The appointment of Parameshwaran Iyer as Secretary in the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation has been generally well received. He is perceived as the right choice for the Prime Minister&’s dream project, Swachch Bharat Abhiyan, with over two decades of domain expertise in multilateral institutions and in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Iyer is being brought in from the World Bank where, in his capacity as a Programme Manager and Lead Water and Sanitation Specialist,  he interfaced with the Government of India on a regular basis. His tenure is a fixed one of two years. It is learnt that the post was kept vacant for him because of the perfect-fit factor and he has been granted full autonomy for successful implementation of  key projects. 

The exact methodology of his selection, transparency issues involved therein and associated terms and conditions are, however, not in the public domain. Whether they differ in any manner from his counterparts in other Ministries are not known either.

The appointment has reignited the debate, dating back  several decades, of institutionalising lateral entry into senior positions in the Governmental hierarchy. So far there have been  only isolated appointments of domain experts as Secretaries to Government of India, the most recall- worthy being Dr. Manmohan Singh in the Finance Ministry. The professional graph that followed for Singh has, of course, been unprecedented and  not many can hope for such magnificent bounties as came his way!

The argument put forward most vociferously by the change advocates has had to do with the  generalist nature of the premier  civil service, the Indian 

Administrative Service, making it almost by definition eminently unsuited for the complex, highly  specialised demands of a fast -evolving, tech-driven, globalised  eco system. It is rather bluntly stated that merely being a member of the IAS should not qualify a person to head (almost) all Ministries. This is heard in high octaves both from within and outside the corridors of power. It has even found traction in  recommendations of the Administrative Reform Commission, which have expectedly not been followed up in the hallowed tradition of many similar reports. 

The core underpinning of it should not be discounted altogether. But a proper perspective,  which will lend itself to a more balanced understanding of the situation and its redressal, is important, pending a structural overhaul which is nowhere on the horizon, as on date.

Sizing up several intertwined issues in this renewed debate, contextually centring around Iyer, it is pertinent to determine how germane and  real is the one relating to absence of domain-expertise within the IAS. If real, how have things come to such a pass? And  crucially, is it so critical an ingredient in ensuring good governance as is made out? For if it  is, there should be many more such appointments in the pipeline.

It is an indisputable fact that officers who are in the rank  of Secretary to Government of India today were amongst the best and the brightest amongst their peers when they made a conscious career choice to join government. They did so after withstanding with élan, a gruelling and rigorous selection process and must be acknowledged for it. Thereafter, in spite of public perceptions to the contrary, much of this gold mine of talent did not get full play, to the ultimate detriment of governance. This is, in fact, a continuing malaise.

It may be of interest to note that Iyer himself, because of his  seniority in the IAS,would probably have been a Secretary anyway but perhaps he would not have been celebrated for his domain expertise, and would have been dubbed like many of his colleagues as a mere generalist who handled, with mixed  degrees  of  effectiveness, almost  any and every unrelated sector on his smooth, assured ascent to  the top slot. He was able to garner his core competence only while on extended stints outside  Government. Iyer&’s has, incidentally, become an instant aspirational model!

This sadly enough highlights a sorry state of affairs where personnel policies in Government of India have continued to remain out of sync with the changing times. There is simply no justification for not actively nurturing sectoral and domain expertise, notwithstanding the avowed generalist nature  of the IAS, given the compelling need for such nurturing and the possibility of providing it. That the IAS has, notwithstanding the policy-deficit, unwaveringly proven its mettle, is something to be proud of, not defensive about. To elaborate, the opportunities to specialise in broadly defined sectors of governance, based primarily on academic background and professional contributions, after the first decade or so at the grass roots and cutting edge levels, where the young officer is for all intents and purposes a multi-utility institution in himself/herself, are not mandatorily provided as they should be. The  near mechanical shuffling of the pack in routine and not-so routine, near random transfers and postings create for many an expertise- kitty that is so mixed in nature as to lack any distinctive branding and commensurate recognition, howsoever commendable each one may  have been, viewed separately. There are many reasons for it but the most important, which is also Government&’s worst -kept secret, is that extraneous considerations often come into play in these exercises, which have no connect with stringent criteria of expertise.

Further, while there are training programmes galore for the stated purpose of capacity enhancement, how functionally relevant they are in promoting the desired domain – or even sectoral – expertise remains somewhat ambiguous. Being picked up for these training programmes, especially if they happen to be sponsored by multilateral institutions and conducted in Ivy League centres overseas calls for certain “skills” which not all officers possess in similar measure. This is what seems to have prompted the Government&’s move to cap the number of such overseas trips. The recent public listing by Government, though belated, is welcome. It should also, in the interest of openness and accountability, add a list of the excluded officers! That would make for an  interesting subject of research, if only academic.

Moving on to a better-case scenario, if the gods do smile and an officer with suitable expertise is assigned to a Ministry where the skill-sets may be  a game-changer of sorts, where is the assurance that he/she will actually be given a free and fair run to deliver? The work environment and work culture that the Prime Minister repeatedly refers to, sometimes derisively, are not always at their conducive best and there is no point in denying it. Only when the problem is recognised is there a hope of its being fixed.

To rant that there is insufficient sectoral and domain expertise within the Government and use this as a door-opener for some savvy trapeze artists, without addressing the underlying complexities and deformities in the system, is neither convincing or acceptable. This is not to say that there will be no exceptions but it is incumbent on the Government to think long-term and to think big-canvas.

The writer is a retired IAS officer. She writes on governance issues.