ladder. They need to be understood in the context of the political moment and what the implications of this fusing of the political and bureaucratic arms of the state may have for the citizen-state compact in the long-term.

Arguably, the comfort with which bureaucrats in the CPR survey argued for the fear of law as critical to ensuring compliance with lockdown rules was heightened because of the specific political context within which the lockdown was implemented. It is instructive that a greater number of retired civil service officers (68%) gave greater weightage to ‘public cooperation and willingness’ over ‘fear of the law’ in ensuring compliance.

In conclusion, I offer these reflections on the role of bureaucracy in the perpetuation of a politics of vishwas – a politics of centralization and distance from the public – not to advance a theory on bureaucratic politicization or to denounce the bureaucracy. Rather, these reflections have been written in the spirit of deepening the dialogue on the current political juncture and the urgency to confront its impact on state institutions and democracy. No democracy can survive, in spirit, when state institutions and especially the bureaucracy which is the primary instrument through which ordinary citizens experience the state, actively relies on coercion, creating mistrust and a deep distance from the public it serves. We need to understand and worry about these emerging trends. They pose a serious threat to democracy.

Footnotes:

1. The framework for this essay and some of the reflections here are drawn from an essay titled ‘The Bureaucracy’, to be published in a forthcoming edited volume on Indian Democracy edited by Dinsha Mistree, Sumit Ganguly and Larry Diamond.

2. Neelanjan Sircar, ‘The Politics of Vishwas: Political Mobilization in the 2019 National Election’, Contemporary South Asia 28(2), May 2020, pp. 178-94.

3. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘Staggering Dominance’, Indian Express, May 2019, https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/narendra-modi-lok-sabha-elections-2019-results-bjp-congress-rahul-gandhi-5745371/

4. A. Mangla, ‘Bureaucratic Norms and State Capacity: Implementing Primary Education in India’s Himalayan Region.’ Working Paper 14-099, retrieved from Harvard Business School, 2014.

5. M. Krishnamurthy, D. Sanan, K.R. Sharma & A. Unnikrishnan, The Pandemic and Public Administration: A Survey of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officers. Centre for Policy Research. New Delhi, 2021.

The article first appeeared in Seminar Magazine

Quantitative Research Methods for Pol. Sc. and Pub. Ad. with Applications in R

2021-01-08T23:25:00.022+05:30

Book Name

Quantitative Research Methods for Political Science, Public Policy and Public AdministrationWith Applications in R

Edition

3rd Edition

Authors/ Editors

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith

Joseph T. Ripberger

Gary Copeland

Matthew C. Nowlin

Tyler Hughes

Aaron L. Fister

Wesley Wehde

Publication Date

September 12, 2017

License

CC BY 4.0

Publisher

University Libraries, The University of Oklahoma

Politics-Administration Dichotomy (PAD)

2020-08-04T01:27:00.008+05:30

By Naved Ashrafi

The roots of Politics-Administration Dichotomy lie in the early works of Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow. Wilson wrote an essay The Study of Administration in 1887 and Frank Goodnow wrote a book Politics and Administration in 1900.

Wilson & Goodnow on Dichotomy

The term “Politics-Administration Dichotomy” was neither coined by Woodrow Wilson nor by Frank Goodnow. It is said that Dwight Waldo was the first person who used this term.

Woodrow Wilson’s essay was seminal in the sense that it laid the foundation of Public Administration as a new discipline of academic inquiry. He made significant observations in the context of American public administration that was grappling with serious maladies, corruption being one of them. To Wilson, it was getting harder to run a Constitution than to frame one.

Wilson held that American administration lacked economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and all that was the result of corrupting influence of politics. That is why Wilson wanted the American public administration might get rid of the nudges of politics.

He identified that the politics and the administration were two different spheres of activity with no overlapping. He observed,

“Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the task for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its office”.

While the administration had to deal with the “detailed and systematic execution of law”, politics is credited for making the law. He said that politics was the special province of the statesman and administration that of the technical official. Wilson clearly demarcated the boundaries of the two and wanted a generic science of administration.

Similarly, Frank Goodnow held that politics and administration were two different functions of the government. Politics expresses the state's will and frames the policies accordingly; administration, on the other hand, is responsible for the execution of those policies. While the former represents a legislative character, the latter essentially shows the executive character of the government. Goodnow believed that these two different functions could not be assigned to one branch of the government.

Dilemma of Dichotomy

Politics-Administration Dichotomy clearly differentiates between the non-career political executive and non-political career executive. C. E. Merriam advocated that ‘politics’ should supervise and control ‘administration’ but should not extend this control farther than what is necessary for the main purpose.

Putting a line of demarcation between the two vocations is not an easy task for we cannot separate politics from administration and vice-versa. In fact, Woodrow Wilson himself had a predicament about the separability and inseparability of the two. While Frederick C. Mosher was confident that Wilson called for a separation of administration from politics, Fred Riggs, on the other hand, held that Wilson was under no illusion that administrative development could take place in a political vacuum.

Woodrow Wilson’s arguments for inseparability are equally important when he observes in The Study,

“No lines of demarcation, setting apart administrative from non-administrative functions, can be run between this and that department of government without being run uphill and down dale, over dizzy heights of distinction and through dense jungles of statutory enactment, hither and thither around “ifs” and “buts,” “whens” and “howevers,” until they become altogether lost to the common eye…”

In 1891, he said,

“Administration cannot be divorced from its connections with the other branches of public law without being distorted and robbed of its true significance. Its foundations are those deep and permanent principles of politics”.

Demise of Dichotomy

Politics-Administration Dichotomy lost its validity in the wake of New Deal movement and the war efforts. It invited serious criticism from people like Luther Gulick, L. D. White, Paul H. Appleby. Gulick rejected the separation of politics and administration as “impractical, impossible and undesirable”. According to Gulick, Politics-Administration Dichotomy had met a sad demise as it was a fact that administration was necessarily involved in both politics and policy process. In his article Next Steps in Public Administration, he observed,

We need more than the "service of knowledge." We need also the service of appraisal, of foresight, of values; yes, and the service of character as well. Thus the old dichotomy between "politics" and "administration" breaks down, and we need to develop a new doctrine and practice for the fullest possible use of the expert in an appropriate framework of political and professional responsibility.

Paul H. Appleby, who was one of the major proponents of New Deal, rejected the dichotomy claiming that the public administration was policy-making. In Classics of Public Administration, Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde observe,

Appleby wrote perhaps the most skillful polemic of the era, which asserted that this theoretical insistence on apolitical governmental processes went against the grain of the U.S. experience. Appleby in Big Democracy compared government to business. In his chapter "Government Is Different", he emphatically shattered public administration’s self-imposed demarcation between politics and administration. He held that it was a myth that politics was separate and could somehow be taken out of administration.

To Appleby, a theory of public administration meant a theory of politics also. Appleby's Big Democracy emerged was an obituary to Politics-Administration Dichotomy. Van Riper thought that there was "no permanent solution, no fixed paradigm to this or any other end-means continuum". He states,

As we all know by now, politics and administration are inextricably intermixed. Both are central to effective action. One problem is to bring them together in a symbiotic association yet keep each in its proper place. The other is understand that the 'proper place' of each will vary through time.

Question of Accountability

Maass and Radway (2001) are of the opinion that there is a close relationship between the formulation of public policy and its execution. They held that public policy was being formed as it was being executed and it was being executed as it was being formed. Bureaucratic feedback acts as an input for the public policy process which is offered by the bureaucracy manned by professionals and experts and not merely clerks. In a representative democracy, accountability plays a vital role in setting government agenda and governmental responses to public aspirations. So, bureaucracy being at the central stage of the policy process is frowned upon on the question of accountability.

Wilson provides a solution that public agencies should be accountable to the legislature which in turn should be made accountable to the people. Wilson provides a hierarchical view of democratic accountability, thus confirming a distinction between politics and administration. This scheme of accountability in the hierarchy seems not very plausible as Friederich held that administrators would "likely to be more attuned to questions of administrative responsibility instead of democratic accountability". Frederick C. Mosher also held that future administrators should be imbued with a sense of democratic responsibility.

Finer and Lowi call for "increased supervision of administrative actions as a means of limiting bureaucratic discretion along with 'representative bureaucracy' and public participation.

Significance of Dichotomy

R. K. Sapru points out that the issue of Politics-Administration Dichotomy is not dead and it still inspires many debates in the discipline of public administration. He gives three reasons:

1. Developing Independent Studies of Institutions

Public administration is an area of action by the public organizations which imparts it an institutional outlook where it functions within certain agencies and not throughout the government. This inferred that a study could be developed independently of both the studies of politics and that of administration.

2. For Operating Public Agencies on Business like Basis

Woodrow Wilson observed that the American administration lacked economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This was due to political interference in the administrative chores. Wilson's conviction stands still relevant to get rid of corruption and inefficiency in the administration.

3. Defining Role in Relationship

It is important to define and understand the relationship (not dichotomy) between politics and administration it goes to the heart of what public administration is all about.

Naved Ashrafi is a Guest Faculty (Public Administration) at Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad.

Inter-State Council

2017-09-18T00:41:00.002+05:30

The provision for setting up an Inter-State Council is mentioned in Article 263 of the Constitution:

263. Provisions with respect to an inter-State Council.-

If at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a Council charged with the duty of-

(a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States;

(b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the States, or the Union and one or more of the States, have a common interest; or

(c) making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the better co-ordination of policy and action with respect to that subject,

it shall be lawful for the President by order to establish such a Council, and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by it and its organisation and procedure.

In pursuance of the recommendation made by the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, the Inter-State Council was set up in 1990 through a Presidential Order dated May 28, 1990.

The Inter-State Council (ISC) is a recommendatory body and has been assigned the duties of investigating and discussing such subjects, in which some or all of the States or the Union Territories and one or more of the states have a common interest, for better coordination of policy and action with respect to that subject.

It also deliberates upon such other matters of general interests to the states as may be referred by the Chairman to the Council.

The Prime Minister is the Chairman of the Council.

Chief Ministers of all the states and Union Territories having Legislative Assemblies, Administrators of Union Territories not having Legislative Assemblies, Governors of States under President’s rule and six ministers of Cabinet rank in the Union Council of Ministers, nominated by the Chairman of the Council, are members of the Council.

The meetings of the Council are held in camera, and all issues, which come up for consideration of the Council in a meeting, are decided by consensus, and the decision of the Chairman as to the consensus is final.

Based on the recommendation of the ISC, the Standing Committee of the Inter-State Council was first constituted in the year 1996 for continuous consultation and processing of matters for the consideration of the Council.

The Inter-State Council and its Standing Committee have, so far held 10 meetings each and have considered all the recommendations made by the Sarkaria Commission.

The Council has also considered other public policy and governance issues, such as:

(a) Contract labour and contract appointments;

(b) Blueprint of an Action Plan on Good Governance;

(d) Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and status of implementation of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Official Language in Indian Adminstration

2017-09-16T16:09:00.005+05:30

Constitutional and Other Provisions

Article 343 (1) of the Constitution provides that Hindi in Devanagari script shall be the official language of the Union.

Article 343 (2) also provides for continuing the use of English in official work of the Union for a period of 15 years (i.e., up to January 25, 1965) from the date of commencement of the Constitution.

Article 343 (3) empowered the Parliament to provide by law for continued use of English for official purposes even after January 25, 1965.

The Official Language Act- 1963 also lays down under Section 3(3) that both Hindi and English shall compulsorily be used for certain specified purpose such as Resolutions, General Orders, Rules, Notifications, Administrative and other Reports, Press Communiques; Administrative and other reports and official papers to be laid before a House or the Houses of Parliament; contracts, agreements, licences, permits, tender notices and forms of tender, etc.

In 1976, Official Language Rules were framed under the provisions of section 8 (1) of the Official Languages Act, 1963 as amended in 1967.

Salient features of the rules are as under:

(i) They apply to all Central Government offices, including any office of a Commission, Committee or Tribunal appointed by the Central Government and Corporation or Company owned or controlled by the Central Govt. except the State of Tamil Nadu;

(ii) Communications from a Central Government office to State/Union Territories or to any person in region ‘A’ comprising the States of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Haryana and Union Territories of And aman and Nicobar Islands and Delhi, shall be in Hindi;

(iii) Communications from a Central Government Office to States/Union Territories in region ‘B’ comprising the States of Punjab, Gujarat, Maharahstra and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli shall ordinarily be in Hindi and if any communication is issued to any of them in English, it shall be accompanied by a Hindi translation thereof;

(iv) Communications from a Central Government office to State or Union Territory in Region ‘C’ or to any office (not being a Central Government Office) or person in such State shall be in English; and

(v) Communications between Central Government offices in region 'C' to a state or Union Territory of Region ‘A’ or Region 'B' or to any office (not being a Central Government office) or persons in such state may be either in Hindi or English.

Features of Official Language Policy

The features of official language policy are :

i) All manuals, codes and other procedural literature relating to Central Government offices are required to be prepared both in Hindi and English. All forms, headings of registers, name plates, notice boards and various items of stationery, etc. are also required to be in Hindi and English;

ii) Officers should ensure that documents specified in Section 3 (3) of the Act are issued both in Hindi and English; and

iii) The administrative head of each Central Government office should ensure that the provisions of the Act, the rules and directions issued under Rule 12 shall be properly complied with, and suitable and effective check-points shall be devised for this purpose.

Annual Programme

In compliance with the Official Language Resolution, 1968, an annual programme is prepared by the Department of Official Language in which targets are set for the offices of the Central Government with regard to originating correspondence, replies in Hindi to letters in Hindi, recruitment of Hindi typists and stenos, websites, inspections and meetings of Hindi Salahakar Samiti and Official Language Implementation Committees, purchase of Hindi books for libraries, and purchase of electronic equipments.

A Quarterly Progress Report is submitted by the offices of the Central Government regarding achievements vis-a-vis the said targets.

An Annual Assessment Report is prepared on the basis of the Quarterly Progress Reports, which is laid on the tables of both Houses of the Parliament, and its copies are endorsed to State Governments and the ministries/departments of the Central Government.

Subordinate Offices of the Department

The Central Hindi Training Institute (CHTI) and Central Translation Bureau (CTB) are the two leading institutions for capacity-building in learning of Hindi language, typing, shorthand, IT tools and translation-skills.

There are also eight regional implementation offices at Bengaluru, Cochin, Mumbai, Kolkata, Guwahati, Bhopal, Delhi and Ghaziabad to monitor the implementation of Official Language Policy of the Union.

Committees/Samitis

The Kendriya Hindi Samiti केन्द्रीय हिन्दी समिति was constituted in the year 1967. Chaired by Prime Minister, it is the apex policy making body which lays the guidelines for the propagation and progressive use of Hindi as official language of the Union.

The Committee of Parliament on official language has been constituted in 1976 under Section 4 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to periodically review the progress in the use of Hindi as the official language of the Union and to submit a report to the President.

The Committee consists of 20 Members of the Lok Sabha and 10 of the Rajya Sabha.

It has so far submitted nine parts of the reports to the President.

The Presidential orders have been issued on eight parts so far and work is in progress on the ninth part.

The Hindi Salahakar Samitis have been constituted in various ministries/ departments with a view to rendering advice for proper implementation of the Official Language Policy of the Government.

The Chairmen of these Samitis are the Ministers concerned.

These Samitis are the required to be constituted in accordance with the guidelines formulated on the basis of recommendations of the Kendriya Hindi Samiti chaired by the Prime Minister.

The main function of these Samitis is to render advise for implementation of the principles relating of Official Language Act and Rules and the policy decisions and directions of the Kendriya Hindi Samiti and the Department of Official Language with regard to use of Hindi in official work.

Town Official Languages Implementation Committees (TOLICs) are constituted in different cities and towns having ten or more Central Government offices.

Its objective is to promote the use of Hindi in their memberoffices, and exchange information on good practices for wider use of Hindi experiences.

Besides the Central Official Language Implementation Committee headed by Secretary, Department of Official Language reviews the status of use of Hindi for official purposes of the Union, of the training of its employees in Hindi, and implementation of instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Official Language. It suggests me asures for removing the shortcoming and difficulties noticed in implementation these instructions.

Awards Schemes

The Department has Rajbhasha Keerti Puraskar Yojna for awarding the outstanding achievements in the implementation of Official Language Policy of the Union.

Under this Scheme shields are given every year to ministries/ departments, banks and financial institutions, public sector undertakings and Town Official Language Implementation Committees for outstanding achievements in the implementation of the Official Language Policy of the Union.

Under the Rajbhasha Gaurav Hindi Book-Writing Scheme, cash awards, shields and certificates are awarded to the working/retired employees of the Central Government, banks, financial institutions, universities, training institutions and autonomous bodies of the Central Government for writing original books in Hindi.

Under the same scheme cash awards, shields and certificates are awarded to citizen of India for writing original books in Hindi on knowledge and science based subjects besides this, the Central Govt. employees including retired employees are awarded for writing excellent articles in Hindi.

At zonal level, Zonal Official Language Awards are given every year to the Central Government offices, public sector undertakings, Town Official Language Implementation Committees, banks and financial institutions of the Central Government for outstanding achievements in implementing the Official Language Policy of the Union, and for progressive use of Hindi.

Right to Information in the Administration

2017-09-16T15:47:00.005+05:30

The Right to Information Act, 2005 was brought by the UPA government in 2005.

The Act empowers the citizens, promotes transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, combat corruption and make the democracy work for people in real sense.

The Act aims at creating an informed citizenry which would be better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more accountable to the governed.

The Act gives all the citizens the right to seek information held by any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted:

-by or under the Constitution; or

-by any other law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature; or

-by notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a State Government.

Bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government and non-Government organizations substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of public authority.

The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or indirect.

The right includes:

-inspection of work, documents and records;

-taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records,

-taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority.

It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

There are some categories of information which each public authority is required to publish suo motu.

How to Get Information

One has to simply make a request to the Public Information Officer of the office indicating the information sought and the address at which the information is required.

The request can be sent either by post or submitted in person in Hindi, English or in the official language of the area and can also be sent through e-mail.

If the applicant does not get the information within 30 days or the applicant is not satisfied with the reply given to him, he can make an appeal within 30 days to the appellate authority appointed by the authority who is an officer superior to the Public Information Officer.

The appellate authority has to decide the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of appeal.

If the applicant is not satisfied even with the decision of the appellate authority, he can file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be within 90 days.

The Central Information Commission entertains appeals in respect of offices, financial institutions, public sector und ertakings, etc. under the Central Government and the union territories and a State Information Commission deals with the appeals pertaining to offices, financial institutions, public sector undertakings, etc. under the concerned State Government.

The Central Information Commission/State Information Commissions are high-powered independent bodies created by the Act, and they can impose penalty on the defaulting Public Information Officers.

This comprehensive law covers almost all levels of governance, and are applicable not only to Union, State and Local Governments but also to the recipients of Government grants.

Access to information under this Act is extensive with minimum exemptions. The Right to Information Act has converted the prevailing culture of secrecy into culture of openness and transparency in the working of the Government.

Modernisation Scheme in Public Administration

2017-09-16T15:29:00.001+05:30

The Modernization Scheme is being implemented by this Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances from 1987-88 in order to give boost to modernization of offices at Branch and Section level in various Central Government offices located in Delhi as an overall process of administrative reforms.

As per the scheme, the DARPG extends financial assistance to the extent of 75 per cent of the total cost of the project and the beneficiary has to contribute 25 per cent of the cost.

The proposals are considered by a Screening Committee and funds are released with the concurrence of Integrated Finance Division.

The perennial generalist vs specialist debate

2017-09-16T15:18:00.007+05:30

TSR Subramanian

Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged.

The room for abuse is enormous The specialist vs. generalist debate in India’s civil services resurfaces periodically. One has seen a chief of the electricity board, an excellent engineer who managed his power plants and transmission systems extremely well, totally clueless in matters relating to power policy. One has also seen a first-rate irrigation chief engineer taking over as secretary of the irrigation department and floundering from day one on administrative issues. On the other hand, there have been many scientists, long abdicating their scientific work, turn into fine administrators and policymakers. It is not uncommon to find IAS secretaries, with excellent reputation, often unable to find their feet in ‘alien’ departments. There is no hard and fast rule in such matters; the suitability and background of each officer for a post is more relevant than his label.

Having said that, it has often been found suboptimal to have a specialist to head a department – say the ministry of energy or ministry of power. By definition, all specialists focus on their own specific fields, and each technical field has a hundred branches. An expert on electrical transmission may not have better advisory capability in the field of solar or hydrogen energy than a non-engineer with an open mind; in most fields rapid development has taken place in the past decades – our expert has learnt his specialty years back, and may be out of date even in his own specialisation. The generalist is not afraid of asking questions, consults many experts before a position is taken – more often than not the specialist tends to take the view that he knows all in his field, and often shuns other opinion.

The author of this piece had occasion recently to prepare a study for the government on two separate fields – environment, and post office reforms. In the area broadly referred to as ‘environment and climate change’, it was an eye-opener to find at least a hundred separate fields of specialisation; often experts and agencies working in one may not be aware even of the existence of many others. Thus, forestry itself has any number of branches – if you add technical, commercial and social forestry issues, the fields of specialisation get multiplied. The arena of pollution – air and water – itself accommodates hundreds of expert fields. The committee that did the study would not have really been able to take a holistic view by talking just to one expert, however renowned – they met over a hundred, to get the picture. Likewise, the issue of postal reform covered a variety of fields – telecom spectrum, optical fibre connectivity, Unique Identity issues, insurance for life / accident / crops, logistics for e-commerce, to mention a few; doubtless, each of these would open up into many more specialised fields of expertise. Thus only an officer with intimate knowledge of the system, with decades of background and experience (needless to say with some imagination, insight and innovation), could bring together different experts to tackle each element of a new strategy. These illustrate the fallacy of repeatedly referring to need to replace ‘generalists’ with ‘specialists’.

The management of public affairs, as practised in India, is a highly specialised field; practitioners have to learn this profession, by working in the field – the university or training institutions will not prepare a person to deal with politicians, crooks, public grievances, riots, floods, policy-making in hundred fields, dealing with the police and the judiciary – none of these is taught in engineering schools or in MBA courses. Robust commonsense, coupled with a sense of dedication, pride, professionalism, and experience from years of working as a field officer and in the secretariat are the key requirements to make an administrator.

Another metaphor may be drawn to make comparison – should a senior citizen, with many ailments not unusual for his age, have only one ‘expert’ doctor as his consultant, or should he rely on a ‘generalist’ doctor? This is not a hypothetical question. A person with high BP and diabetes (standard for most Indians), a weak spine (not unusual for government servants, particularly for those who have one), and poor lung capacity (normal for Delhi citizens, indeed of any city in India) – should he take advice directly from six different experts, without the assistance of a generalist all-round doctor, to interpret, moderate and balance the frequently conflicting ‘expert advice’? This is the role that the professional generalist, with two to three decades of experience is able to play in the system.

The question then may be asked that when the minister himself is a generalist, why one needs a secretary who is also a generalist. The minister is an expert in politics, manoeuvring public opinion, making wild promises, generally shrewd but weak in comprehension of complex issues; without being overly uncharitable, his main management task is to ensure that the ruling party’s political image remains intact; that in most cases, the special interest groups (aka ‘mafias’) that he is beholden to is benefitted; and that everything he does will ensure a good chance of his re-election. Do not be fooled by appellations – our ministers, especially in the states, do not have the same IQ or probity or experience quotient displayed by their counterparts in developed countries; the minister is just not cut out to be an administrator.

The UPSC is a key institution, one of the few which has maintained pristine standards; none has seriously questioned its process of selecting the best candidates for the civil services. The IAS is selected through a competitive examination – not on pass or fail basis; the system is designed to test overall comprehension, analytical ability, and optimal approach to situations, rather than specialisation; it would not make a difference whether a ‘generalist’ or a ‘professional’ is inducted into the service.

The second administrative reforms commission had recommended ‘lateral’ recruitment at the additional secretary and secretary levels. Many, at first sight, may see this as logical. The fact is that even now, at the government of India level, the secretary-level posts are evenly divided among all-India service officers, and experts in their own fields – most of them spending their career in government, rising to the top. Having worked in the system at the secretariat, the ‘expert’ may not have field experience (so essential to any policymaker or administrator whose recommendations / decisions would have impact on the citizen); however, he has understood the governmental system, which itself is highly specialised. Thus an Abdul Kalam or a Kasturirangan, who contributed during their time to governance, were both products of the system; the likes of Montek Singh Ahluwalia also were experts in their own field, but they thrived within the environment of the governmental milieu. It is a moot question whether an outside expert brought in, so to speak cold-turkey, to a line-department like telecom or agriculture or commerce would be able to hit the deck running – he would take at least a couple of years to understand the way decisions are examined and taken within the system, the operation of various institutional factors such as party politics, the judicial system, the parliament, the CAG and other statutory and constitutional agencies, not to speak of the impact of media or the NGOs or the social media on decision making. This is not to belittle or downplay the role of experts – they are of vital importance to provide high quality technical inputs, and raise the quality of approach to complex issues. Do not downgrade them by asking them to be ‘pen-pushing’ babus.

Do not demean our talented experts to waste their time dealing with inconsequential parliamentary questions. Equally, do not demean the senior professional civil servant, chosen from among the best talent available in India, with two-or-three-decades of relevant experience – he is generally irreplaceable.

One other significant point needs to be highlighted. India has borrowed its administrative structure from Whitehall – not from the US, where each minister is allowed to choose his own senior advisers, who leave their private jobs as experts to join the minister’s team for a five-year stint; in the US they are team members, and identify their personal interests solely with that of the minister. In India such a concept will have disastrous impact – will make a corrupt system infinitely worse, in most situations. In India the governance pattern is ‘adversarial’ – the secretary’s role is to render dispassionate non-partisan advice; he is also responsible, as a career functionary, for the propriety of the advice he tenders. Besides, Indian administration does not have the checks and balances that US has, where most proposals are looked at through committees at different levels. Only a person who does not understand the basics, as well as the complex nature of Indian administrative practice, would trust short-term advisers at the highest levels, who will exercise authority without responsibility. Lateral entry will spell disaster, particularly in states where methods will be found to induct persons with limited expertise but dubious integrity, to loot the system. Again, before lateral entry is considered, there needs to be a clear understanding of what the current gaps are, and how – if at all – lateral entry will fill them.

The present system of postings and transfers is frequently irrational, especially in the states. However, it needs to be ensured that at the additional secretary/ secretary level it will be unwise and counterproductive to post a career civil servant, who does not have previous experience in that broad field. At the level of secretary, there is no time to learn the broad milieu and general features of that particular field, indeed its ‘lingo’; there is no place for people with no previous exposure. Career planning for the services should ensure that the officer posted at the secretary level should have done at least one assignment at deputy secretary / director / joint secretary levels, to give him a sense of familiarity, as also to ensure that he is fully effective from day one.

No one questions the need for reform of the civil service, which ought to be a continuous process, as in every other sphere. Politicisation of the civil services has taken roots. The level of corruption in many civil services has reached worrisome, if not alarming, levels – though miniscule compared to the political arena. The morale of the civil servants themselves is low, particularly in the states. Some, who have little understanding of Indian governance, have even asked whether the time has come to abolish the all-India services.

Don’t throw the baby with the bath water. What is needed is reform, not scrapping the system. Civil servants should be enabled to perform with freedom, efficacy and accountability. For this, one should reach out to tackle the core problems, not just tinker with peripheral issues. The necessary political will has to be summoned, if such a thing were possible, to tone up and cleanse the civil services.

The core problems afflicting the civil services stem from larger political causes, relating to unstable state governments, rampant corruption in the states and operation of mafias, and an insecure political executive exploiting the public servant for narrow personal ends. Politics having become the most lucrative business in the country, with few checks and controls, there is compulsion for the minister or political leader to tempt or coerce civil servants to collude with him for mutual benefit. Frequent transfers, ministers hand-picking the officials to work with them and sidelining of efficient but honest officers are common now, especially in the states. An array of weapons is used: arbitrary transfers, control over the annual character roll entry, and unleashing of departmental inquiries to keep civil servants off balance and submissive, prodding them to collusion. These are the key issues which need to be addressed, for meaningful reform.

The main weaknesses in our governance structure do not emanate from the civil services. Currently, the real problems lie elsewhere. The political scene is unprincipled, unscrupulous, and untrammelled – there is no effective check against excesses and delinquency of the political executive. Political reforms should be highest on the agenda. This is possible only if there is significant election reform. Judicial reform, about which much is not yet talked about, also ranks in the forefront. One should avoid the temptation to look for ‘easy’ solutions, barking up the wrong tree – since the civil servant is the easiest target to hit. Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged – the room for abuse is enormous.

TSR Subramanian is a former cabinet secretary.

Courtesy: governacenow.com

2nd Administrative Reforms Commission

2017-09-16T15:02:00.002+05:30

The second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was constituted on May 31, 2005, as a Commission of Inquiry, under the Chairmanship of Shri Veerappa Moily for preparing a detailed blueprint for revamping the public administrative system.

The Commission was requested to suggest measures to achieve a proactive, responsive, accountable, sustainable and efficient administration for the country at all levels of Government.

It has presented 15 reports to the Government for consideration:

(i) Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance;

(ii) Unlocking Human Capital: Entitlements and Governance - A Case Study;

(iii) Crisis Management: From Despair to Hope;

(iv) Ethics in Governance;

(v) Public Order : Justice for Each ... Peace for All;

(vi) Local Governance;

(vii) Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution - Friction to Fusion;

(viii) Combating Terrorism;

(ix) Social Capital - A Shared Destiny;

(x) Refurbishing of Personnel Administration - Scaling New Heights;

(xi) Promoting eGovernance - The Smart Way Forward;

(xii) Citizen Centric Administration - The Heart of Governance;

(xiii) Organisational Structure of Government of India;

(xiv) Strengthening Financial Management System;

(xv) State and District Administration.

The Central Government has considered 14 out of 15 reports and the decisions on the accepted recommendations of 2nd ARC are at various stages of implementation.

Good Governance Practices and the DARPG

2017-09-16T01:02:00.001+05:30

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) primarily carries out the many activities of documentation, and dissemination of good governance practices of Centre, State/Union Territory Governments with a view to share experiences and replication elsewhere.

Besides, it maintains a repository of reference materials concerning public administration, management, information technology, human resource development in the shape of a rich and well equipped library.

Financial Assistance for Professional Documentation of Good Governance Initiatives to State Governments/UTs

The objective of the scheme is to provide financial assistance upto 3.00 lakh to support professional documentation and dissemination of good governance initiatives by the state/union territory governments with a view to sharing experience with each other and replicate elsewhere.

So far seventy-two projects have been sanctioned.

As per the revised scheme of providing financial assistance to the state government/UT administrations, the professional documentation report will now be in e-book form instead of paper documentation and a short documentary film shall also be made by the State/ UT Govt. with the financial assistance of 3.00 lakh.

Production of Documentary Films on Best Practices

The Department is engaged in producing documentary films on best practices across the country. These films are useful for the administrations and the dissemination of success stories would facilitate replication of the same elsewhere.

Seventy-eight such documentary films have already been produced. These documentary films are available on the website of the Department as well as You Tube.

Two panel discussions on excellence in implementation of four priority programme of the Government were organized and telecasted on DD National Channel on May 21-22, 2016.

Research and Evaluation Studies on Good Governance Initiatives

The objective of the initiative is to assess the present status of implementation of select good governance initiatives in view of technical advancements and to suggest changes to be incorporated for improving the initiative.

It also provides suggestions on sustainability, scalability and replicability of these initiatives.

In FY 2015-16, Research and Evaluation Study on 12 select good governance initiatives is being conducted through Indian Institute of Development Management, Bhopal.

Regional Conferences

Regional Conferences are organised on specific themes in association with various State/Union Territory Governments with a view to bring National and State level organizations along with other stakeholders including NGOs, intelligentsia, media, etc. on the same platform to share experiences in the formulation and implementation of good governance practices.

During 2015-16, one regional conference on the theme ‘Minimum Government-Maximum Governance’ as part of Gati: Governance with Accountability, Transparency and Innovation was held in the month of December, 2015 at Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Till date, 23 regional conferences were organized.

Presentations on Best Practices

In order to facilitate replication of the successful good governance initiatives in other states, presentations on best practices are being organised in New Delhi.

During 2015- 16, the Department of AR&PG organised National Workshop on Best Practices in Citizen Centric Governance on September, 10-11, 2015 in New Delhi.

Book on Best Practices

This Division publishes a book containing articles on select award winning good governance practices. These articles are on the initiatives that have been conferred Prime Minister’s Award or National e-Governance Awards.

This compilation is immensely useful for the administrators as the dissemination of success stories facilitates replication of the same elsewhere also.

The Division has already published a series of books on the subject. These are:

1. Ideas that have Worked,

2. Vichar Jo Kamyab Huye

3. Learn from them,

4. Inse Se ekhe

5. Splendour in the Grass,

6. Roofless Towers,

7. Management by Listening,

8. In Search of Light,

9. People First,

10. Some Gems Some Pearls,

11. Thinking out of the Box,

12. Lighted Windows

13. Tomorrow is Here.

In 2016, two books namely The Change Makers and Re-creating Excellence has been published and released on the occasion of Civil Services Day, 2016.

Minimum Government-Maximum Governance

The Departmental quarterly Journal - Minimum Government Maximum Governance- earlier known as Management in Government provides a forum for frank exchange of views and opinions among administrators, academicians, scholars and others interested in public administration and public sector management.

The Department has been bringing out this quarterly journal since 1969.

Earlier the journal was a priced publication with subscribers from all over the country as well as overseas too.

Towing the line of e-Governance, the journal has been transformed in e-Book format which is uploaded on the Department’s website and is free for all.

e-Office Project

e-Office is one of the 31 Mission Mode Projects (MMPs) identified in the erstwhile national e-Governance Plan-2006

NeGP 1.0 and its implementation is being steered by the DAR&PG.

The e-Office has been subsumed in the current Digital India Programme (NeGP 2.0). e-Office MMP Programme is being monitored on a regular basis by an apex committee headed by Cabinet Secretary.

Registration Open: 2018 PM's Award for Excellence in Public Administration

2017-09-15T22:08:00.002+05:30

Registrations are open to the PM's Award for Excellence in Public Administration 2018 till September 30, 2018.

This year, priority program include:

Priority Programmes

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDUGKY)

Promoting Digital Payments

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)

Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana

National Conference on e-Governance

2017-09-15T19:58:00.003+05:30

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) along-with the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (M/o Communication) in association with one of the State Governments (any state) has been organizing the National Conferenceon e-Governance every year since 1997.

This conference provides a platform for the senior officers of the Government including IT Secretaries of State Governments. IT Managers of the Central Government, and resource persons, experts, intellectuals from the industry and academic institutions, etc.

Platform is to discuss, exchange views and experiences relating to various e-Governance initiatives.

So far 20 national conference on e-Governance has been held.

20th eGovernance Conference was held on 9-10th January 2017 at Visakhapatnam

To recognize and promote excellence in implementation of e-Governance initiatives, DARPG presents National Awards every year during National Conference on eGovernance in the following categories :

Excellence in Government Process Re-engineering;
Outstanding performance in Citizen-Centric Service Delivery;
Innovative use of technology in e-Governance;
Incremental innovations in existing projects;
Best District level initiative in citizen-centric service delivery thr ough ICT;
Innovative use of GIS technology in eGovernance;
Innovative use of mobile technology in eGovernance;
Sectorial Award: ‘Skill Development and Employability’;
Innovative Use of ICT by Central Government PSUs;
Innovative Use of ICT by State Government PSUs/cooperatives/ federations/societies;
Outstanding e-Governance initiative by academic and research institutions;
Use of ICT for development by no government institutions.

Each category is given one gold and one silver award.

The gold award-winning project and its team is given a cash award upto a maximum of 2 lakh, subject to a ceiling of 75,000/- per individual and silver winning project and its team is given a cash award upto a maximum of one lakh, subject to a ceiling of 50,000/- per individual.

Foreign Training Programme in Public Administration

2017-09-15T03:43:00.001+05:30

As a part of its international collaborative efforts, the possibility of sharing and exchanging administrative experiences with other countries, particularly in the area of public administration and delivery of services has been expired so as to improve upon the current system of governance and instil a greater sense of responsiveness, accountability and transparency and to bring in fresh insights and new perspectives in these areas.

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DPAPG) has nominated public service officials from the Government of India/States/UTs including PM Award winners/National e-Governance winners on:

(i) five-day training programme for a group comprising 16 officers from the Government of India and states/Uts including PM Award winners/National e-Governance winners to the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC), Toronto, Canada from August 22-26 2016;

(ii) five-day training programme for a group comprising 21 officers from the Government of India and States/UTs including PM Award winners/National e-Governance Award winners visit to the PBLQ, Dutch Institute of Public Administration, the Hague, Netherlands scheduled to be held during September 12-16, 2016.

DARPG-UNDP Project

The Department has signed a Project Document “Strengthening Public Administration and Governance” with UNDP on February 3, 2014 as part of Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) 2013-17.

The project aims to achieve:

improved capabilities of institutions and individuals responsible for public administration and governance;
deeper understanding of administrators on factors that contribute to success or failure of service delivery under Government programmes; and
increased cooperation in the area of public administration globally including the South-South context.

The project is fully funded by UNDP with a commitment of US$ 1 million for activities.

The Department had signed Annual Work Plan 2016 with UN DP for a budget of US$ 1,64, 525.

The Annual Work Plan 2016 is aimed at creating a world class, open citizen centric services delivered through best practice National Portal, institutional mechanism and infrastructure. The expenditure towards the activities is being met by UNDP. The Department is Implementing partner.

International Exchange and Cooperation in Public Administration

2017-09-15T03:30:00.002+05:30

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DPAPG) works as the nodal point in respect of matters relating to international cooperation in the field of Public Administration and Governance.

This includes organizing programmes as part of projects/bilateral measures taken up in accordance with the Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs)/ Agreements signed between India and other countries (bilateral or multilateral).

The purpose of the international cooperation component is to enable the sharing of information, best practices and personnel across national governments.

This involves exchange of visits and undertaking programmes/projects and activities particularly in the area of public administration and delivery of services, so as to improve upon the current system of governance and instill a gr eater sense of responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and achieving public service excellence in the context of public service delivery, good governance, public service reform, and capacity building and skills upgradation.

MOU with Government of United Kingdom

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Cooperation in the field of Public Administration and Governance Reforms was signed with Government of UK on November 11, 2015.

First meeting of the India-UK Joint Working Group was held in London, UK during 28-29 January, 2016.

Also Programme of Action (POA) has been agreed to by both the sides to take forward the new initiatives under the overall ambit of the MoU.

India-France Agreement

An Agreement with Government of France on ‘Cooperation on Public Administration and Administrative Reform’ was signed on January 25, 2016. A three member delegation visited Paris to attend India-France First Joint Working Gr oup meeting. Both sides exchanged/shared views in the area of public administration, governance reforms and online delivery of citizen-centric services and explored the possibilities of adopting suitable best practices in these areas. Also Programme of Action (POA) has been agreed to by both the sides to take forward the new initiatives under the overall ambit of the MoU.

India-Singapore Cooperation

Memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries on cooperation in the field of Personnel Management and Public Administration was signed on November 11, 2011.

The 2nd India-Singapore Joint Working Group meeting und er the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in the field of Personnel Management and Public Administration was held in Singapore on January 19-20, 2015.

Government of Singapore organised a 4-day training programme on the theme ‘e-Governance’ for officers of Government of India and States/UTs during 28 June-July 1, 2016.

India-Malaysia Cooperation

A Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in the field of Public Administration and Governance with Government of Malaysia was signed on November 25, 2013.

India-Malaysia 3rd Joint Working Group meeting was he ld in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia during 28-30 September, 2015.

During the JWG meeting both the sides agreed to the Programme of Action (PoA). Under the PoA agreement, the Malaysian side organised Short-term Training Programme for 15 Middle Management level officers of Government of India (Director and below) at National Institute of Public Administration (INTAN), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia during July 18-22, 2016 on the the me ‘Citizen-Centric Online Services through eGovernance’.

The participants were exposed to Malaysian Government’s experience and good practices in the field of Public Administration and Governance especially in Delivery of Online Public Services which would help participants to replicate the lessons learnt with suitable modifications in India.

India-China Cooperation

An MoU on cooperation in the field of Civil Services, Personnel Management and Public Administration between the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China was signed on 27 May, 2010 during the visit of President of India to China.

The MoU expired on May 26, 2015.

Cabinet in its meeting held on May 18, 2016, gave approval to the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the field of Civil services, Personnel Management and Public Administration between Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India and Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China.

India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Forum

India - Brazil - South Africa (IBSA) - the three countries acknowledged that joint efforts and collaboration will position them as active players in helping to direct the public administration and governance towards democratic values and social inclusion.

The Prime Minister of India, the President of Brazil and the President of South Africa met in Brasilia (Brazil) on September 13, 2006 for the 1st Summit meeting of the India-Brazil-South Africa dialogue forum.

Pursuant to the IBSA Summit decision as contained in the Joint Declaration issued on the occasion, an IBSA Working Group on Public Administration (WGPA) has been set up by the three countries.

It has since held seven meetings and adopted the areas of cooperation as

(i) integrated monitoring and evaluation,

(ii) e-governance,

(iii) human resource development,

(iv) citizen oriented service delivery,

(v) anti-corruption and ethics, and

(vi) accountability and transparency.

Collaboration in these areas represents the essence of the agreed upon MoU which was signed on October 17, 2007 in South Africa, during the 2nd IBSA Summit.

India taking the lead under IBSA cooperation programme in the field of public administration launched the IBSA webportal on public administration on November 30, 2010 with Brazil and South Africa onboard.

Cooperation with IIAS

The DARPS is an institutional member of the InternationalInstitute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS) since 1998.

The IIAS with its headquarters at Brussels, Belgium, was established for the purpose of promoting the development of Administrative Sciences, better organization and operation of public administrative agencies, improvement of administrative matters and techniques and for the progress of international administration.

Membership enables the Government of India in getting information on the latest development in the field of public administration through participation in international meetings and seminars organized by the IIAS as well as through various journals, documents and study reports prepared/issued by them.

Cooperation with CAPAM

The Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM), with its headquarters at Ottawa, Canada, is an organization dedicated to strengthening public management and consolidating democracy and good governance throughout the Commonwealth.

It was formed in 1994 as a result of decisions taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in 1991 and in Cyprus in 1993.

Since inception, CAPAM has grown to a network of over 1,100 members across the Commonwealth countries.

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India became an institutional member of CAPAM in 1997.

Since 1998, CAPAM has been announcing its Biennial International Innovations Awards Programme to promote the spirit of innovation in the public service by recognizing those who have made significant contribution to improve governance and services to the public.

India has been participating in the CAPAM Award Programme since the beginning and has won gold medals in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 2010, 2012, 2014 and in recently concluded 2016 CAPAM Innovation Award Programme, (Cancer Cervix Screening: A Life Saving Initiative, Government of Tamil Nadu) and also silver medals in the year 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2016.

The Department organized CAPAM International Awards Programme 2012 from 21-22 October 2012 on the theme ‘Innovations in the Public Service’ in conjunction with CAPAM Biennial Conference (October 24-16, 2012).

The ‘Sugarcane Information System’ of India won the overall Gold medal of CAPAM International Innovation Award, 2012.

2017-09-14T02:45:00.003+05:30

Government of India has instituted ‘Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration’ to acknowledge and recognize the extraordinary and innovative work of District and Organisations of the Central and State Governments.

PM’s Awards are given on Civil Services Day held every 21st April of the year. On Civil Services Day 2015 held on 20th-21st April 2015, the Prime Minister presented 17 awards for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 to the initiatives for excellence in Governance.

Beginning 2007, sixty seven awards have so far been conferred in three categories:

1. Individual,

2. Group,

3. Organization.

From 2016 the Scheme has been revised and for the first time awards were conferred to the best performing districts in identified priority programmes.

On the occasion of Civil Services Day 2016, awards were conferred to the 10 best performing districts for excellence done in the implementation of four priority programmes namely

Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna
Swachh Bharat Gramin
Swachh Vidyalaya Abhiyan
Soil Health Care Scheme.

For the awards to be presented on Civil Services Day, 2017, the identified priority programmes were

Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
Start up India/ Stand up India
e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM)

In addition to the above, the award was also given for the excellence/ innovation work done by the Organisations of Central/State Government in the field of environment conservation, disaster management, water conservation, energy, education, health, women and child centric initiatives etc., of public governance.

The award carries with it

i) a Medal

ii) a Scroll

iii) an incentive of 10 lakh to the awarded district/organisation to be utilized for implementation of project/programme or bridging resource gaps in any area of activity of public welfare.

Mechanism

The application for the award is evaluated by three hierarchical committees

Screening Committee chaired by the Additional Secretary level officer,
Expert Committee chaired by Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances
Empowered Committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.

The Empowered Committee then makes its recommendations for the consideration of the Prime Minister for final selection of the awards.

Civil Services Day: 21 April

2017-09-14T02:29:00.004+05:30

The Government of India celebrates April 21 every year as ‘Civil Services Day’ for the civil servants to rededicate themselves to the cause of citizens and renew their commitment to public service and excellence in work.

The first such function was held in Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi on April 21, 2006.

On the occasion, Prime Minister conferred “Prime Minister Award for Excellence in Public Administration”.

This date coincides with the date when the first Home Minister of Independent India Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel addressing the first batch of Indian Administrative Services officers at Metcalf House, New Delhi.

Public Grievances Mechanism and the DPG

2017-09-14T02:16:00.003+05:30

The Directorate of Public Grievances (DPG) was set up in 1988 to entertain grievances from the public after they fail to get satisfactory redress from the ministry/department concerned within a reasonable time. DPG is located under Cabinet Secretariat, GOI.

It is thus, an office of the last resort for a redress of grievances relating to sectors in its purview. The sectors in DPG’s purview are those with extensive public interface. Certain subjects are outside the purview of DPG.

Organizations under DPG’s purview are:-

Department of Posts
Department of Telecommunication
Ministry of Railways
Department of Financial Services (Banking and Insurance)
National Small Savings Scheme: Department of Economic Affairs
Ministry of Urban Development (DDA, L&DO, CPWD)
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Ministry of Shipping, Ministry of Civil Aviation
Regional Passport Authorities (MEA)
Ministry of Labour
Employees’ Provident Fund Organization
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation - Hospitals and Dispensaries
CGHS: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Ministry of HRD
Central Universities, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Navodaya Vidyalaya
National Institute of Open Learning
Central Board of Secondary Education
Ministry of Tourism
Ministry of Youth Affairs.
Deemed Universities (Central)

Subjects outside the purview of DPG are:

Policy matters
Matters that are subjudice
Grievances disposed of at the level of the concerned Minister
Service matters (except those relating to payment of terminal benefits)
Commercial contracts.

Mechanism

Grievance can be lodged with DPG through post, email or by lodging the complaint online on the portal. The cases received offline are entered in the system and, thereafter, all cases are handled using PGRAAMS application.

Each grievance is first scrutinized to see if it relates to a sector in DPG's purview.

Those concerning the sectors outside the purview of the DPG are forwarded to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances for appropriate disposal, under intimation to the complainants.

The remaining grievances are then assessed to ascertain whether the issue involved is grave and whether the concerned ministry/department has been given an opportunity to redress the grievance.

The grievances of grave nature which are either long pending or where the redress is not forthcoming from concerned service organisation/ministry are taken up for detailed examination. These cases are followed upto a logical and reasonable conclusion.

Other cases are transferred to the concerned ministry for appropriate action.

When DPG seeks comments, the department or organization is expected to examine the matter and give a reply within thirty days.

After receipt of comments, DPG may, if considered necessary, seek further information to ensure that the grievance is dealt with in a fair and objective manner by the department or organization and confirmation of satisfactory redress of the grievance is also sought from the complainant before closure.

During 2015-16, 10357 grievances were received in DPG pertaining to sectors in its purview, out of which 595 cases were taken up taking the total number of taken up cases to 1372.

Out of the 1372 taken up cases, 846 were disposed with 745 in favour of the complainant.

Thus approximately 88 per cent of the taken up cases were resolved.

In addition, 1,782 grievances were transferred to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances.

Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances is one of the three departments under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

Project Monitoring Group (PMG)

2017-09-14T01:42:00.001+05:30

Introduction

The Project Monitoring Group (PMG) was set up in 2013 under Cabinet Secretariat. It is an institutional mechanism for resolving a variety of issues including fast tracking the approvals for setting up and expeditious commissioning of large Public, Private and Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects. PMG is now functioning under Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) since 14 September 2015.

Projects Considered

The projects considered by PMG mainly pertain to sectors such as:

1. National Highways and Railways
2. Civil Aviation and Shipping
3. Petroleum & Natural Gas
4. Chemicals & Fertilisers
5. Coal, Power and Mines
6. Cement, Construction and Steel

Types of issues/clearances considered for resolution:

Union Ministries

1. Environment, Forest and Wildlife Clearances
2. Eco-Sensitive Zone clearance
3. Tree cutting permission
4. Grant of Working permission by forest Department
5. Approval for private railways siding construction
6. Industrial License Permission
7. Road Crossing of Pipelines/Transmission lines
8. Grant of Right of Way
9. Shifting of Utilities

State Governments

1. Land Acquisition issues such as Government Notifications/ Disbursement of Compensation, transfer of title and handing over of possession
2. Removal of encroachments
3. Relief and Rehabilitation plan
4. Certificate under Forest Rights Act
5. Power and Water supply
6. Consent to establish and operate from State Pollution Control Board.
7. Transfer of Government Land
8. Law and Order issues
9. Right of Way permission

PMG Mechanism

A Project Proponent, in the process of setting up a project with an anticipated investment of Rs. 1000 crore (around US$ 150 million) in case of domestic investments and Rs. 500 crore (US $ 75 million) in case of FDI projects and facing bottlenecks or apprehending delays in obtaining approvals from the public authorities, can upload any issue including a policy intervention required, in the PMG’s e-suvidha portal (http://esuvidha.gov.in/) after creating a log in.

Recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India

2017-03-12T16:11:00.004+05:30

K. T. Jagannathan | The Hindu

The 14th Finance Commission is of the view that tax devolution should be the primary route for the transfer of resources to the States.

In understanding the States’ needs, it has ignored the Plan and non-Plan distinctions.

According to the Commission, the increased devolution of the divisible pool of taxes is a "compositional shift in transfers" – from grants to tax devolution.

In recommending a horizontal distribution, it has used broad parameters – population (1971), changes in population since then, income distance, forest cover and area, among others.

It has recommended distribution of grants to States for local bodies using 2011 population data with weight of 90 per cent and area with weight of 10 per cent.

Grants to States are divided into two.

One, grant to duly constituted gram panchayats.

Two, grant to duly constituted municipal bodies.

And, it has divided grants into two parts.

A basic grant, and a performance one for gram panchayats and municipal bodies.

The ratio of basic to performance grant is 90:10 for panchayats; and 80:20 for municipalities.

The total grant recommended is Rs. 2,87,436 crore for a five-year period. Out of which, the grant to panchayats is Rs.2,00,292 crore. And, the remainder goes to municipalities.

The Commission has significantly departed from previous commission vis-à-vis recommendation of the principles governing grants-in-aid to the States by the Centre.

It has chosen to take the entire revenue expenditure for this purpose. Hence, it has decided to take into account a state’s entire revenue expenditure needs without making a distinction between plan and non-plan expenditure

The Commission is of the view that sharing pattern in respect to various Centrally-sponsored schemes need to change. It wants the States to share a greater fiscal responsibility for the implementation of such schemes.

Evolution of Public Administration

2017-01-05T02:08:00.004+05:30

By Naved Ashrafi

Evolution: A Historical Account

Evolution refers to gradual unfolding of development of things in the course of time. When the past, present and future are considered in terms-of a continuum, the study of the past or of history becomes all the more significant. History, in the words of E. H. Carr is an unending dialogue between the past and the present. Indeed, it is necessary for the understanding of the contemporary status of the subject and the critical issues therein, the genesis of which may be found in the past. Broadly, the study of evolution fulfils both theoretical and practical purposes. From the theoretical point of view, it helps to locate the subject in a broader frame of reference and from the practical point of view it facilitates the use of the knowledge of the past to further the development of the subject in the present.

Administrative Traditions

There are three traditions namely, Absolutist Traditions, Liberal-Democratic Traditions and Marxian Traditions, Liberal-Democratic Traditions has 7 phases, viz. Politics-Administration Approach, Structural Approach, Human Relations Approach, Behavioural Approach, Development Approach, Public Policy Approach, Public Economy Approach.

1. ABSOLUTIST TRADITIONS

Absolutist tradition refers to administrative traditions of absolute monarchical regimes, where all powers were concentrated in the monarch. The earliest work concerning it is Kautilya's Arthasastra, the most important, work on Public Administration in ancient India. We confine our discussion to the Indian tradition mainly for two reasons:

Firstly, sufficient information is not available on the absolutist administrative traditions of other Asian societies.
Secondly, the students of administration should be acquainted with their own traditions in the field of Public Administration.

Kautilya, also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta was the Prime Minister of Chandragupta (322BC-298BC) who founded the Maurya Dynasty of Magadha (Bihar). Kautilya's treatise known as Arthasastra ranks in importance with Manusmriti and Kamasastra and forms a triad with them in dealing with the three imperative of the social philosophy i.e. Dharma (Religion), Kama (Sex), Artha (Economy). It deals mainly with the Science of Polity, which, according to Kautilya, is a combination of Science of Wealth and Science of Government. [Vittasastra (Economics) and Dandanjthi (Statecraft)].

To Kautilya, finances provide the sinews of government and financial considerations are paramount in the government's activities. Thus, his treatise adopts the ‘political economy approach’ to the understanding of the problems of governance. Kautilya's Arthashastra mainly discusses three aspects of the science of Public Administration, viz.

The principles of Public Administration:

The principles of administration are not explicitly dealt with in Arthasastra. They are implied by the functions of the monarch, ministers etc.

The machinery of Government:

The machinery of Government as described in the Arthasastra is mainly related to the monarch, his relations with ministers, etc.

The management of personnel:

The problems of higher-level personnel receive greater Attention than the lower-level functionaries in Arthasastra.

According to Kautilya, an administrator can adopt the art of Public Administration only if he is conversant with the science of Public Administration. He emphasised the principles of authority, obedience and discipline as being central to the administration of the state. He considered principles like division of work, hierarchy and coordination important to the mechanism of internal organisation. Further, Kautilya is, perhaps, the earliest known thinker to recognise the importance of statistics in administration. Kautilya made a systematic study of the society and did not blindly accept the current views based on faith and tradition. Ancient Hindus held that the Vedas constitute the sole source of law. But Kautilya laid down four distinct sources of law; namely;

Sacred scriptures,
The rules laid down in Arthasastra,
Customs
edicts of kings.

Each of these he considers more authoritative than the one preceding it. He explicitly states that when the sacred law is in conflict with the corporal law the latter should prevail. Arthasastra is secular in its tenor and puts politics in command over religion. According to Kautilya, religious considerations should not outweigh political considerations. The King according to him should strive and maintain the stability of the State and increase his power and material resources by policy or subterfuge.

2. LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS

Traditionally, the origins of Public Administration as a separate area of inquiry are traced to Woodrow Wilson's essay, The Study of Administration published in 1887. Since then the study of the subject passed through various phases. Let us briefly discuss each one of them.

Politics-Administration Dichotomy Approach

Woodrow Wilson, the father of modern Public Administration, considered politics and administration as separate processes and attempted to, conceptually distinguish between the two areas of study. A similar attempt was made by Frank Goodnow, another exponent of the dichotomy approach who observed that "politics has to do with policies or expressions of state while the administration has to do with the execution of these policies". This distinction is made between policymaking and policy execution. Policy making is regarded as the realm of politics and execution as the realm of Public Administration. Further, politics and Public Administration are differentiated on the basis of their institutional locations. The location of politics is identified with the legislature and the higher echelons of government where major policy-decisions would be made and the larger questions of allocation of values decided upon. The location of administration, on the other hand is identified with the executive arm of government-the bureaucracy.

Structural Approach

This approach is marked by the tendency to reinforce the idea of politics-administration dichotomy and to evolve a value-free 'Science of Management". The 'Public' aspect of Public Administration was virtually dropped at this stage and the focus was almost wholly on economy and efficiency. The questions of 'value' were not considered important to the new science of Administration. Politics as practised by the politicians was considered irrelevant. Scientific Management for the efficient handling of the 'business' of administration became the focus of interest. Principles of management were worked out as readymade aids to practitioners. The administrative practitioners and the business schools joined hands to emphasise the mechanistic aspect of management unaffected by the predilections of politicians and the failings of human beings. The approach emphasised the structure of the organisation. Structure is a device through which human beings working in an organisation are assigned tasks and related with one another. It is believed that the effective functioning of the organisation depends upon the structure that a group of human beings build and operate. The structural approach was criticised for

the ambiguity of its principles,
absence of scientific validity
Its mechanistic approach to human problems.

Human Relations Approach

The Hawthorne experiments pioneered a movement which came to be known as the Human Relations Approach to management. This approach to organisational analysis drew attention to

the formation and effect of work groups in the organisation
the force of informal organisation in the formal setup,
the phenomena of leadership
conflicts and cooperation among groups in the organisational setting.

In short, human relations approach brought up the limitations of the machine concept of organisation in 'Scientific Management' thought. By drawing attention to the social and psychological factors of work situation, it underlined the importance of the "human side of the enterprise". The social psychologist has extended the concern of human relationists by bringing in additional knowledge about the sensitivity to human components. It is aimed at bringing about:

Greater organisational productivity or effectiveness
Greater human happiness and increased self-realisation

Prominent writers advocating this approach include Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Rensis Likert and Chris Argyris. The human relations approach has been criticised for its manipulative orientation. It is alleged that the aim of the movement is to manipulate the man in organisation to achieve higher productivity. It is also criticised for ignoring the institutional and social system variable in understanding the organisation. Sometimes, Social Psychological traditions are studied separately from Human Relation approach.

Behavioural Approach

Herbert Simon's Administrative Behaviour is a critique of the older Public Administration. More importantly, it sets forth the rigorous requirements of scientific analysis in Public Administration. Simon's conclusion about some of the classical 'Principles', was that they were unscientifically derived and were "no more than proverbs". He rejected the politics-administration dichotomy. The substantive focus was on "decision-making", and as Simon insisted, "If any ‘theory’ is involved, it is that decision-making is the heart of administration, and that the vocabulary of administrative theory must be derived from the logic and psychology of human choice". Simon's approach provided an alternative definition of Public Administration, and widened the scope of the subject by relating it to Psychology, Sociology, Economics and Political Science.

Development Approach

The ecological approach to the study of administration originated in the wake of the emergence of the Third World and increasing realisation of irrelevance of most of the western organisation theories to the study of administration. To quote Robert Dahl, "The study of Public Administration inevitably must become a much more broadly based discipline, resting not on a narrowly defined knowledge of techniques and processes, but rather extending to the varying historical, sociological, economic and other conditioning factors. Such efforts have given rise to Comparative Public Administration and Development Administration.

Public Policy Approach

The Social -Sciences' general concern for social engineering has resulted in the laying of emphasis on public policy. The study of Public Administration has also been influenced by the public policy perspective. The abandonment of politics-administration dichotomy made the public policy approach agreeable to administrative analysis. Evidences from the practical world of administration have brought out the criteria of a close nexus between politics and administration. As governments seek to formulate and implement more and more welfare programmes, the promotion of policy studies in Public Administration gathers momentum.

Political Economy Approach

Another development, in the study of Public Administration is brought about by the he adoption of the political economy approach to the analysis of administrative problems. This is associated with the moving of Political Science closer to Economics in the interest of greater theoretical coherence and better policy guidance. Economists like Anthony Downs and Gordon Tullock have gone over the boundary by experimenting with the application of economic methods and models to political problems. Thus Public Administration as a branch of Political Science and on its own has moved towards a liaison with Economics. The liberal democratic tradition in the evolution of Public Administration as described above shows that, starting, with an assertion of independent identity, it has moved towards the assimilation of ideas, methods and techniques of different Social Science disciplines. Thus the scope of the discipline seems to be broadening while the question of its identity remains unanswered.

3. MARXIAN TRADITIONS

We have to go back to Marx, to understand the classical Marxist view of bureaucracy. Although Marx has not paid much attention to the concept of bureaucracy, his views on bureaucracy and its relation to the power structure of the society found in his major works. Marxian traditions have placed the study of Public Administration in the wider -perspective of social transformation.

Summary of Liberal-Democratic Approach
PAD Approach	Politics and Administration are distinct.	Politics is concerned with policy making; administration with execution of policy.	Location of politics is the legislature and the cabinet; administration can be located in the executive.	Emphasis on PAD.
Structural Approach	A Value-Free science of management.	Focus is Economy and Efficiency	‘Public’ aspect of Public Administration was dropped.	Emphasis on Structure.
HR Approach	Deals with the relationship among the people in the organisation i.e. group dynamics.	Brings out the limitations of machine concept of organisation.	Focus is on Social and Psychological factors in working situations.	Emphasis on Human Side of enterprise.
Behavioural Approach	‘Inside’ human approach.	Decision making was considered the heart of administration.	Wide spectrum and multidisciplinary approach.	Emphasis on human rationality.
Development Approach	3^rd world administration.	SEP factors of the development.
PP Approach	Based on Policies of government.	Involves various aspects of public policies like formulation, implementation, monitoring, evaluation etc.
PE Approach	Based on application of economic methods and models on administration.

Naved Ashrafi is Doctoral Candidate (Public Administration) in Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He can be reached at navedashrafi@gmail.com

Judicial Review in India

2016-03-30T11:22:00.004+05:30

By K. K. Ghai

Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict the Constitution of India.

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court of India has the supreme responsibility of interpreting and protecting it. It also acts as the guardian-protector of the Fundamental Rights of the people. For this purpose, the Supreme Court exercises the power of determining the constitutional validity of all laws.

It has the power to reject any law or any of its part which is found to be unconstitutional. This power of the Supreme Court is called the Judicial Review power. State High Courts also exercise this power but their judgements can be rejected or modified or upheld by the Supreme Court.

(I) Judicial Review: Meaning and Definition

Judicial Review is the power of the Judiciary by which:

The court reviews the laws and rules of the legislature and executive in cases that come before them; in litigation cases.
The court determines the constitutional validity of the laws and rules of the government; and
The court rejects that law or any of its part which is found to be unconstitutional or against the Constitution.

(II) Features of Judicial Review in India

1. Judicial Review Power is used by both the Supreme Court and High Courts:

Both the Supreme Court and High Courts exercise the power of Judicial Review. But the final power to determine the constitutional validity of any law is in the hands of the Supreme Court of India.

2. Judicial Review of both Central and State Laws:

Judicial Review can be conducted in respect of all Central and State laws, the orders and ordinances of the executives and constitutional amendments.

3. A Limitations:

Judicial Review cannot be conducted in respect of the laws incorporated in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.

4. It covers laws and not political issues:

Judicial Review applies only to the questions of law. It cannot be exercised in respect of political issues.

5. Judicial Review is not automatic:

The Supreme Court does not use the power of judicial review of its own. It can use it only when any law or rule is specifically challenged before it or when during the course of hearing a case the validity of any law is challenged before it.

6. Decisions’ in Judicial Review Cases:

The Supreme Court can decide:

The law is constitutionally valid. In this case the law continues to operate as before, or
The law is constitutionally invalid. In this case the law ceases to operate with effect from the date of the judgment.
Only some parts or a part of the law is invalid.

In this case only invalid parts or part becomes non-operative and other parts continue to remain in operation. However, if the invalidated parts/part is so vital to the law that other parts cannot operate without it, then the whole of the law gets rejected.

7. Judicial Review Decision gets implemented from the date of Judgement:

When a law gets rejected as unconstitutional it ceases to operate from the date of the judgment. All activities performed on the basis of the law before the date of the judgment declaring it invalid, continue to remain valid.

8. Principle of Procedure established by Law:

Judicial Review in India is governed by the principle: ‘Procedure Established by Law’. Under it the court conducts one test, i.e., whether the law has been made in accordance with the powers granted by the Constitution to the law-making body and follows the prescribed procedure or not. It gets rejected when it is held to be violative of procedure established by law.

9. Clarification of Provisions which a rejected law violates:

While declaring a law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has to cite the provisions of the constitution which it violates. The court has to clearly establish the invalidity of the concerned law or any of its part.

(III) Critical Evaluation of Judicial Review

Major points of criticism are,

1. Undemocratic:

The critics describe Judicial Review as an undemocratic system. It empowers the court to decide the fate of the laws passed by the legislature, which represent the sovereign, will of the people.

2. Lack of Clarity:

The Constitution of India does not clearly describe the system of Judicial Review. It rests upon the basis of several articles of the Constitution.

3. Source of from Administrative Problems:

When a law is struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, the decision becomes effective from the date on which the judgement is delivered. Now a law can face Judicial Review only when a question of its constitutionality arises in any case being heard by the Supreme Court. Such a case can come before the Supreme Court after 5 or 10 or more years after the enforcement of that law. As such when the Court rejects it as unconstitutional, it creates administrative problems. A Judicial Review decision can create more problems than it solves.

4. Reactionary:

Several critics regard the Judicial Review system as a reactionary system. They hold that while determining the constitutional validity of a law, the Supreme Court often adopts a legalistic and conservative approach. It can reject progressive laws enacted by the legislature.

5. Delaying System:

Judicial Review is a source of delay and inefficiency. The people in general and the law-enforcing agencies in particular sometimes decide to go slow or keep their fingers crossed in respect of the implementation of a law. They prefer to wait and let the Supreme Court first decide its constitutional validity in a case that may come before it at any time.

6. Tends to make the Parliament less responsible:

The critics further argue that the Judicial Review can make the Parliament irresponsible as it can decide to depend upon the Supreme Court for determining the constitutionality/ reasonableness of a law passed by it.

7. Fear of Judicial Tyranny:

A bench (3 or 5 or 9 judges) of the Supreme Court hears a judicial review case. It gives a decision by a simple majority. Very often, the fate of a law is determined by the majority of a single judge. In this way a single judge’s reasoning can determine the fate of a law which had been passed by a majority of the elected representatives of the sovereign people.

8. Reversal of its own decisions by the Supreme Court:

It is on record that on several occasions the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions. The judgment in the Golaknath case reversed the earlier judgments and the judgment in the Keshwananda Bharati case reversed the judgment in the Golaknath case. The same enactment was held valid, then invalid and then again valid. Such reversals reflect the element of subjectivity in the judgments. On all these grounds the critics strongly criticise the system of Judicial Review as it operates in India.

(IV) Justification for Judicial Review

A very large number of the supporters of Judicial Review do not accept the arguments of the critics. They argue that Judicial Review is an essential and very useful system for Indian liberal democratic and federal system. It has been playing an important and desired role in the protection and development of the Constitution.

(1) Judicial Review is essential for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.

(2) It is essential for checking the possible misuse of power by the legislature and executive.

(3) Judicial Review is a device for protecting the rights of the people.

(4) No one can deny the importance of judiciary as an umpire, or as an arbiter between the centre and states for maintaining the federal balance.

(5) The grant of Judicial Review power to the judiciary is also essential for strengthening the position of judiciary. It is also essential for securing the independence of judiciary.

(6) The power of Judicial Review has helped the Supreme Court of India in exercising its constitutional duties.

(7) The possibility of abuse of is power of by the Judiciary is very less because several checks have been in existence:

Lack of a clear statement of this power in any article of the Constitution.
Judicial Review is not possible on some laws. The Parliament can place laws aimed at securing socio-economic reforms in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. This makes these immune from Judicial Review.
The scope of Judicial Review stand limited to only legal and constitutional cases.
The Supreme Court is itself bound by the Constitution of India and the Parliament can amend the Constitution.
The grant of specific fundamental rights to the also limits the scope of Judicial Review.
The Parliament can pass laws and amendments for overriding the hurdles created by Judicial Review. These limitations can prevent a possible misuse of Judicial Review power by the Courts.

A formidable fact which justifies the presence and continuance of the Judicial Review has been the judiciousness with which it is being used by the Supreme Court and High Courts for carrying out their constitutional obligations. These have used it with restraint and without creating hindrances in the way of essential socio-economic reforms.

Celebrating Mary Parker Follett

2016-03-08T16:59:00.003+05:30

By Naved Ashrafi

It was the sad demise of Karl Marx in 1883 and that of Engels in 1895 that [un]fortunately provided free space to the development of the new academic discipline of Public Administration in the United States of America (USA). Woodrow Wilson’s essay The Study of Administration (1887) offered capitalism an opportunity to reincarnate itself in the twentieth century in a novel way as a ‘silent tool’ for the implementation of exploitative capitalist skills. ‘Administration is business’, says Wilson in his epochal essay citing ‘efficiency’ as one of his major concerns which Buechner, otherwise, calls an inclination towards privatization.

Absence of staunch and vigilant Marxian critique, like that of Marx’s own critique of the state and the bureaucracy, augured well for capitalism to launch itself in the guise of public administration or public management—to call it in 21st-century parlance. Debates on ideas and ideologies go on but many times in this hustle-bustle we forget to celebrate a few personalities connected with the theoretical foundations of the debate. I don’t subscribe to capitalism in theory and practice but on this International Women’s Day I should celebrate Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) as the world’s first woman in a huge galaxy of male-dominated administrative/management thinkers.

Mary Parker Follett was a pioneering lady in administrative thought. She is more popular as a management thinker. Management guru Peter Drucker regarded her as the Prophet of Management and his ‘Guru’. She wore many hats; she was a philosopher, political scientist, social worker, adult educator, philanthropist, lecturer, and organization theorist. Born to Elizabeth Curtis and Charles Follett on September 03, 1868, Mary had her early days full of prodigious underpinnings. She lived in an era when approximately ninety-eight percent of American women were not going to colleges. Women were under ‘protection’ first under their father, later under their husbands. Facing all odds including an early responsibility to take care of her younger sibling, George, born in 1877, she made it to the Radcliffe College—Harvard’s annex for women in 1888. She lived there for six years interrupted by one year (1890-91) at Newnham College, Cambridge at England. After returning from Cambridge, she graduated from Radcliffe in 1898 and undertook post-graduation in Paris. Her first book The Speaker of the House of Representatives got published in her Radcliffe days in 1896.

First among others

After treading a tight rope in her childhood, Mary turned out to be an aesthete of traditional subjects like state, community, sovereignty, etc. at Radcliffe and Paris. She is credited in the modern world for initiating studies of industrial groups keeping aloof all those subjects which were in vogue in those times. She was a pioneer. Mary held that people must socialize themselves by practice and not by the study. This made her the first person to study the industry. She was one of the first women ever invited to address the London School of Economics. She was the first woman in the male-dominated galaxy of administrative/ management thinkers.

Follett in Women’s League of Boston

Mary joined the Women’s Municipal League of Boston as the Chairman of its Committee for Extended Use of School Buildings. The committee was to get young people off the street at night by opening the schoolhouses for recreation. To Follett, the main purpose of the drama coach was not to produce good plays nor of basketball coach to win games. Follett had unique modus operandi when she says their purpose is to give people practice in cooperating with each other and in the self-government. So getting young people off the street in the Women’s League of Boston was to nurture a strong foundation for democratic citizenship.

On State, Democracy and Law

Follett laid great emphasis on group dynamics in an organization. To her, the group is the core of social process and state is an extension to the group process at a higher level. The state is the highest expression of social life. A true state is one which creates an overarching ‘great group’ with its sovereignty resting on ‘group process’ and the principles of ‘integration’. Such a state is unified by common popular ends. The state is the fulfillment and expression of an individual. Thus, Follett says, ‘the home of my soul is in the state’.

Basis of Follett’s concept of democracy is not the majority rule, party system, and submission to the law of crowd. Such democracies —as Follett calls it—are “ballot-box democracies”. The state having premised on the group process, democracy should also be based on collective will that in turn hinges upon substantive participation of masses. In a real democracy, a leader should nurture the energy of the group and should create an opportunity for the release of such unifying energies. Democracy is based on both ‘expert advice’ and ‘active electorate’.

On Conflict and Integration

A group like industry or country is made up of many persons with different connotations and desires. With such diversified content, conflicts are unavoidable and the group should sail through such conflicts smartly. Conflict should be regarded as a normal process in the group organization. Conflict is neither good nor bad. To Follett, it is not warfare but only an appearance of the difference of opinion and interest. Conflict is unavoidable, so ‘criticizing it’ should be replaced with ‘capitalizing on it’. Conflict represents friction and one must know that every forward movement is not possible without friction, the violin produces music by friction, and all polishing is done by friction.

Conflict must be resolved by the process of ‘integration’. Domination and compromise may not be the best ways to resolve conflicts. Unlike domination and compromise, two desires are integrated and neither side needs to sacrifice its desire in integration. Compromise doesn’t create something new but deals only with the existing while integration creates something new and saves time and resources. It goes to the root of the problem and ends disputes permanently. Integration involves three steps namely uncovering and identification of differences, breaking up of a whole into fragments, and anticipation of constructive responses.

On Power, Authority and Bossism

To Follett, power is the ability to make things happen, to be a causal agent to initiate change. In a group, ‘power over’ is different from ‘power with’. Former is coercive in nature while the latter is co-active facilitating creativity. Power can’t be delegated or handed over or wrenched out because it is the result of ‘knowledge and ability’. A senior can’t delegate power as much as they are unable to delegate knowledge. They can only make subordinates learn things and create power de novo.

Authority, according to Follett, is vested power i.e. right to develop and exercise power. Power in terms of status offends human dignity and this can’t be the basis of any democratic organization. Authority, responsibility, and giving orders should be based on the ‘law of situation’ i.e. one should follow what situation demands. Orders must be depersonalized to command maximum compliance from other group members. A leader is the one who can energize their group, who knows how to encourage initiative and how to draw all that each has to give optimally. A genuine leader doesn’t make their position or personal charisma as the basis of ‘leadership’. They make ‘functional expertise’ or expert knowledge their basis of leadership. Such leaders can give orders even to those present at higher levels of hierarchy. They are the real boss for they rely on ‘law of situation’ and ‘functional expertise’ and not on their own whims and fancies.

Conclusion

No thinker or social scientist is infallible as far as the development of knowledge is concerned. There may be serious criticism of Mary Follett in Marxian or any other paradigm. Her very understanding of the state and democracy can well be criticized. The process goes on. But this is the time to pause on. One should celebrate the personality and contribution of Mary Follett to the knowledge world. One should criticize the way women are being exploited by the neo-capitalist management world. Barring few women on the top, most of them have been reduced to mere marketing, advertising, and propagating capitalism. They are checked from going deep into knowledge strata in modern organizations. Their participation is confined only to toe the lines of male-chauvinist management. Follett herself was not very much popular among her male contemporaries. Her most of views could only be popularized after her death. In Follett’s life and struggle, there lie many inspirations to young women of our times. They must be educated to educate themselves because educated [and not mere literate] women can emancipate themselves without any assistance.

Author is a doctoral candidate (Public Administration) at the Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Henri Fayol

2015-12-30T15:52:00.003+05:30

Full Name: Henri Fayol

Timeline

1841: Born, Constantipole, Istanbul, Turkey.

Woodrow Wilson

2015-12-30T15:00:00.002+05:30

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), who became the President of the USA during the First World War, is regarded as the founder of the discipline of Public Administration.

Full Name: Thomas Woodrow Wilson

Timeline

1856: Born at Stanton, Virginia, USA
1873: Attended Davidson College (1873-74)
1879: Graduated from Princeton. Later, joined Law School of University of Virginia
1882: Started practising law in Atlanta.
1883: Joined Johns Hopkins University.
1884: Published his first book "Congressional Government".
1885: Taught at Bryn Mawr College for Women (till 1888)
1886: Obtained Ph.D. in History and Political Science from Johns Hopkins University.
1888: Worked at Wesleyan University (till 1990)
1890: Joined Princeton University as Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy (till 1902)
1902: President of Princeton University (till 1910)
1911: President [elect] of American Political Science Association.
1913: President of the United States of America (till 1921)
1919: Got Nobel Peace Prize
1924: Died

Works

1885: Congressional Government
1887: The Study of Administration (Essay)
1889: The State: Elements of Institutional History and Administration
1889: Division and Reunion
1893: An Old Master and other Political Essays
1896: Mere Literature and other Essays
1896: George Washington
1902: A History of the American People
1908: Constitutional Government in the US

PANI

Jawaharlal Nehru and Panchayats

Nehru talked of panchayats as if they were bureaucracies, imagining them as elected civil servants rather than political leaders. He wanted “real power to be in the hands of the people” but also that “they must be trained in governance”.

Trained to govern

Subordinate bureaucracy

Suffocating power

Of bureaucracy, the public and ‘vishwas’ politics

Footnotes:

Quantitative Research Methods for Pol. Sc. and Pub. Ad. with Applications in R

Politics-Administration Dichotomy (PAD)

Wilson & Goodnow on Dichotomy

Dilemma of Dichotomy

Demise of Dichotomy

Question of Accountability

Significance of Dichotomy

1. Developing Independent Studies of Institutions

2. For Operating Public Agencies on Business like Basis

3. Defining Role in Relationship

Inter-State Council

Official Language in Indian Adminstration

Constitutional and Other Provisions

Features of Official Language Policy

Annual Programme

Subordinate Offices of the Department

Committees/Samitis

Awards Schemes

Right to Information in the Administration

How to Get Information

Modernisation Scheme in Public Administration

The perennial generalist vs specialist debate

Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged.

2nd Administrative Reforms Commission

Good Governance Practices and the DARPG

Financial Assistance for Professional Documentation of Good Governance Initiatives to State Governments/UTs

Production of Documentary Films on Best Practices

Research and Evaluation Studies on Good Governance Initiatives

Regional Conferences

Presentations on Best Practices

Book on Best Practices

Minimum Government-Maximum Governance

e-Office Project

Registration Open: 2018 PM's Award for Excellence in Public Administration

Priority Programmes

Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana

National Conference on e-Governance

Foreign Training Programme in Public Administration

DARPG-UNDP Project

International Exchange and Cooperation in Public Administration

MOU with Government of United Kingdom

India-France Agreement

India-Singapore Cooperation

India-Malaysia Cooperation

India-China Cooperation

India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Forum

Cooperation with IIAS

Cooperation with CAPAM

Mechanism

Civil Services Day: 21 April

Public Grievances Mechanism and the DPG

Mechanism

Project Monitoring Group (PMG)

Introduction

Projects Considered

Union Ministries

State Governments

PMG Mechanism

Recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India

Evolution of Public Administration

Evolution: A Historical Account

Administrative Traditions

1. ABSOLUTIST TRADITIONS

2. LIBERAL-DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS

Politics-Administration Dichotomy Approach

Structural Approach

Human Relations Approach

Behavioural Approach

Development Approach

Public Policy Approach

Political Economy Approach

3. MARXIAN TRADITIONS