Beyond the sarkari diktat

Book review of Method in the Madness: Insights from My Career as an Insider Outsider Insider

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Sardar Patel, India’s first home minister, called the Indian Bureaucracy the “steel frame” of the government machinery. Patel was referring to an organisation that was at the forefront, at the time of Independence, to steer economic and social development. By the 1980s, however, the bureaucracy was perceived as inept, a rusty cage rather than shiny steel, to be replaced by the vibrant market. This was largely due to the institutional constraints imposed by Weberian protocols of rule-based decision-making (inflexible); Wilsonian dichotomy of politics and policy (indifference); and myriad problems created by perverse incentives that encouraged rent-seeking, political subservience, and abdication of initiative and accountability. Occasionally some change the rules in daring to take up challenges that are perilous to conduct and uncertain of success. Parameswaran Iyer’s memoir traces his professional and personal journey in the IAS (insider) and the World Bank (outsider). He is the entrepreneurial-bureaucrat who has created a blueprint for a “new order of things” to change the existing rules of the game. An order that goes beyond the bureau’s line and command, to exciting forms of networked governance. I read his memoir against the background of many decades of market failures and a large population that still awaits opportunities for social and economic development. This puts the focus back on the architecture of the Indian bureaucracy.

The book is an easy read. It has many interesting management nuggets, emphasises life-work balance, celebrates his friendships, and underlines the numerous lessons learnt to break the rusty bureaucratic shackles. Iyer seized an opportunity to align his professional ambitions as a bureaucrat and his aspirations as a water and sanitation professional with the political goals of the government. Here, I refer to four aspects that underline his laudatory achievement in the Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen) that he recently steered. These provide key insights for young bureaucrats and academics who study the bureaucracy as an institution and its agency in the delivery of welfare.

First, it should be noted that Mr Iyer’s success in SBM (G) was largely due to his training as an “insider”. He spent two decades in the field where he learnt how to deliver on the ground. His “outsider” experience as a “watsan” (water, sanitation & hygiene) professional made him one of the best technically qualified experts. He had designed programmes where local communities could self-govern and manage their own water and sanitation infrastructure. He put the focus on behavioural change, rather than just the construction of latrines. Further, he knew how to leverage international and development partner resources to support this vision.

Method in the Madness: Insights from My Career as an Insider Outsider Insider

Author: Parameswaran Iyer

Publisher:  HarperCollins Publishers India

Price: Rs 499; Pages: 245

Second, as an “insider” he was able to bring together the many veto nodes in a government structure to work with each other. He leveraged his network and batchmates who headed key central ministries and state governments. His excitement was infectious and he was able to tap into this resource and deliver on a monumental scale in a very short time. He looked beyond his bureau and created a structure to bring about effective vertical coordination across various tiers of the government as also horizontal integration across ministries, state departments and district officials. He encouraged and let the Collectors and his team members showcase their work, rather than hog all the limelight. Looking beyond the bureaucracy, he was able to steer political capital towards a common objective.

Third, Mr Iyer’s “method” that any bureau constrained official would consider “madness” was his biggest asset. He understood that success lies in looking beyond the sarkari  diktat. He was able to partner with a range of institutions: from NGOs, development partners, the corporate sector, to the film world, media and civil society to converge on behavioural change. This constructed an architecture to supplement existing state capacity. Importantly, he gave these partners a voice, equal to that of officials, in the new coordination platforms that were created. He took messaging for behavioural change to scale with Bollywood films, roping in celebrities and mass media campaigns that made discussions around a toilet sexy, and the work of motivators on the ground easier.

Fourth, Mr Iyer provided leadership and a sense of purpose across the country to achieve the difficult task of putting sanitation on the national agenda. He inspired by clambering down a toilet pit and cleaning it with bare hands. Mr Iyer was not a quintessential bureaucrat! His most significant effort was towards creating a  jan andolan  — driven and led by women. The high point was when 20,000 Swachchagrahis  from across the country swamped at Champaran to motivate the women in 38 districts of Bihar and facilitate behavioural change.

Issues related to rural sanitation are far from over and it is critical that the focus on sustaining programme outcomes continue.  However, the SBM(G) will not be remembered as a babu  plan implemented the babu  way. In the days to come Mr Iyer’s madness will be emulated and replicated.

The reviewer is Professor, Departments of Political Science & Global Studies, University of California Santa Barbara