(...Contd)

In discussions with my Secretaries and scientific advisers, I found them free and frank. Only after the fullest deliberation was the decision taken to import substantial quantities of Mexican wheat into the country and introduce them to the farmer.
The enthusiasm with which the initial outlines of the new strategy were worked out and the policy implemented in the face of immense difficulties, fears and criticism is a standing monument to the inner vitality of India’s Civil Service.
There could be an inevitable conflict here to the extent that a Minister represents the popular will and a civil servant may, perhaps, not be aware of the political ramifications of a particular policy. Ultimately a Minister’s responsibility is to the public. He should not himself become a prisoner of the fears of the establishment.
The Minister has, therefore, to have the right of overruling a civil servant.
I believe that Ministers should delegate full authority for detailed decisions to their civil servants. There should, of course, be a system of ministerial review, but this review should be confined to ensure that policy guidelines are observed. One does encounter at times many civil servants who find a problem for every solution. There are also persons who genuinely believe in the axiom that a better solution is always to be preferred and, in the search for the better, they give up the good. Fear of post facto criticism, audit and enquiries, dedication to minutiae prevent many a timely and proper decision, ultimately costing the country a great deal.
Given our requirements of public accountability, a civil servant acts both as memory and as treasure house of procedures. Procedural constraints, however, tend to get sanctified and become ends in themselves. I have found that chances of innovation improve when the civil service interacts with groups outside government. A conscious process of such mutual interaction has to be encouraged by Ministers.

(Contd...)