Don’t lower the bar in pursuit of excellence
ONE of the most difficult challenges for any society, but especially a developing society, is achieving the right balance between the pursuit of excellence and the demand for equity and inclusion. The pursuit of excellence demands high standards and merit-based selection. A policy of inclusivity leads to affirmative action to elevate the opportunities for disadvantaged sections of society. Ideally, such affirmative policies should be aimed at enabling the disadvantaged to achieve the highest standards possible through preferential education, skilling and training support. This may be more challenging but in the longer run more rewarding both for society and the individuals concerned. This would also engender intangible gains in enabling these individuals and the communities they come from to enjoy enhanced respect and self-esteem.
Thanks to the pragmatic policies it adopted, China today has a pool of talent and scholarship that is second only to the US. India has fallen behind.
The politically easier route to follow is to aim at greater inclusivity through lowering of entry standards in a wide range of professional institutions and activities, including those engaged in imparting education and capacity-building. This invariably sets in motion a cumulative downward dynamic of falling standards and lowered entry requirements at each successive stage. Since a modern economy with advancing technological imperatives cannot do without a highly qualified workforce, one ends up with establishing islands of excellence either exempt from the observance of affirmative policies or which have token representation of disadvantaged communities.
Creating and running such islands of excellence may deliver good results in the short term, but they tend to remain islands, minus an ecosystem of high-quality education, training and skill acquisition. India’s highly acclaimed space and nuclear programmes are zones of excellence in a sea of mediocrity. This may also be the fate of the currently celebrated Global Capability Centres mushrooming in India.
In India, affirmative policies are rightly the responsibility of the state. The private sector has so far been able to avoid having to follow similar policies. In the public sector, we have already witnessed the downward dynamic referred to earlier. When I joined the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in 1970, the age requirement for entry was the 21-24 bracket, with two chances for appearing in the civil service examinations. The personal interview was given much greater weightage — 400 marks in the case of the IFS and 300 for the IAS. Even if a candidate passed with high marks in the written exams, a below-the-passing-grade in the interview for the IFS meant disqualification. For the reserved categories, the marking was separate from the general category. They did not compete with the latter. Currently, the age bracket in the general category is 21-32, with six attempts allowed within this limit. For the OBC category, the age limit goes up to 35 and with nine attempts allowed. For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the upper age limit has been raised to 37, with unlimited attempts permitted.
The personal interview has lost its relevance since even a zero grade would not disqualify a candidate as long as he has sufficiently high grades in the written exams. There are no studies or data to show whether the progressive lowering of entry conditions both for the general and reserved categories has served the objective of greater inclusion and social equity. Anecdotal evidence points to mounting economic and social inequalities and persistent caste and gender discrimination. There has been a steady decline in the quality of state capacity and governance. A civil servant joining any of the All-India or Central Services at the age of 32 is unlikely to be moulded into the culture and ethos of the civil services. The wide age disparities among the entrants does not encourage the kind of bonding that the younger entrants developed while training together. What would a 21-year-old have in common with a 37-year-old colleague?
In the state civil service, the situation is worse. The age bracket is from 21 to the ripe old age of 40!
The government and the public sector play the most critical role in managing a country of the complexity of India, facing challenges that demand exceptional skills and abilities. The current policies are neither delivering social justice nor good governance. That is short-changing the country and its people.
Human resource is the most important resource a country has. This is not a cliché. It is the only resource which grows as it is expended. During the turbulent Cultural Revolution (1966-76) in China, Mao encouraged the denigration of intellectuals, scientists and experts. It was “better to be Red than an Expert”. Educational institutions were closed and intellectuals and professionals and students were all sent down to the countryside to learn from the masses. An entire generation was lost to the country. One of the first reforms that Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping introduced when he assumed power in 1976 was to reopen educational institutions, rehabilitate intellectuals and professionals and begin sending thousands of Chinese youth, year after year, to the best universities in the West. China’s own educational institutions eagerly sought the services of top foreign academics and teachers to educate the incoming generation of the Chinese. Several Indian-American scientists and academics were also invited to spend part of the academic year in China, paid generous compensation and enabled to carry out teaching and research in the manner they were accustomed to do in the US. In India, they are not particularly welcome. Thanks to the pragmatic policies it adopted, China today has a pool of talent and scholarship that is second only to the US. India has fallen behind.
So, what needs to be done? First, it is not enough to set up more universities, institutes of technology and centres of excellence. Greater effort is needed to provide universal high-quality primary and secondary education which will then feed into tertiary institutions.
Second, children entering the education stream need to have good nutrition and healthcare so that they are not stunted both physically and mentally. Without this strong base, the top-heavy structures we create will topple over eventually.
And three, the state sector must strive to be the most capable, dispensing high-quality governance through the best and the brightest the country has to offer.
To begin with, the age limit for civil services aspirants should revert to the 21-24 bracket — before young minds get set in their ways.
