Equally so are the complaints of the IAS officers about the highhandedness and the arbitrariness on the part of some of their political bosses in their relations with them. Fortunately, such complaints are rare at the level of the Central government. But, since as many as 3,900 out of the 5,000 IAS officers in the country work at the state level, the problem of steady decline in mutual trust and respect between the political executive and civil servants should cause serious concern to all those interested in good governance.

The idea of an all-India civil service has never been popular with the politicians in India. The mood of most of our political leaders during the years immediately after Independence was in favour of the abolition of the ICS and giving freedom to each province to have its own civil service. However, Sardar Patel stood firm in his resolve for creating a new all-India civil services and also giving the civil servants the protection of constitutional guarantee against arbitrary removals. Several senior members of the Constituent Assembly had stoutly opposed the proposal of a constitutional guarantee, but Sardar Patel eventually succeeded in getting his proposals approved by his persuasive and vigorous arguments in the Assembly. "You will not have a united India," he had said, "if you do not have a good all-India service which has the independence to speak out its mind, which has a sense of security." This freedom to speak out its mind with a sense of security was the strongest asset of the service. But during the last few years this is what has also landed it in trouble with the political leaders in several states.

During the first decade and a half after Independence, the system worked smoothly and there were no serious complaints either by the ministers against the civil servants or by the civil servants against the ministers. The political wisdom and the leadership abilities of the leaders occupying ministerial positions in the government during this crucial period of transition was an important factor which contributed to the successful working of the system. Another reason was that most of the ministers at the Centre and at the states were persons well known for their sacrifice for the cause of the country’s freedom and for their impeccable record of integrity in personal and public life.

However, with the emergence of a new culture in Indian politics ministers became increasingly intolerant of civil servants exercising the "independence to speak out their mind" which Sardar Patel spoke about. Some of them seemed to believe that the civil servants were there to ensure that their wishes were carried out implicitly without being questioned. They resented if the bureaucrats told them about the difficulties in carrying out their wishes quoting rules and regulations and considered such officers as unhelpful and rigid and even deliberately obstructionist in their attitude. Their immediate reaction was to get such officers transferred and secure the services of those who could be cooperative, if not pliable. The shameful fact has been that some civil servants have proved to be only too willing to be helpful to the ministers in such matters, knowing very well that in doing so they were becoming accomplices in wrongdoings. Some civil servants have become even partners in corruption along with their political bosses and that is how the administrative system touched the nadir of disgrace in some of our states.

Almost all experts and committees on administrative reforms have pointed out that the arbitrary manner in which the politicians make postings and transfers is one of the main reasons for the deterioration in efficiency and the demoralisation which have set in the administration today and have suggested that postings and transfers should be made only on the recommendations of independent civil service boards. There are several well-recognised norms and criteria for postings and transfers. The whole process has to be not only fair and transparent, but also seen to be so. A golden rule is that the tenure of the officer in a particular post should be long enough to enable him to acquire the expertise needed to do justice to his duties. Transfers, when they have to be made, should be timed properly taking into consideration factors like admission of children in schools or pressing family problems, if any, like serious illness etc. However, such norms and considerations are seldom followed in most cases. It has become a common practice in most states that transfers on a mass scale are ordered every time a new party comes to power. Sometimes such mass transfers take place even when there is a change of chief minister during the administration of the same party.

Some politicians try to advertise such transfers as exercises in overhauling and toning up the administration. Some political leaders even think that transfers, however arbitrary and frequent they may be, are necessary to make the civil servants behave. Transfers and postings on political considerations or on the personal whims and prejudices of the ministers are bad enough, but the worst and most condemnable instances are when transfers are made by some political bosses, particularly in departments like the police, which leave the stink of bribery around. Those who buy transfers with bribes naturally believe that they have also bought immunity against action for their own acts of accepting bribes.

Another most harmful practice prevalent in some states is that the chief ministers fix a quota for MLAs and other senior party functionaries for recommending transfers and postings of officials. Probably this was intended to limit the pressures from party men and MLAs for the transfer of officials. But this is the proverbial remedy which is worse than the disease itself. A surprising aspect of such transfers and postings is that no state government considers the enormous expenditure involved in such needless transfers as wasteful or avoidable expenditure even though it may be facing severe financial constraints. Equally surprising is the fact that every leader agrees with the need and urgency of reforming the administrative system but none has shown the will and the courage to take the first essential step towards reform namely changing pernicious practices followed in postings and transfers.

Dr P.C. Alexander has served as governor in Tamil Nadu and in Maharashtra and is now a member of the Rajya Sabha