This article was downloaded by: [University of Jammu]On: 03 January 2012, At: 00:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Public AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OFINDIA'S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTR. B. Jain aa Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India

Available online: 16 Aug 2006

To cite this article: R. B. Jain (2001): TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE: A HALF CENTURY OF INDIA'S ADMINISTRATIVEDEVELOPMENT, International Journal of Public Administration, 24:12, 1299-1334

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-100105941

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE:

A HALF CENTURY OF INDIA’S

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

R. B. Jain

Department of Political Science, University of Delhi,Delhi 110007, India

ABSTRACT

Since independence, India has undertaken a number of effortsto establish an effective development-oriented, citizen-friendlyand responsive system of administration to contribute towardgood governance. While the traditional system of publicadministration was appropriate for the pre-independenceperiod, subsequent social, economic and political changesnecessitated radical changes in policies and their implementa-tion. A set of new issues called for a thorough reorientation ofthe system of public administration. Administrative develop-ment had, therefore, to be planned and executed in the faceof ever-growing conflicts between various non-state ac-tors=institutions and the state. The strategies for adminis-trative development adopted not only included evolvingappropriate politico-administrative institutions for demo-cratic governance, but also a consistent effort on reorientingthe formal and informal aspects as well as improving the

Copyright # 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

1299

INT’L. J. OF PUB. ADMIN., 24(12), 1299–1334 (2001)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

techno-professional skills of bureaucracy at all levels. Inaddition to this an appropriate balance and cooperationbetween the public and private sectors was essential in thecontext of growing liberalization and globalization.Theexperience of India emphatically demonstrates that an activeand consociational association of citizens at all levels of thegovernmental structure is critical to the process of moder-nization of the state and administration. The dispersionof political and administrative power among various groupsand regions emerges as a useful strategy for ensuring thecontinuity of the state and democracy in a vast country withnumerous ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions.

INTRODUCTION

When after Independence in 1947, India embarked on the experimentto constitute itself into a sovereign republic and modernize the state and itsadministration through the adoption of a ‘‘parliamentary democracy,’’ notmany scholars and analysts in the world had believed that India will surviveas a democratic nation negating John Stuart Mill’s contention that‘‘democracy is next to impossible in multi-ethnic societies and completely‘impossible in linguistically divided countries’,’’ as well as Robert Dahl’sbelief ‘‘that widespread poverty and illiteracy are anaethema to ‘stabledemocracy’ ’’—a concept that is supposedly linked with the level of socio-economic development.’’(1) However, these early forebodings and laterpredictions that ‘‘the odds are almost wholly against the survival of freedomand . . . the issue is, in fact, whether any Indian state can survive at all’’(2)

have not only been proven wrong, but India’s existence as a democratic statesince the last 53 years of its Independence has compelled scholars to evolve anew consociational interpretation of the survival of democracy in deeplydivided societies.(3)

Over all these years, while evolving a consensual framework of ademocratic government, the leadership in India has also from time to timeattempted to devise strategies for good governance, which is associated withan efficient and effective development-oriented, citizen-friendly and res-ponsive administration committed to improvement in quality of life of thepeople. This paper is concerned with a review and evaluation of the variousefforts and strategies adopted in India for bringing out administrativedevelopment for good governance, and points out some further directions ofreforms, which are immediately needed in public management system inorder to meet the challenges of the advent of the 21st Century.

1300 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

COLONIAL LEGACY AND THE INSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

The Inheritance

At independence, India inherited from the British a monolithic, strictlyhierarchical administrative structure, with the line of command runningunimpeded from the Viceroy and Governor-General in Delhi to the farthestvillage, but with certain well established traditions.(4) The purpose of such asystem was to keep the interest of the British power in India dominant,make sure that the government got the revenue it needed, and, in terms ofpeace and security, maintain law and order.

The system of administration that had evolved in India during the 18thCentury from the time of Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis—fromimperial rule until independence had five distinguishing features: a) thedistrict as the basic unit of administration, and the office of the districtcollector as a prototype of a ‘‘District-Maharajah’’ ‘‘the alter-ego of thevice-regal authority’’ controlling, directing, and coordinating all adminis-trative activities in his district; b) centralization—as the recognized principleof administration both territorially and functionally and centralization ofdecision-making in almost all policy areas—public finance, legal and judicialsystems, education, health and even public works; c) the steel-frame ofadministration—strong institution of a single dominating civil service, withthe Indian Civil Service (ICS) the elite generalist service, occupying the topposition among other allied and subordinate services down the levels ofcentral and provincial hierarchies; d) a system of elaborate rules andregulations designed by the British as a means of maintaining control overthe decision-making power of their large number of Indian subordinates,who had varying levels of training, outlooks, and goals, and who weredispersed far from the administrative centers: and e) a system of Secretariatand Executive offices—a split system prevailing at both the central andprovincial levels, ostensibly separating questions of policy from those ofadministration.(5)

Such a system of administration suited the British. This was thestatus quo regime. It maintained and preserved broadly the structure ofsociety in India as it then existed, particularly the large proportion ofrural society. It did not concern itself with any radical or specific socio-economic changes. The impact of the administration on the large pro-portions of Indian citizens was minimal. Thus, when the time for transferof power came in 1947, the administrative system was not appropriatelyprepared to handle the massive developmental and post-independencetasks.(6)

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

The Impact of Independence and the Constitutional Imperatives

The period since independence has witnessed most changes in theadministrative system. The attainment of independence brought in its wakemomentous problems, simultaneously needing multiple revolutions: first,the transition from a colonial system of government to a full-fledgedparliamentary democracy with a federal structure of government andcommitment to a welfare state; second, the transformation of a semi-subsistence economy into a modern industrial economy to solve theproblems of poverty, unemployment, and want; third, a social revolutionchanging a caste ridden stratified society into a progressive communityoriented to social justice; and fourth, a technological revolution to shine thelight of modern science on the crusted traditional ways of a conservativepeople.

The broad strategies adopted by the Indian leadership, to usher into anew era, were a) the political integration of the country; b) the framing of anew Republican Constitution; c) the adoption of adult franchise; d) a policyof rule of law and independence judiciary; e) a policy of a mixed economyand democratic socialism for agro-industrial growth; f ) a policy of equalopportunity and protective discrimination to further social justice; and g) apolicy of nonalignment in foreign affairs. All these strategies have led, sincethen, to a number of veritable changes in the policy process and theadministrative system. But some of the old problems still persist in one formor the other, while the processes of modernization and socio-economicchanges over the last five decades have given rise to a new set of problemspertaining to policy and administration.

The new set of problems that have arisen in the modern times relate tovarious issues such as: i) the empowerment of women and the downtroddenand the social upliftment of the poor and the backward; ii) growingincidence of social and political violence due to terrorism, communalism,regionalism, linguistic and group conflicts; iii) environmental security andsustainable development; iv) challenges of globalization, liberalization andmarket economy and world capitalism; v) constraints of the emergence ofa civil society; and vi) the challenges of the revolutions in information,communication and other technologies.

The Public Management System in India has had to respond to thesecontinuing problems and challenges faced by the polity from time to time,and it did so by first establishing a constitutional framework of a republicandemocratic government. The pattern of administrative development in Indiawas thus largely guided by the imperatives of the republican Constitution,which came into force on January 26, 1950. The structure of colonialadministration not only had to adjust to the system of democratic

1302 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

parliamentary government and the principle of federalism enshrined in theConstitution, but was also expected to implement the new policy goalsinherent in the preamble and a number of its provisions relating to socio-economic dispensations. Some of these are discussed in the followingsections.

Federalism: The Administrative Implications

Indian federalism has retained the earlier principle of centralization ofthe British era in the structure of administration; it has vested imposingpowers and responsibilities in the Union government. The emergencypowers contained in the Indian Constitution enable India, under certaincircumstances, to transform itself into a unitary state. Under emergencyprovisions, the Union Executive and the Parliament can direct a stategovernment in the use of its powers or assume all of its powers, the UnionExecutive acting for the state executive and the Union Parliament enactinglegislation as if it were the state legislature.

Apart from the fact that the central government has the constitu-tional right to modify the distribution of powers between the center andthe states under certain circumstances, the central government also hasvast powers over the collection and distribution of revenues, which makethe state heavily dependent on the central government for financialsupport. However, despite these centralized trends, each state has apersonality of its own and can no longer be treated by the centralgovernment as merely a piece of territory for administrative purposes. Thenumber, territorial size, and composition of states have changed manytimes since independence in response to the demands of the people ofvarious regions. Currently (October 2000), the Union Government in Indiais involved in creating three more states (in addition to the existing 25) ofUttaraanchal, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh, thus taking the number ofstates to 28 and seven Union territories, including Delhi and Pondicherry,which have at times staked their claims to be elevated to the status ofstates.

Democratic Decentralisation: Evolution of Panchayat Raj System

To achieve the goal of participatory democracy, the Government ofIndia embarked upon a series of experiments with community involvementand participation at the grassroots. The first experiment in the 1950s was theCommunity Development system in which each district was divided into

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

blocks and Panchayat of villages. Both the Block Development andPanchayati Raj system received a big boost in 1993 when the 73rdConstitutional Amendment revolutionized and transformed the representa-tiveness of democratic institutions in India. The 1993 amendment broughtthe Panchayats under the jurisdiction of the ‘‘Justiciable part of theConstitution.’’(7) Now, its elections are mandatory at a regular interval, andstate legislatures have been directed to endow sufficient power and authoritynecessary for its functioning. Further, Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs)are to be involved in preparing and implementating development plans for:agriculture, land improvement, soil conservation, fisheries, khadi, villageand cottage industries, poverty alleviation programmes, education, healthand sanitation, family welfare, woman and child development, socialwelfare, welfare of the weaker sections (in particular Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes SC=ST) groups, etc.(8) The Amendment also madeprovision for reserving seats in Panchayats for women and SC=STcandidates. Finally, state legislatures have been empowered to authorizestate governments to make grants-in-aid to Panchayats from the Con-solidated Fund of the State.

The constitutional amendment has been implemented in nearly allstates as legislative formalities have been completed including constitutingelectoral procedures but elections are yet to be completed in several states,hence, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this innovation inparticipatory democracy. However, it is likely that in future, PRIs wouldhave to play an important role in accelerating socio-economic developmentin the rural areas.(9)

Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles

of State Policy: Imperatives for Administration

The Constitution of India is committed to providing fundamentalchanges in the socio-economic order through its provision onfundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. While theFundamental Rights guarantee for each citizen certain substantive andprocedural protection against the state, the Directive Principles of StatePolicy, although not enjoying legal force through the courts, providedirection to the nation ‘‘to promote the welfare of people by securing andpromoting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,economic, and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life.’’(10)

Taken together, these provisions have meant a number of mandatoryobligations that are required to be observed by administrative personnel inthe discharge of their functions and the emergence of a large number of

1304 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

different types of administrative institutions at all levels to carry out thepurposes and aspirations of a new nation.

Thus, for example, the right of equality under Article 16 of theConstitution guarantees equal protection before the law, provides for equalopportunities in public employment, abolishes untouchability, and prohibitsdiscrimination in the use of public places on the grounds of religion, race,caste, sex, or place of birth. At the same time, it protects the rights ofminorities and provides protective discrimination for the downtrodden andthe backward class of the population, the so-called Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes, as mentioned in the Constitution. The administrativeimplications of such constitutional provisions are far-reaching. Besides theadditional administrative costs to implement preferences for these classes,such provisions have led to allegations of lowering of administrativestandards and compromises on meritocracy due to the induction ofcandidates with questionable capabilities; there have been public riots andviolent protests in some states as a result of perceived reverse discrimina-tion.(11)

The Public Services

Perhaps India is the only country whose public services have beenaccorded constitutional status, and their rights and privileges have beensafeguarded. Article 311 of the Constitution provides a safeguard to a publicemployee’s right to be served with a notice to show cause notice before becan be dismissed from the service on charges of misconduct, inefficiency, orcorruption.

Such legal and constitutional guarantees, which were intended toprotect civil servants from arbitrary actions and unjust administrativedecisions, have come to be used as the ‘‘guardian’’ of corrupt andincompetent bureaucrats.(12) Such legal guarantees have now becomesomewhat diluted with the recent Supreme Court decision in the case ofthe Union of India versus Tulsi Ram Patel (1985).(13) The Supreme Courthas upheld the government’s claimed right to dismiss any employee withouta formal inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. All thatthe authority concerned has to do is to write down the charges warrantingthe termination of his services.

But the most unique feature of the provisions of the IndianConstitution is Article 312, pertaining to the creation of all India Services,which retain the same prestige and status once accorded to the old ICS. Thespecial characteristic of these services is that although officers are recruitedand trained by the Union government, they serve both the Union and the

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

state governments and occupy top policy-making and executive positions inboth the central and the state governments. Moreover, they cannot bedismissed, removed, or reduced in rank, except for cause and only with theapproval of the Union Public Service Commission.

Apart from the all-India Services, the Constitution also provides forCentral Services for the Union Government and State Services for the stategovernments. While the all-India and Central Services are recruited by theUnion Public Service Commission, the State Services are recruited by theState Public Service Commissions. The Commissions have been establishedas constitutional agencies to protect the services and the merit system frompolitical interference.

The Central Government’s public services are managed by theMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which was createdin March 1985. It formulates all policies and procedures pertaining torecruitment, training, promotion employer-employee relations, serviceconditions, etc., and coordinates other personnel management issues suchas administrative vigilance, reservation of posts for Scheduled Casts andScheduled Tribes (SC=ST), compulsory arbitration, staff welfare, pensionadministration, Administrative Tribunal, Union Public Service Commis-sion, Staff Selection Commission, Indian Institute of Public Administration,the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration (Mussoorie), and theInstitute of Secretariat Training and Management (New Delhi).(14) TheMinistry functions under the direct control of the Prime Minister through aMinister of State.

The Statutory Authorities

The other independent bodies for various administrative purposesprovided in the Constitution are: a) the Election Commission to conductelections for various legislative bodies and all elective offices under theUnion and the states; b) the Finance Commission, appointed every fiveyears for determining the principle of distribution of revenues between thecentral and state governments; c) the office of the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral to audit accounts of the Union and the state governments; andd) the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes Commissioners to look afterthe welfare of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in India. Theindependent and impartial working of these bodies has been ensured partlyby the methods of their appointment and conditions of their services, andpartly by the fact that the expenses of these offices are the first charge onthe Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to the vote of theParliament.

1306 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

The above is a brief summary of how the various constitutionalprevisions have influenced the growth of the administrative machinery inIndia. Given the socio-political background at independence, the Constitu-tion makers did well to specify the principles on which the foundations of anew administrative state were to be laid.

POLICY OF PLANNED ECONOMY AND

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT

In pursuance of the objectives of a welfare state and rapid economicgrowth, India had adopted five years plans as a major instrument of publicpolicy and the principle of ‘‘mixed economy’’ as the guiding ideology forplanned developmental efforts. The planning objectives and social premiseswere derived from the Directive Principles of State Policy set out in theConstitution. Attempts to formulate and implement development planshave been accompanied by a vast expansion of various administrativeplanning institutions and agencies, and phenomenal growth of publicservices for developmental purposes. In the process, administration hasbecome more and more hierarchical giving rise to problems of coordinationat the horizontal level. Although the various plan documents also providedirections and strategies for developing administrative capabilities andeffecting administrative reforms to meet the challenges posed by the policyof planned socio-economic development, efforts to achieve greater admin-istrative decentralization and a larger measure of planning have not beenable to bridge the large and ever-growing gap between planning andimplementation.

The strategy of planned economic growth and the consequentformulation and implementation of plan policies have put tremendousstrain and responsibilities on the administrative system. The success ofdevelopmental plans and policies depends to a significant degree upon theeffectiveness and capability of the administrative machinery. The structuraland organizational problems of administration, posed by planning, startwith the establishment of the planning machinery itself; determining itslocation; defining its powers, functions and responsibilities; defining its workvis-a-vis the other administrative departments; establishing effectivechannels of communication with the political organization; establishingunits for supervision and evaluation of plan implementation; establishingrelations with the states and their administrative units, the private sector,interest groups, trade unions, cooperatives, and so on. All these posestructural, behavioral and attitudinal problems. The availability of qualifiedand efficient personnel with development orientation poses problems not

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

only of managing human resources, but also of evolving behavior, a distinctadministrative culture for development.(15) In many ways the process ofplanning has also made a deep impact on the character and functioningof the traditional administrative units and institutions. Two specific aspectsof planning need further discussion: i) the framework of planning; and ii) itsimpact on traditional administration.

The Framework of Planning

The new institutions that have come into existence as a result of theadoption of the system of economic planning are: a) the National PlanningCommission, an expert advisory body at the Center responsible forformulating plans, assessing resources, providing for all technical andstatistical details needed in planning activities, determining the nature ofmachinery needed for implementation of plans, and appraising the progressachieved in the execution of plans in each state from time to time; and b) theNational Development Council, a kind of super cabinet consisting of thechief executives of all the states of the Indian Union along with the Membersof the Planning Commission, which has emerged as an apex body topromote national cooperation between the center and the states. Further, inalmost all central government ministries and organizations, planning cellshave been established to assist in the formulation of plan projects andtargets in each substantive area. Similarly, planning boards and stateplanning departments have come into being at the levels and various stategovernments for the preparation of state plans and their integration in thenational plan.

Because of various historical and political factors, the planning systemin India continues to be highly centralized. However, the unsatisfactoryperformance of centralized planning has led to demands for radicaldecentralization. The increased scope of plan activities at lower levels,recent emphasis on area development, and adoption of a target groupdevelopment approach tend to make the argument for decentralizationstronger. The issue is not so much whether to decentralize, as how and whatto decentralize.(16) However, efforts to establish planning machinery atsub-state levels, which have been under way for some time, have been half-hearted, with the result that no worthwhile organization for planformulation has emerged at these levels.

As a sequel to the Directive Principles of State Policy provided in theConstitution and with a view to involving people in the process of planformulation and implementation, a scheme of community developmentprograms, Panchayati Raj institutions, block development officers, and

1308 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

a host of village level workers were introduced in the decades of the fiftiesand sixties in various state governments. But in the majority of cases, theseinstitutions have been virtually languishing as a result of governmentindifference and in some cases the tacit hostility of political leadership at thestate level. The so-called experiments in district planning introduced since1969 were reduced to a mere collection of felt needs or of disaggregateddepartmental figures. The later attempts to strengthen district and blocklevel planning in the early 1980s were also not very successful.

Deficiencies have been particularly marked with respect to themachinery for project planning and establishing linkages and coordinationbetween projects. The successful operation of decentralized planning withina framework of multilevel planning requires appropriate organizations atthese levels, which must be staffed with personnel of requisite technicalexpertise, especially for preparing sound projects and working out linkagesamong them.(17) Controversy has arisen in recent times over the issuewhether a new level of service named as Development Services be created tofill this gap, or requisite training be imparted to the existing personnel forenhancing their capacities, or some strategies of the New Public Manage-ment e.g. contracting out of some selected services at the grass root level toprivate and non-state organizations be adopted. However, none of thealternatives has so far been successfully implemented in any of the states inIndia.

Thus to what extent, the 1993 constitutional amendment empoweringPanchayats to make direct input in the planning process will result in abetter planning at the grass root level remains to be soon. Until now theresults of some experiments tried in various states have not been veryencouraging, although very recently (early 2000), some progress seems tohave been made in the state of Madhya Pradesh by making the district as thebasic unit of developmental planning and activities in the state under theprovisions of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. This mode, ifproved successful, may perhaps be replicated in other states.

Impact of Planning on Traditional District Administration

The planning system has placed a heavy burden and responsibilities onthe district as a traditional unit of administration and on its head, thedistrict collector, the district officer or deputy commissioner, the variousdesignations with which such officers have been known by in India.Different patterns of administration exist in different regions. There istherefore a need to develop a common model of administration which maypermit flexibility for adjustments due to regional variations.(18) The question

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

whether the District Collector, who has traditionally been performing thelaw and order and revenue collection functions, should be associated withdevelopmental functions has been continuously debated since Indepen-dence. The impact of the British legacy, namely, the centralization ofdecision-making, the system of rules, the generalist concept of services, hasfurther affected the pattern of behavior of the district officials. This patternis characterized by inflexible adherence to and dependence upon rules, afocusing of decision-making upward, and its reverse, a lack of delegation ofauthority and a generalized rigidity that prevent the organization fromadapting readily to changing demands upon it. It is further complicated bysituational elements of social, economic, political and cultural nature.Notable among the particular situational elements are the tendency for anygroup of people to divide into small groups on the basis of particularisticties, heightening a lack of trust and reluctance to delegate authority, atendency encouraged by the ideology of the caste system, and thinking ofhuman relations in hierarchical terms; and a tradition of deference towardsauthority.(19)

Administrative Development Through Five Year Plans

The formulators of Five Year Plans for planned economic develop-ment did realize the imperatives of change and improvement in existingadministration system if the goals of planning were to be realized. To thisextent, every plan document has contained a specific chapter outliningsuggestions for improving the administrative machinery. Thus in the FirstFive Year Plan (1951–56), in a separate chapter on ‘‘Reform of PublicAdministration’’ it was laid down that the principal objectives ofadministrative changes were to secure integrity, efficiency, economy andpublic cooperation. Suggestions for changes in the Prevention of CorruptionAct 1947, and the machinery for departmental enquiries were made tosecure integrity. Similarly, proposal for changes in methods of work andorganization and the establishment of an Organization and Methods(O&M) Division; a system of intensive training in economic field andgrounding in development administration for the IAS and constitution ofindustrial management cadre were made to increase efficiency. A system ofadequate participation, systematic evaluation and a practice of reward andpunishment for securing results for large scale projects was proposed forfinancial control and economy in developmental projects.(20)

The Second Five Year Plan (1956–61) also emphasized the importanceof integrity, provision of incentives, continuous assessment of personnel—their training and speedy, efficient and economic methods of work; and

1310 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

recommended the establishment of a ‘‘vigilance office’’ in every Ministryand Department. Proposals were also made to establish O&M directoratesin the State Administration. It also urged the creation of an IndustrialManagement Service for the administration of public sector enterprises.(21)

The Third Five Year Plan (1961–66) also contained a chapter on‘‘Administration and Plan Implementation,’’ which emphasized theimportance of reduction in construction cost, improvement in maintenanceand simplification of work procedures, and the need for a line ofcommunication between the planning for the country as a whole and foreach district, block and village, preserving the broad national prioritieswhile adapting the plans to conditions and needs of each area and eachcommunity.(22)

Noting the increasing gap between planning and implementation, theFourth Five Year Plan urged the need for constant appraisal of economicpolicies and performance so that gaps were noted with sufficient precision,integration of plans for production, imports and exports, improvement inthe system of reporting and information, introduction of performancebudgeting, economy in construction of projects through pre-planning,program management, avoidance of short tenures and frequent transfers,and emphasis on quality of performance.(23)

The Fifth and Sixth Plan documents pointed out that planning,implementation and evaluation should be looked upon as an integralprocess, and need for the strengthened particularly at state, district andblock levels. It suggested the projection of the anti-poverty program and thestrengthening of district administration by appointment of district devel-opment officers, and strengthening of the national information centers fordata storage, retrieval and processing.(24)

Similarly, the Seventh Plan suggested the decentralization of planningfrom the state to the district and block levels, and a scheme of effectivefunctioning and financial decentralization, establishing appropriate budget-ing and reappropriation, making district officers accountable to districtplanning body and establishing data and information centers at districtlevels. It also laid emphasis on responsiveness in the administration of publicenterprises involving questions of autonomy, accountability and coordina-tion between different sectors of government, ensuring speedy resolution ofcontroversial issues. The management and administrative systems have to beimproved to eliminate inefficiency, cynicism and lack of integrity.(25)

The Eighth Plan (1991–97) took into account some of the changesexpected to come about due to the liberalization of the economy. The NinthPlan (currently in operation) envisages a basic change in the new era ofpeople-oriented planning wherein, not only the central and state Govern-ments, but also the people at large are expected to participate in the

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

planning process. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments areexpected to pave the way for the flourishing of the Panchayati Rajinstitutions and the municipal bodies. In this new era of participatoryplanning process, the Ninth Plan is expected to attempt to accelerateeconomic growth, along with equity and social justice.(26) Despite the pleathat the Planning Commission has outlined its utility in the changed contextof liberalization in India,(27) and should either be disbanded or relocated, therecent meeting of the Planning Commission held on 30 September 2000,with the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Chair, has reiterated itscontinuance as the government’s main think tank.(28)

REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM

The problem of administrative reforms has received continuingattention in India both at the Center and in the states during the last fivedecades of its Independence.(29) Indeed since the British period, there hasbeen a time-honored practice of examining particular areas of administra-tion and to make recommendations for improvement.(30)

Since Independence, there have been a large number of changes in thestructure, work methods, and procedures of the administrative organi-zations. Although these changes have been gradual, at times not tooperceptible, they do indicate the efforts made by the government to effectprocedural and policy innovation in the administrative system and to keeppace with the changed situation, growing needs and exigencies of thegovernment. In order to understand the impact of such changes, it isappropriate to recount some of the important suggestions made by thevarious committees, commissions and experts on the subject of adminis-trative reforms in India.

The Aftermath of Independence

Beginning with the Tottenham Committee’s Report immediately afterthe Second World War in 1945,(31) which sharply advocated a properdivision between secretarial departments on the one hand and executivedirectorate and services on the other, with liberal delegation of powers to theheads of departments, the question of secretariat organization was furtherdebated by the Secretariat Reorganization Committee, headed by GirijaShanker Bajpai immediately after independence in 1947. The Committeesuggested a reorganization of the methods of work in the secretariat.In 1948, the Economy Committee headed by a prominent industrialist,

1312 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Kasturbhai Lalbhai, made many suggestions for effecting economy incentral administration and to tune up general efficiency and mould of thecivil service.(32) Shortly thereafter, the first comprehensive review of thecentral government was undertaken by the committee headed byN. Gopalswamy Ayyangar in 1949. It dealt with organizational changes,improvement in the caliber of personnel, and in the methods of transactionof governmental business. One of the recommendations that was adopted bythe government was the strengthening of the organization of the cabinetthrough the constitution of the standing committees of the cabinet such asthe Defense Committee, Economic Committee, Parliamentary and LegalCommittee etc.(33)

Appleby Efforts at Reforms

However, none of the above attempts at administrative improvementreceived as much public attention in 1950s as did the three subsequentreports—Gorwala Committee Report of 1951, and Paul Appleby’s tworeports on the Indian Administration in 1953 and 1956. GorwalaCommittee, headed by a former ICS officer, A. D. Gorwala, was appointedby the Planning Commission in 1951 to assess the adequacy of theadministration to meet the requirements of planned development. Gorwala’sreport on the Planning Commission served as the basis for the formulationof certain crucial administrative proposals, which were later included in theFirst Five Year Plan. In the same year, Gorwala submitted another reportrelating to the efficient conduct of State Enterprises. Appleby’s Reports in1953 and 1956 made significant impact on the thinking and interest inadministrative reforms amongst the government officials, educated elitesand the academics, primarily because it was perhaps the first appraisal of theIndian administrative system by a foreign expert. Although the reports werecritical of the administrative machinery, they were complementary of theadministrative system as a whole. Appleby’s first report dealt more withchanges in the basic principles and concepts including the structural changesin the Indian administration rather than with details of the administrativemachinery.(34)

The two main recommendations of Appleby, relating to the setting upof an Institute of Public Administration at the national level and the other,the creation of O&M organizations at different levels of administration thatwere implemented immediately, helped the nation towards developingnecessary infrastructure for research, teaching and improvement in publicadministration. In his second report, Appleby made several proposals forstreamlining the administration, work procedures, recruitment and training,

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

and relationship of administration with Parliament, the Planning Commis-sion, and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India; Appleby alsounderlined the need for delegation of powers.(35)

The Post Appleby Period: The Administrative Reforms

Commission (ARC) Phase

In the post-Appleby period (1953–66), a number of other committeesand commissions made piecemeal recommendations relating to thequalification for public services, salary structure of public services, districtadministration, work procedures, corruption and reorganization of foreignservice, but no comprehensive study of the administrative system wasattempted until the appointment of the Administrative Reform Commissionin 1966.(36)

The attempts at reforms till now had been far too narrow in theirscope to make any appreciable impact on the administrative system as awhole. Because of the widespread deterioration in administrative efficiencyand standards, the idea of setting up an independent commission on thepattern of the Hoover Commission in USA gained ground.(37) Accordingly,the government on January 2, 1966 constituted an Administrative ReformsCommission (ARC), under the Chairmanship of Morarji Desai (who waslater replaced by K Hanumanthaiya).

The objectives laid down to guide the Commission’s investigationswere: a) ‘‘to give consideration to the need for ensuring the higheststandards of efficiency and integrity in the public service;’’ b) to take intoaccount the need ‘‘for making public administration a fit instrument forcarrying out the social and economic policies of the government andachieving social and economic goals of development;’’ and c) to make theadministration ‘‘responsive to the people.’’(38) The two additional objectives,viz.—the promotion of national integration and the maintenance of efficientstandards of administration throughout the country were implicit in theCommission’s terms of reference.

The ARC had stressed that in the above investigations, it was guidedby certain basic considerations, such as: the intensity or magnitude of theadministrative deficiency or inadequacy, the requirements of adapting theadministrative system or procedure to the demands of developmentalfunctions or tasks; the availability of the proposed reforms in terms ofadministrative, social and political challenges; the need for improvingefficiency, effecting economy and raising administrative standards; the needfor maintaining a balance between administrative innovation and change,and administrative stability; the need for improving the responsiveness of

1314 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

the administration to the people; the urgency for reform; and finally thedemands of the present and the needs of the future.(39)

Some of the most significant recommendations made by the ARCpertained to the: a) the appointment of Lok Pal (at the center) andLokayuktas (in the states) to deal with complaints of corruption and publicgrievances; b) constitution of inter-state councils under Act 263 of theConstitution to deal with centre-state relations; c) establishment of a centralpersonnel agency at the centre (Department of Personnel and Adminis-trative Reforms) under the Cabinet Secretariat and independent personneldepartments in each ministry; d) introduction of the concept and techniqueof performance budgeting; e) procedural reforms relating to the eliminationof delays in sanctioning of pensions to retired officials and payment thereof;f ) constitution of a policy advisory committee, policy cells and policyofficers in each department or ministry; g) establishment of internal standingcommittee on planning and planning cells in each ministry, constitution ofstate planning boards, and preparation of project manuals and trainingprogram for project management; h) the constitution of several corpora-tions for management of the public sector; and i) constitution of consumerconsultative committees. Perhaps the two most important areas touchedupon by the ARC in its reports were: i) minister-civil servants relationships,wherein the ARC emphasized the need for the depoliticization of theservices; and ii) the creation of a climate and culture of administration thatwould help arrest the growth of unhealthy personal relationship betweencivil servants and the ministers.

Another important but at the same time the most controversialrecommendations, which if implemented, would have meant a radicaldeparture from the past traditions and structure of the civil services, was tochange the character of the Indian Administrate Service (IAS). The ARChad suggested the regrouping of all the present services in the Governmentof India into eight functional categories, so that the IAS shall no more be ageneralist service, but shall have a purely functional role of revenueadministration.(40) This recommendation, which could have changed theentire civil service structure from being based on a generalist character to aspecialist system of service and would have ended the primacy of theerstwhile ‘‘steel-frame,’’ had evoked sharp and bitter reactions fromamongst the top hierarchy of the civil services.(41) No wonder, the proposalwas not only shelved, but perhaps was responsible to some extent in thedevelopment of an indifferent and apathetic attitude amongst the top civilservices for the implementation of the recommendations of the ARC.

In retrospect, it seems that despite the extensive work done by theARC extending over a period of four years, it failed to make any realimpact on the administrative structure. There was no attempt made to

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

overhaul the original administrative structure. The ARC seemed to have nophilosophy of administration and made no attempt to articulate one.Indeed it had no overall core report on public administration as a whole. Itdid not ask such basic questions as what constitutes good administrationand in reference to those norms of good administration, what could beconsidered to be the major reforms in Indian administration. In not raisingthese basic issues of administrative reforms, the ARC lost a majoropportunity to suggest some fundamental changes in Indian administrativesystem.(42)

Most of the ARC’s recommendations had failed to arouse theauthorities to take positive action to implement them. But the fact, asobserved by a political commentator, was that the Commission never cameto tight grips with the day to day administrative lacuna, lapses andshortcomings, much less produced a single, coherent report spelling out inprecise and concrete terms the steps needed for effecting a completeoverhaul—a real breakthrough—in civil administration. The eminentindividuals who headed the various study teams and their learned colleaguestook only an overall view of the issues entrusted to them and dealt with thelarger questions of administrative policies and procedures, but lost sight ofspecific issues affecting the core of administration. As a result, whateverreforms they have recommended—and acted upon by the government—have hardly touched the core of administration, which remains ascumbersome, outdated and red-tape ridden as it was before the Commissionwas brought into being.(43)

The Post-ARC Reform Efforts

After the ARC, there have been no major committees or commissionon administrate reforms per se except for three isolated attempts: a) toimprove the examination pattern of combined services by introducing apreliminary tests to eliminate a large number of candidates having lesspotential for success, as a sequel to the Kothari Committee Report;(44) b) torevitalize the Panchayati Raj system at the grass root level by converting thethree-tier structure into a two tier structure;(45) and c) to change the systemof economic and fiscal administration.(46)

Besides the above, the Indian government also constituted a NationalPolice Commission (1977–79), under the chairmanship of Dharam Vir, aformer ICS, which examined various aspects of police and law and orderadministration in India and submitted eight volumes of its reports tostreamline the police administration, but most of the many worthwhile andimportant recommendations made by it have been gathering dust on the

1316 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

government shelves, as the political leadership which came into power afterthe 1979 elections did not feel interested to act on these.

In addition, the Government in 1983 appointed a high-poweredcommission led by Justice Sarkaria to enquire into the entire gamut ofcenter-state relations. The Sarkaria Commission regarded federalism asbasically a functional arrangement for cooperative action rather than astatic institutional concept. It emphasized the need for decentralization ofthe planning process and adoption of certain well-meaning conventionsin respect of the appointment of governors and the use of Art. 356.Nevertheless, action on the above recommendations has been very slowbecause the center-state relations are still being conducted in the same oldhierarchical top-down approach and as a matter of political bickering andbargaining.

Another development in the history of administrative reforms in Indiahas been the appointment of the Satish Chandra Committee to review theexamination system for the recruitment in the civil services. The Committeereported in 1989, and some of its major recommendations have already beenput in operation effective the 1993 competitive examinations for All Indiaand Central Services.(47)

One of the reasons for a lack of general interest in administrativereforms and improvements had been the domination of administration bypolitics in the 1970s, and the political leaders being too much preoccupiedwith buttressing their positions rather than be interested in administrativereforms. There was some toning up of administration in the period duringthe Emergency (1975–77), but this was more due to draconian measurestaken to impose the discipline rather than through any systematic reform ofadministration. All these improvements were washed away in the backlashafter the emergency, and administration actually lapsed into a still greatermeasure of inefficiency. This only reiterates the danger and futility ofundertaking ad hoc measures to tone up administration.

POLICY OF LIBERALIZATION AND DEREGULATION:

THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The major policy issue confronting the government during the last oneand a half decades has been the issue of ‘‘liberalization’’ for industrialprogress and the changing role of the public sector in India’s economicdevelopment and its implications for administrative developments. Thepolicy of a ‘‘mixed economy’’ adopted by the government in the spring ofthe Indian Republic has led to the establishment of almost 200 public sectorprojects at the central level and approximately 700 at the state level, each

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

representing an investment worth approximately US $25 million. However,a majority of these enterprises have failed to come up to expectations. Manyhave incurred heavy and continuing losses, and far from contributing to theresources available for development have become a drain on the publicexchequer. Such a phenomenon has been attributed to the growth andpersistence of bureaucratic culture rather than commercial culture in themanagement of these enterprises; backseat driving by the ministries leadingto the constriction in the autonomy of managers of public sector enterprises,which is so necessary for decision making: lack of manpower planning andtraining of executives; and lack of development of marketing techniques.Some of these shortcomings were noticed at the very outset. The adoption ofthe company form of organization for public enterprise in mid-fifties wasthought of precisely to provide them management autonomy. But while the‘‘form’’ was there, the reality of ‘‘autonomy’’ was missing.

The government at present is trying to remove some of theunwarranted advantages which accrue to public sector undertakings,‘‘the most over fed part of an under nourished economy.’’ About half ofthe public sector plants are working at 75 per cent of their capacity andmore than a fifth at less than 20 per cent of their capacity. Although policy-makers have not yet openly advocated ‘‘privatization’’ as the possibleremedy, public monopolies in such areas as oil refining, powergeneration, and telecommunication equipment have been opened to privatecompetition.

The policy of industrial controls and licensing was considerednecessary in the early stages for fulfilling the objectives of planning andfor ensuring that scarce resources were allocated to priority projects. Thesystem, which one economist calls ‘‘command capitalism’’ was originallyintended to make India self-reliant, egalitarian and labor intensive.Although some measure of self-reliance was achieved at the cost of theother two objectives, it has led to the emergence of a parallel black marketeconomy and corruption, which far from promoting rational allocation ofresources have only led to the growth of the luxury sector. It has beenestimated that ‘‘black’’ or ‘‘untaxed’’ money amounts to at least 20 per centof gross domestic project, with perhaps another 15 per cent generated bysmuggling, which not only constitute a big drain on public exchequer, buthas serious implications for transparency, accountability and publicintegrity in administration.

The policy of delicensing adopted in early 1990s has made littleheadway in either bringing out technological developments and qualitativeimprovement in India’s indigenous industrial products or expanding theexport market of locally produced high-tech, industrial electronic, andsoftware products. The missing link in the economic policy has been the

1318 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

marketing of indigenous products abroad. The recent policies of tax cutsand delicensing have only meant relief for the rich without any lowering ofprices, improvement in quality, or safeguarding of the consumer’s interest.No wonder a majority of big businessmen have never been as happy as inthe recent times, despite the unpopularity that the government might haveearned with some of them, because of the highly publicized pursuit of highlyplaced tax evaders. Even the Consumers Protection Act, 1987 has made littleheadway in compelling big business to think about the interest of the poorconsumers and make them socially responsive.

The process of economic liberalization has led to the demand forretreat of the state in India. The Disinvestment Commission in Indiaestablished in 1996 as a sequel to the adoption of the policy of liberalizationhas recently been making some perceptible headway by bringing in theprivate and foreign capital to share the Government’s investment in certaincore industries like power, transport, air companies and other industrialmanufacturing fields despite some very controversial and agitationalconsequences due to the opposition of a number of labor associations,trade unions and interest groups, and various leftist political parties. Whilethis may be the logical consequence of the new economic policy, the rollingback of the state has to be very guarded, for private sector cannot effectivelyprovide all of the services necessary for human development in a developingcountry like India.

In a recent statement the present Prime Minister of India, Atal BehariVajpayee, held that the political parties in power contributed to the declineof Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) by using them as fast breeders of jobs,instead of making them sustainable, competitive and fruitful players in thenational economy. Expediency of the moment was allowed to prevail overthe future of the PSUs and the employment security of their employees.While criticizing the PSUs, as faltering due to inadequate competition,inadequate accountability and inadequate motivation and functioning like agovernment department within government constraints, the Prime Ministercalled for a new strategy to revitalize the public sector by bringing incompetition, granting operational flexibility, reducing surplus manpowerand upgrading technology.(48) This statement of the Prime Ministerreiterates that the state in India can neither possibly withdraw from thebasic responsibilities of providing social welfare and necessary infrastruc-ture, nor can it allow indiscriminate and unregulated foreign investments oradvent of multinationals to affect social disruption. Unless policies ofglobalization and competitiveness can be made to lead to the general welfareof the society, it is futile to talk about the prospects of human security.

Thus the agenda for the government at the end of this century is clear:continue free trade, begin liberalization in agriculture, improve the quality

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

and quantity of education and health services along with a cleangovernment and reorient administrators to enable them to creatively andactively participate in restructuring the mixed economy in a manner that theliberated private sector is made both responsive and sensitive to socialconcerns of human security and welfare.(49)

Politico-Administrative System in India: Strength and Weaknesses

The fifty years of Independence in India has resulted in a newsituation of politico-administrative transition towards a multi-level systemof governance from the village upwards to the district, state and nationallevel. Despite the apparent appearance of instability of the coalitiongovernments either at the center or in any of the states, the framework ofthe overall politico-administrative system remains stable. The politico-administrative institutions in India have undergone considerable changessince Independence. While some have gained in strength, others havesuffered decline. The continued internal transfer of power from the urbanelites to the deprived masses has been the hallmark of the success of Indiandemocracy. At the same time, however, political process and the rule of lawhave suffered heavily, as also the various political institutions in generaland the civil services, once called the steel frame of India in particular. Thecabinet system has not worked uniformly well throughout India, theexecutive has politicized the public services undermining the basic values,and the most serious malaise affecting the polity today is corruption andcriminalization of politics. Political parties have lost their shine. For awhile, the media and, the press in India have won public esteem andacclaim, but in recent years have suffered in their credibility due tosensationalism and unprofessionalism on the part of some of the errantmembers of the Fourth Estate. The political institutions, which have gainedin stature and strength during the last fifty years, are certainly theJudiciary, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor Generaland the office of the President. Many NGOs have emerged as importantinnovative institutions with social commitments in many parts of thecountry, although the activities of some of these have also brought stigmato the institution of the NGOs. The vastness and complexity of India’spolitical institutions lend a kind of stability, which few other countries of alarge size enjoy. The innate vibrancy of the Indian democratic polity alsoputs collective pressure on politico-administrative institutions. This self-correcting character of Indian democracy gives it a legitimate stability, andstrength, which many countries in the Third World have not been able toachieve.(50)

1320 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

THE ADVENT OF THE NEW CORPORATE MILLENIUM:

GROWING STAKES FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

The decade of 1990s has been a decade of exceptional changes in thetheory and practice of good governance. The changes in question haveincreasingly been treated under the rubric of ‘‘globalization,’’ a catch allphrase which emphasizes the emergence of a truly global economy and ashift towards ‘‘world capitalism,’’ signifying a movement toward a new eraof both vastly more powerful and essentially different corporate forms andprocesses, which has in all societies affected the existing forms of governanceand citizen identity. Three important movements that have made importantstrides during this decade in meeting the challenges of this transformationhave been Reinventing Government, the New Public Management and acall for the downsizing of public bureaucracies. Indian Administration hasnot completely remained untouched by these global developments and hasin various ways attempted to incorporate some of the precepts drawn fromthese movements. To what extent the administrative system in India hasbeen successful in its efforts to modernize itself, and utilize the lessonsemanating from the experiences of other administrative systems undergoingtransformation under the spell of one or the other of the above movementsis a question which cannot be answered in one way or the other. However, itwould be helpful to review what particular steps have been adopted in Indiafor achieving some positive goals of these alternative precepts in publicmanagement.

Restructuring Economic Administration

During the 1990s, after adopting policies of economic liberalizationand structural adjustment, a number of expert committees (such as the RajaChelliah Committee on Tax Reforms, the Rangarajan Committee onForeign Investment, and the Goswami Committee on Industrial Sicknessand Corporate Restructuring were appointed to study and make recom-mendations on various policy measures related to economic reforms.Despite the recommendations of the above committees and the emergenceof a somewhat deregulated industrial system, clearance and approval ofinvestment proposals still take time because of powerful inherent road-blocks. Bureaucracy is still a powerful component in the decision-makingprocess and with this ‘‘red-tapism’’ is as much a consequence of the systemof rules as their interpretation and application by it. At the same time thenew breed of politicians that has emerged after mid-1960s see thebureaucracy as a needless obstacle in the achievement of their political

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

goals which has lead to frequent conflicts in the relationship between thepolitical leadership and the permanent executive. The conflict of interestsbetween them has further led to increased politicization of bureaucracy andthe emergence of a nexus between the politician, bureaucracy and thecriminals, thus seriously corrupting the body politic, and a major issue ofpubic service integrity, and loss of ethics in public life.(51)

Promoting Efficiency and Accountability

In the face of continuing challenges of globalization and corporatiza-tion, the Government of India’s Department of Administrative Reformsorganized in 1997 a national debate on the issue of making administrationresponsive, accountable and effective and assuring its adherence toconstitutional principles. On the basis of responses received from officials,experts, voluntary agencies, citizen’s groups, media, etc., an Action Plan wasevolved which was discussed in the Conference of Chief Ministers convenedby the then Prime Minister on May 24, 1997. The Conference resolved thatthe central and state governments would work together to concretize theAction Plan dealing with: i) accountable and citizen-friendly government; ii)transparency and right to information; and iii) improving the performanceand integrity of the public services. As a follow up, several measures havebeen taken to make the administration accountable. For instance, in orderto make public agencies more responsive to citizen’s needs, a number ofCitizen’s Charters have been instituted by a number of central depart-ments=agencies and state governments.(52)

Steps have also been taken to strengthen the existing machinery forredress of public grievances by specifying fixed time limits for handlinggrievances and publicizing the names of officers handling grievances andestablishing a system of computerized monitoring. Government has alsoinitiated measures to simplify laws, rules and procedures by establishing aCommission on Review of Administrative Laws on May 8, 1998 with a viewto identify proposals for amendment=repeal of existing laws, regulationsand procedures have inter-sectoral impact so as to make them objective,transparent and predictable. The Commission has since submitted its reporton September 30, 1998 recommending a repeal of almost 50 percent ofadministrative laws. On the basis of this report most of the minis-tries=departments have taken steps to suitably amend=modify or repealthe Acts and laws administered by them with a view to improving servicedelivery and bring about transparency in administration. In addition, thegovernment has also undertaken certain other steps to improve its efficiencyand effectiveness through modernization of government offices, a software

1322 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

package to track the movement of files, a scheme to grant awards tomembers of the public and the employees for suggestions made to improvethe overall efficiency, productivity and work culture of the staff, etc.(53)

The Government also stepped its efforts to maintain purity andintegrity in high public offices and eradicating corruption in public life, byintroducing a Lok Pal Bill in the Parliament on August 3, 1998. The Billcould not get through as the Parliament was dissolved in April 1999, but islikely to be reintroduced in the 13th Lok Sabha constituted in September1999. Similarly, although its efforts to confer statutory status on the CentralVigilance Commission (CVC) have not met with success in the last (12th)Lok Sabha, in recent years the present Chief Vigilance Commissioner, N.Vittal has started a campaign to expose corruption in high places by puttingup the names of some highly placed but allegedly tainted officials fromdifferent services, against whom criminal or departmental proceedings havebeen recommended for alleged corruption on the web site of the CVC. Sucha measure may not have resulted in eliminating corruption in theadministrative system and has on the other hand given rise to some legaland moral controversies, but has certainly created flutters in the bureau-cratic echelons.

In order to achieve transparency in administration, the governmenthas recently instituted an Inter-ministerial Working Group under theChairmanship of H.D. Shourie, the Director of Common Cause, to examinethe feasibility and need of introducing a full-fledged Right to InformationAct so as to meet the needs of an open and responsive government.(54) Basedon its recommendation, a Bill is shortly to be introduced in the comingsession of the Parliament to ensure transparency in government operationsand every department would have an information officer to provideinformation to the people. Certain provision of the Officials Secrets Actwould have to be repealed to the extent they go against the provisions of thefreedom of information legislation.(55)

Despite some other things being undertaken by the government suchas the creation of facilitation counters, establishing a Code of Ethics forpublic services, tackling corruption and cleansing the administration andensuring stability of tenure and a scheme for Civil Service Boards, the onearea in which the government’s efforts have not borne any fruit has been thedownsizing of the existing bureaucracy.

Redefining the Role of the State

The Fifth Central Pay Commission in its Report in January 1997 hadstrongly advocated reduction in government through dismantling of

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

excessive controls, disinvestment in the public sector, corporatization ofdepartmental undertakings, privatization and contracting out of manyservices that are presently being performed by the government. Itemphasized that the government’s role will be more in evolving the policyof governance and less in the actual governance itself. New regulations willhave to be evolved and enforced so as to provide a level playing fieldbetween the public and the private sector enterprises, as also betweendomestic and foreign companies. The administered price mechanisms willhave to be replaced by mechanisms based on market-determined prices. Theresidual role of the state would have to be confined to the following areas: asa facilitator of economic activity, as a developer of infrastructure, as aninvestor in social services and as promoter and implementor of povertyalleviation programs.(56)

Towards this end, the Pay Commission recommended a step by stepapproach to public service reforms, which should include: a) redefinition ofthe core functions of the government; b) restatement of the distribution ofwork between the three tiers of the governance; c) drastic reduction in thenumber of central ministries and departments and regrouping andredefinition of their size, constitution and newly stated roles; d) transferof all functions that should be performed by Panchayat Raj institutions tothem by the state governments; e) delegation of functions not involvingformulation of policies to agencies, which may be public sector enterprises,autonomous bodies or cooperative institutions; f ) reduction in recruitmentto different services; g) simplification of procedures and formulation ofaccountability norms in government; h) reduction in the hierarchical anddecision-making levels of Government; and i) level-jumping and coordina-tion for quick decisions etc.(57)

The New Governance Model

What kind of governance model will be suitable for the Indian polityat this juncture of its evolution? From the foregoing analysis it is evidentthat the quest for good governance is a continuing one. The changingsocietal context and the expectations of the people from the government arethe two most important factors besides others determining the new model ofgovernance. It demands vigilance on the part of those who carry theresponsibility of governance and equally on the part of those who aregoverned. Thus the new model of governance will basically have: respect forrule of law, accountability, decentralization, honesty or probity in publicaffairs, independence of judiciary, human rights, peoples’ participation,equality of treatment, absence of discrimination, protection and conserva-

1324 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

tion of environment for quality of life, administrative responsiveness, socialsensitivity, ethical approach or conduct, effectiveness, and the capacity toanticipate the nature and direction of change to cope with the emergingchallenges from time to time. The political dimension of this model involvesa continuous process of conflict-management and problem-solving amongstthe individuals and the groups in a nation as they fight for the fulfillment oftheir expectations, while the administrative one requires how well the policyinstitutions of a nation are capable to respond to contemporary challengesand devise strategies to shape the policy choices of the people. Thus, in orderto secure justice, equity, equality and freedom for its citizens, it is crucialthat proximate political and administrative actions must be taken tostrengthen the moral foundations of governance. Confidence and trust inliberal-democracy and the prevailing politico-administrative institutions canbe safeguarded only when the governing process exhibits a higher moraltone deriving from the breadth of ethical sensitivity.(58)

THE CHANGING ADMINISTRATIVE STYLE:

A CRITICAL EVALUATION

Mapping the political and administrative history of India over aperiod of fifty years is indeed a difficult exercise. Obviously, there have beenchanges in administrative institutions, structures, style and cultures in post-independent India, and some distinct changes do carry the mark of thepolitical leadership than in power. Thus, administrative development hasbeen an uneven process; and it can best be understood only in the context ofthe totality of politico-administrative environment.

The first ten years of the Republic represent a period of remarkablysmooth change and adaptation from the British Raj to a democraticparliamentary system, during which a bold attempt was made by thepolitical leadership to change the character and values of the administrativesystem, while preserving its essential characteristics of an effective frame-work to cope with new problems and situations. There were no visiblecracks in the system, rather it developed the necessary resilience, and thecapacity to mend, mould, and build itself. The processes of change from thissituation were manifest in the next ten years of the growth of the Republic,which is up to the end of the period of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s term as PrimeMinister and the beginning of the Indira Gandhi’s era (1966). During hertime, a new generation of politicians emerged, who were not so muchoriented to liberal traditions or values as the first post-independencepolitical leadership. Despite this generational change, and the many stressesand strains that marked the itinerary of the political system, the trend and

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

temper of the administrative procedures and style of the preceding decadewere substantially unchanged.

It was, however, after 1967, that one witnessed the beginning oferosion of most of the fundamental values of the administrative system thatwere consolidated during the earlier years of the Republic. This periodmarks the beginning of uncertainty and instability in the political system.Whether this happened because of the personal struggle amongst leaders forconsolidating and preserving their power-base, or changing economic, localor institutional condition, is a matter for speculation, but the netconsequences of this uncertainty was that the policy-making administrativeapparatus got disoriented and replaced by some kind of a ‘‘shot-gun’’approach to administration. The administration and the administratorsreached the lowest ebb both in their performance and efficiency at the timeof the heightened crisis posed by the imposition of the nation-wideemergency in 1975. The post-Emergency period also did not help to restorethe erstwhile standards and morale in the public services.

Changes in the Administrative System

Basically, there have been a number of visible changes in theadministrative system and style since the British times. The ‘‘district’’ asthe fundamental unit of administration has undergone a metamorphosisboth in terms of the importance and the position and status of its chiefexecutive. The importance of both the district and district officers has beenreduced owing to the fragmented expansions of governmental activities onthe one hand, and to the growth of ‘‘mafia’’ politics on the other. Much of adistrict officer’s time is now simply wasted in listening, persuading andarguing with anti-social elements (with whom local political leadershipseems to be in companionship), while the regular official work remainsunattended. These developments, coupled with enormous responsibilitiesthat are now put on a youngish district officer, have eroded whateverautonomy and authority he used to employ with respect to his assignedduties in the past. An ambitious officer now wants to complete hiscompulsory tenure at district as early and smoothly as he can and looksforward to the day he is posted to a position at the state capital, away fromthe rough and tumble of the district politics, with the result that district andlocal administration has suffered heavily at the delivery point and at thecutting edge.

Along with the decline of the district level of administration, there hasbeen a simultaneous decline in the strength and morale of the main publicservice—the so-called ‘‘steel frame’’ of the British administration. Although

1326 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

the Indian Administrate Service still maintains its dominant position despitethe various attempts by the Administrative Reform Commission and thePay Commissions to water it down, its position and prestige in general hassuffered, due to various socio-political factors referred to above. Public andpolitical reactions, values, judgments and even sentiments and prejudiceshave affected the performance and morale of public bureaucracy in India.There seems to be at present a strong reaction and suspicion against thepower of the bureaucracy, and the constant hammering that it has receivedat the hands of politicians, has earned it the name of a ‘‘villain’’ in the publiceye. The bureaucracy is regarded as a big impediment in the attainment ofthe socio-economic millennium promised to the people by politicians. Theethical values of politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats have gone downso low that there is no aspect of public life today that is free from theincidence of corruption or black money. People in authority seems to haveacquired dual personalities; their private actions ill-match their publicpronouncements.(59)

Finally, political interference, influence peddling, growing nexusbetween politicians, criminals and bureaucracy, pervading corruption inall walks of public life, muscle-flexing through the unions have made eventhe most legitimate means of control and accountability meaningless in theadministrative parlance. The emerging administrative style and culture ofIndia does not seem to provide any positive orientation to help the ordinarycitizenry.(60)

The Positive Achievements of Administrative Reforms

The above analyses of changes in the style and culture of adminis-tration in India may seem to be pessimistic. However, it is not meant toundermine the achievements and the performance of the administrativesystem. It has been a fine machine, capable of rendering some excellentperformances in the sphere of policy-making and implementation. It hasover the years sustained the working of the most politically consciouspeople. It has been able to maintain its strength, and achieved a strongindustrial base for the nation through a system of planned development.There has been an absolute growth in terms of literacy, education, scientificand technical knowledge and even relative prosperity. The bureaucracy inIndia has responded well in times of crisis and particularly when it was givenclearly defined objectives and unambiguous priorities. All these give a ray ofhope for further improvement in the style and operations of administrativesystem in India. But this is only a hope because until now, even taking intoconsideration the ten years of economic reforms (between 1990 and 2000),

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

one thing which has resisted all suggested administrative reforms is thegovernment’s own style of functioning. Prone to overstaffing, slow action,the bureaucracy in India tends to be seen as an agency meant to amelioratethe unemployment situation and therefore, not necessarily designed toproduce results or be accountable for its decisions. Oversize administrationtends to promote lethargy, inefficiency and corruption. Governmentadministration in the post-liberalization era in India will have to beresult-oriented, service-driven and accountable. This is possible, but only ifthe political leadership changes its style of operation, and cleanse-up itsgreedy and corrupt way of governing the nation.

New Directions for Administrative Reforms

Given the political will, therefore, the need of the hour in India atpresent seems to be to adopt a normative model of ‘‘Good ManagementApproach’’ towards public administration. This should include: a) a morestrategic or result-oriented (efficiency, effectiveness and service quality)orientation to decision-making; b) replacement of highly centralizedorganizational structures with decentralized management environmentintegrating with the new Panchayati Raj and municipal institutions, wheredecisions on resource allocation and service delivery are taken close to thepoint of delivery; c) flexibility to explore alternatives to direct publicprovision which might provide more cost effective policy outcomes;d) focusing attention on the matching of authority and responsibility as akey to improving performance, including mechanism of explicit perfor-mance contracting; e) creating of competitive environments within andbetween public service organizations; f ) strengthening of strategic capacitiesat the center to steer government to respond to external changes and diverseinterests quickly, flexibly and at least costs; g) greater accountability andtransparency through requirements to report on results and their full costs;h) service wide budgeting and management systems to support andencourage these changes; and i) breaking the growing nexus of bureaucrats,politicians and criminals to restore public confidence in public managementsystem amongst the citizenry; j) adapting of innovations and evolvingsuitable mechanism to eliminate corruption at both political and adminis-trative levels and strengthen citizens’ grievance redressal system;k) downsizing of bureaucracy and improving the system of delivery at thecutting edge of administration by replacing the existing archaic bureaucraticprocedures by absorbing some appropriate precepts inherent in thephilosophy of New Public Management; l) effectively utilizing the fruits oftechnical revolution and the Information Management System for an

1328 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

effective and quick public service delivery system; and (m) makingimprovements in the working atmosphere of the government institutionsand offices to reflect a new work culture and a changed administrativebehavior incorporating the principles of transparency, responsiveness,accountability, and participative and citizen-friendly management.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

In conclusion, however, it should be remembered that no amount ofplanning and thinking in all these areas would be useful unless thegovernment is capable enough to take hard and unpleasant decisions andhas the will and capacity to implement and continuously monitor andevaluate their impact. At the same time, the political leadership has todemonstrate its strong determination to undertake reforms by, first,cleaning its own stable from corrupt and criminal influences, and settingethical standards of good governance both at the political and adminis-trative levels. Given the present political milieu, can the present governmentrise to the occasion?—is a big question.

This brief study of India’s experiments with participatory democracyand administrative development also underscores the importance of anumber of non-state social actors and institutions (like NGOs and otherassociational groups),(61) which can effectively perform the role of mobilizingpeople for development. Such actors and institutions often come into conflictwith the state, although the goals of both seem to be identical. The gradualchanges occurring in the socio-political culture and processes also precipitatesuch a conflict. In India, citizen participation in development administrationhas been an integral process of socio-economic and political change sinceIndependence. The institutional, managerial technological, infrastructural,participative and human development service oriented changes have alsoaffected its rural and urban social structure in terms of occupationaldiversification, social mobility, reduction in income disparities and changesin values and social relationship for integrated social living. Other factors,such as leadership, social consciousness, organization and political aware-ness have also affected the process of peoples’ participation in developmentadministration necessitating a new relationship between the state and thecivil society. Experiments in India have demonstrated that the state by itselfcan neither initiate technological or societal development nor mobilizepeople to accept its processes of change. The processes of modernization ofstate and administration need an active and consociational association ofpeople at all levels of the governmental structure in order to realize the goalsand objective that the society sets for itself.

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1329

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

The above analysis of India’s continuous quest for good governancealso aptly demonstrates that the survival of state and democracy in a deeplydivided society is not an impossible proposition, if the arenas of politico-administrative power are not confined to a particular elite, religious orethnic group, but are widely dispersed among the various groups andregions in the society through a process of decentralization and empower-ment of weaker and vulnerable sections of the population. Adoption of aconsociational approach is the key element of governance in such stratifiedsocieties.

REFERENCES

1. For a detailed discussion on these two aspects, see Lijphart, A. ThePuzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation.American Political Science Review 1996, 90 (June), 258–268.

2. Harrison, S.S. India: The Most Dangerous Decade; PrincetonUniversity Press: Princeton, 1960; 338, quoted by Lijphart A. ThePuzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation.American Political Science Review 1996, 90 (June), 258–268.

3. See Lijphart A. The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consocia-tional Interpretation. American Political Science Review 1996, 90(June), 1.

4. This section is based on the author’s study, Jain, R.B.; Dwivedi, O.P.Policy Developments and Administrative Changes in India. In PublicAdministration in World Perspective; Henderson, K., Dwivedi, O.P.Eds.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, 1990.

5. Taub, R.P. Bureaucrats under Stress; University of California Press:Berkeley, 1969; 156.

6. Mangat Rai, E.N. Patterns of Administrative Development in Indepen-dent India; University of London: London, 1976; 30.

7. Dutta, P. Village Self-government in Post-Colonial India. Kurukshetra1995, (April), 52.

8. Dutta, P. Village Self-government in Post-Colonial India. Kurukshetra1995, (April), 52.

9. Mishra, S.N.; Mishra, S. Future of Panchayati Raj after 73rdConstitutional Amendment. Kurukshetra 1995, (April); 29.

10. Constitution of India, Articles 37–38.11. Jain, R.B. Reverse Discrimination: A Dilemma in Quest for Social

Justice and Equal Opportunity. Indian Journal of Public Administra-tion 1981, 27 (January–March), 181–198; Weiner, M. PreferentialPolicies. Comparative Politics 1983, 16 (October), 35–52.

1330 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

12. For details, see Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. Bureaucratic Morality inIndia. International Political Science Review 1980, 9 (3), 205–214.

13. 3 SCR 398, AIR 1985, SC 1414.14. Avasthi, A.; Avasthi, A.P. Indian Administration; Laxmi Narayan

Publishers: Agra, 1993; 160; see also Government of India, Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Annual Report, 1997–98;1–7.

15. Sharma, K.C. Development Planning and Development Administra-tion. International Review of Administrative Sciences 1968, 34, 121–129; Maheshwari, S.R. Administering the Planning System. IndianJournal of Public Administration 1984, 30 (July–September), 603–612.

16. Prasad, K. Planning in India: Some Basic Issues Relating toOperational and Strategic Aspects. Presidential Address to the 66thAnnual Conference of Indian Economic Association, Bangalore, 1983.

17. Prasad, K. Planning in India: Some Basic Issues Relating toOperational and Strategic Aspects. Presidential Address to the 66thAnnual Conference of Indian Economic Association, Bangalore, 1983.

18. In a series of meetings with the district collectors, former PrimeMinister of India Rajiv Gandhi had urged that the district adminis-tration be revitalized and the role of district office property delineated,see Kallhan, P. Fresh Briefs for Collectors, The Hindustan Times, June20, 1988.

19. Taub, R.P. Bureaucrats under Stress; University of California Press:Berkeley, 1969; 161.

20. India Planning Commission. The Five Year Plan, 1951–56; PlanningCommission: New Delhi, 1953; 115–127.

21. India Planning Commission. The Second Five Year Plan, 1956–61;Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1956; 274–290.

22. India Planning Commission. The Third Five Year Plan, 1961–66;Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1961; 276–290.

23. India Planning Commission. The Fourth Five Year Plan, 1971–76;Delhi, Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1971; 154–171.

24. India Planning Commission. The Sixth Five Year Plan, 1980–85;Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1983; 88–96.

25. India Planning Commission. The Seventh Five Year Plan, 1985–90;Planning Commission: New Delhi, 1985; xi.

26. See The Hindustan Times, March 2, 1998.27. See Shastri, P.D. Scrap these Five Year Exercises. The Hindustan

Times, February 3, 1997.28. See The Times of India, October 1, 2000.29. This section of the paper is based on Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. The

Administrative State of India. In India’s Fifty Years of Development;

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1331

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

Malik, Y.; Kapur, A., Eds.; APH Publishing Corporation: New Delhi,1998.

30. See for details, Mishra, B.B. Government and Bureaucracy in India;Oxford University Press: Delhi, 1986.

31. See, Tottenham, R. Reports on the Reorganization of the CentralGovernment, 1945–46; Government of India: New Delhi, 1946.

32. This Report was discussed during the Constituent Assembly Debates,See India, Constituent Assembly Debates; Government of India: NewDelhi, 1949.

33. Ayyangar, N.G. Report on Reorganization of Machinery of Govern-ment; Government of India: New Delhi, 1949.

34. Appleby, P.H. Public Administration in India, Report of a Survey;Government of India: New Delhi, 1953.

35. Appleby, P.H. Reorganization of India’s Administrative System withSpecial Reference to Administration of Government’s Industrial andCommercial Enterprises; Government of India: New Delhi, 1956.

36. For further reference, see the following reports: India. Report on thePublic Service (Qualification for Recruitment) Committee [MudaliarCommittee]; Ministry of Education: New Delhi, 1956; India.Commission of Inquiry on Enrolments and Conditions of Service ofCentral Government Employees, 1957–59; India. Report on Indian NewDelhi State Administrative Services and Problems of District Admin-istration [Krishnamachari Report]; Government of India: New Delhi,1962; India, Report of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption[Sanathanam Committee]; Ministry of Home Affairs: New Delhi,1964; and India. Report of the Committee on The India ForeignService [Pillai Committee Report]; Ministry of External Affairs:New Delhi, 1966.

37. Jain, R.B. Contemporary Issues in Indian Administration; VitalPublications: New Delhi, 1976, 398–434.

38. India Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of AdministrativeReforms. Resolution No. 40; 165-AR (P), January 5, 1966.

39. Government of India. The Administrative Reforms Commission and ItsWork: a Brief Survey; Administrative Reform Commission: NewDelhi, 1969, 8.

40. Government of India. Report on Personnel Administration; Adminis-trative Reforms Commission: New Delhi,1969; 24.

41. Sivaraman, B. Generalist and Specialist in Administration.Indian Journal of Public Administration 1971, 17 (July–September),384.

42. Dubhashi, P.R. Administrative Reforms in Perspective. In Dr. JohnMathai Endowment Lecture; University of Kerala: Trivendrum, 1985.

1332 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

43. Narayanan, P.S. ARC Goes: Core in Administration RemainsUntouched. Northern India Patrika, 1970.

44. Kothatri, D.S. Report of the Committee on Recruitment Policy andSelection Methods; Union Public Service Commission: New Delhi,1976.

45. Mehta, A. Committee Report on Panchayati Raj; Government of India:New Delhi, 1979.

46. Jha, L.K. Committee Report on Economic Administration; Governmentof India: New Delhi, 1984.

47. Maheshwari, S.R. Administrative Reforms in India; Jawahar Publish-ers: New Delhi, 1993; 148.

48. See The Hindustan Times, April 2, 2000.49. For a detailed discussion on the subject, see Jain, R.B. Globalisation,

Market Economy and Human Security: The Indian Experience.Indian Journal of Public Administration 1996, 42 (July–September),309–320.

50. See, Pai Panandiker, V.A. Stability in Diversity. The Hindustan Times,October 19, 1997.

51. For details see, Vohra Committee Report reproduced in Indian Journalof Public Administration 1995, 41 (July–September), 640–647.

52. See, Government of India. Annual Report, 1997–98; Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions: New Delhi, 1998; i–vii.

53. For details see, Agnihotri, V.K. Government of India’s Measures forAdministrative Reforms (A note submitted for the Indian Council ofSocial Science Research Symposium on Administrative Reforms); NewDelhi, January 3, 2000.

54. Government of India. Report of the Working Group on Right toInformation and Promotion of Open and Transparent Government;Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions: New Delhi,1997 (Reproduced in the Indian Journal of Public Administration1997, 43 (July–September), 823–838.

55. See The Hindustan Times, April 3, 2000.56. Government of India. Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission,

Vol. 1; Ministry of Finance: New Delhi, 1997; 83–136.57. Government of India. Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission,

Vol. 1; Ministry of Finance: New Delhi, 1997; 113–114.58. Dwivedi, O.P. Stewardship of Governance: Ethics and Values of the

Public Service. In Governing India: Issues Concerning Public Policy,Institutions and Administration; Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B.; Vajpeyi,D.K., Eds.; B. R. Publishing Corporations: Delhi, 1998; 24.

59. Dwivedi, O.P.; Jain, R.B. India’s Administrative State; GitanajaliPublishing House: New Delhi, 1985: 122–123.

INDIA’S ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT 1333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12

60. Dwivedi, O.P; Jain, R.B. Bureaucratic Morality in India. InternationalPolitical Science Review 1988, 9 (3), 205–214.

61. For a detailed analysis of the role of NGOs and other associationalgroups in development administration, see Jain, R.B. NGOs inDevelopment Perspective; Vivek Prakashan: Delhi, 1995.

1334 JAIN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ja

mm

u] a

t 00:

20 0

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

12