Combative federalism

Proposed IAS rule change weakens Centre-state relations

The proposal to change Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre rules raises a red flag over Centre-state relations that are already in a state of disrepair. So it was only to be expected that the Department of Personnel and Training’s (DoPT’s) letter to state chief secretaries suggesting a change has created a furore, not least because of its 12-day deadline for states to respond, especially when five of them are headed for Assembly elections. It is significant, however, that both Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states and those ruled by other parties have registered their protests, with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee leading the charge with two letters to the prime minister in eight days. 

This opposition across party lines is not surprising since the proposed change essentially gives the Centre overweening powers over the IAS, a service that, in a sense, provides one of the many glues that hold the country together through an integrated governance structure. It is possible that the Union government may consider its claim superior to that of state governments since civil servants appear for a Central examination administered and financed by the Centre. But Rule 6(1) of the IAS Cadre Rules of 1954 sought to promote cooperative federalism by allowing for state government concurrence when a cadre officer was transferred. Further, in the case of a disagreement, the Centre is to decide the matter and the state has to abide by it. Such veto powers already in hand under the rules made the need for a heavy-handed amendment proposal unnecessary.
 

Indeed, the problem lies elsewhere: There has been a sharp decline in the number of IAS officers available for central deputation and the Centre has been complaining about this for some time. As of January 2021, fewer than 460 of the 5,200 serving IAS officers were on Central deputation. According to a report by The Federal just about 10 per cent of mid-level IAS officers were posted with the Union government, against 19 per cent in 2014 whereas the total number of officers at this level has risen 80 per cent. The DoPT note said as much: “The states are not sponsoring an adequate number of officers for Central deputation, and the number of officers is not sufficient to meet the latter’s requirement.” Though this is a real problem for the Centre, it could have easily solved the problem through dialogue and negotiation rather than a tersely worded proposal. Why mid-level IAS officers are reluctant to go on deputation at the Centre also needs to be examined.

Equally, the Union government may want to introspect on the reluctance of IAS officers to be transferred on Central deputation, a move that usually marks an upward trajectory in a bureaucrat’s career. Tensions between the states and the Centre are already at something of a low point. Goods and services tax, which was supposed to be an exercise in cooperative federalism, has become one battleground, as did the now junked farm laws, and the Covid-19 vaccine policy. Inevitably, these simmering tensions get magnified at every turn, whether it is a breach in the prime minister’s security arrangements (Punjab) or a petty issue of cancelling floats for the Republic Day parade (Tamil Nadu and West Bengal). The bigger danger is if this conflict is allowed to fester without consultation and some give-and-take. An all-state meeting with all states for an honest discussion would go a long way in sorting out what is essentially an administrative glitch.