The Generalist vs Specialist debate in public administration is an age old contest with the former pleading breadth and the latter citing depth. This debate has been going on for a number of years especially in developing nations such as India where by and large generalists enjoy the upper hand.
Every now and then this debate comes to the fore as very recently in the context of appointment of a KAS officer as Secretary in the Jammu & Kashmir Board of School Eeducation (BOSE). The J&K BOSE is a an autonomous institution established by virtue of an Act passed by then State Assembly in 1975. It governs the functioning of the Board and clearly states that the decision making positions of the Board be occupied by noted academicians from academic backgrounds.
So, when the General Administration Department (GAD) in one of its routine transfer lists chose to transfer a KAS officer as Secretary BOSE, the J&K BOSE Gazetted and Non Gazetted Associations, Jammu and Kashmir Teachers Forum (JKTF) College Teachers Association (CTA) and J&K Lecturers Forum, (JKLF) saw this not only as an infringement on the autonomous status of the Board, but more so an attempt to undermine academicians and resisted the order.
However, the subsequent press note of KAS officers Association has ruffled many feathers and has not gone down well given its clearly partisan content.
The said note “appreciate(d)” the decision, calling objections to it as “criticism for the sake of criticism”, and further added by appointing a KAS officer “the state government has for the first time done something sane” and that “academics don’t know anything of administration”. Let us examine these one by one.
So, when the KAS association says they appreciate the decision, does that mean they endorse the fact that the transfer has been made in contravention of the act itself? Has the association forgotten that the Board is an autonomous institution and routine transfer rules do not apply? Or the difference between an “appointment” and a “transfer”?. The Association says that the decision to appoint the Secretary is the prerogative of the GAD which doesn’t hold water as the Act expressly states otherwise. The appointment is made only after a Search Committee is constituted by the School education department and after due consultations a competent, reputed and suitable Academician is appointed as Secretary.
The Association has also pointed out that this is criticism for the sake of criticism. This does not even merit a response.When something happens in contravention to a statutory law passed by elected legislatures and the academicians criticise it, does that mean it is criticism for the sake of criticism? Or worse, is the state is governed by officers who believe that something done in contravention to a law is criticism for the sake of criticism?.
The Association believes that for the first time the state government has done something sane. Does that imply that right from 1966 when the Board was created, every government to appoint academicians of repute as Secretaries or Chairmen to this prestigious institution was insane?. On the contrary, precedents of academicians having held these posts lend credence the notion that the state is infringing on the autonomy of the institution itself.
And now when the GAD has overstepped its bounds, the Association calls it a “sane decision”. This is simply unpalatable.The Association’s stand that academicians don’t know anything of administration and thus should not be given these prestigious positions reeks of a parochial mindset. How ironic then that specialists are belittled as having a tunnel vision.
Even more ironic is that practice belies these unwarranted notions. Indeed specialists like Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Raghuram Rajan and others have proved to be better administrators due to their specialist knowledge. The current Secretary in the Department of Science and Technology GOI, is a professor at IIT Kanpur. Not to mention the recent lateral entry recruitment by the government of India to promote specialisation in upper civil services, by advertising ten posts of Joint secretary rank – to allow and attract talent from different fields and to step up and contribute to the welfare of the nation.
Even the 2nd ARC report authored by eminent experts wants IAS officers to develop specialisation in a particular stream after a point of time. Inexplicably then, as the government at the national level has been diversifying its resources, we at the state level are suppressing our local talent. We need to remember public service and not cadre service should be the ultimate aim.
Instead we are caught in this antiquated maze of an exclusivist administrative mindset where the KAS Officer Association believes that they are the only ones qualified to hold and handle these posts. If the government at the national level can usher reforms by promoting specialisation, why are we reluctant towards this?
This is a globalised world of changing needs and rapid development. We need economists, environmentalists, science & technology experts, defence experts and the like to effectively address the wide ranging civic challenges . We need to pool in talent from different sources and collect them at a single place. For this it is imperative that the shell of ‘civil service elitism’ be broken and we become receptive to talent and skilled individuals from outside.
As Dr.Shah Faesal (IAS) recently wrote we have a system “where a potato expert is looking after defence, a veterinary doctor is supervising engineers, a history graduate is dictating the health policy and so on. The scheme of transfers and postings is such that there is no match between the expertise of an officer and the post he or she is expected to hold.
So in a modern world where even national level officers, global university research papers and experts are making a case of promoting specialists, why can’t we in J&K shed our hangover of generalists. I am not saying that generalists should be shown the door altogether. No, definitely not. Generalists do have their own role at so many levels, but all I am trying to convey is that this inertia towards appointment of specialists – particularly where the Association says that KAS officers after passing a “mere exam” are much more qualified to hold positions desirable for pure academicians has to be eliminated.
The government should advocate a middle ground balancing domain expertise with general experience so that both the sections are promoted. Generalists should not see the entry of specialists as a threat to their position and power and likewise specialists should ensure that their expertise helps the state to progress on a much wider scale. This is needed if the vision of a stronger more dynamic society is to be achieved
(Palvi Singh is a freelance writer and lawyer.)