Not too long ago, I found myself in the office of an Additional Chief Secretary, a woman known for her work on local democracy. The waiting room was full of the flotsam and jetsam of humanity: software providers looking for contracts, NGO staff looking for local democracy, every kind of favor seeker and intermediary.
I was there for a 3:00 PM meeting, but it was 4:00 PM before the first signs of her arrival came as portents on the horizon. Three junior IAS officers trickled into the room and made small talk with all and sundry. Ten minutes later, the doorman announced to the faithful: “Madam is coming,” and a few seconds later she stormed into the room, upon which, I kid you not, everyone besides me stood at attention with their hands to the side like soldiers being inspected by a visiting head of state.
Who in their right mind wouldn’t want to be part of a system where you can skim off the top and people salute you while you’re doing so?
Would it have hurt your ego so much as to offer your respects to the presiding officer by standing up in attention? Or does one have to pay you a bribe to obtain your cooperation?
I would imagine that would have been the wrong place to be a hero.
Civilians live in a world where they choose who they respect. Every fibre of my being would rebel if I had to stand up in attention when I didn't want to.
I choose to live in a society where people perform their duties without unnecessary power dynamics involved.
That would be great in a place where you did not have to demand others to do anything for you. Otherwise, standing up in attention is part of the consideration you offer others to get work done.
You not standing up in attention, and wishing to rebel needlessly, is also an unnecessary power play and wholly uncalled for.
That government officer is also a civilian. And you are not addressing the person by standing in attention, but the earned position.
Chances are you aren’t given to lending consideration to most people. Shouldn’t complain if treated in the same coin. Just a walking talking fighting machine. And you use “respect” as your alibi. It is cheap. It is also misplaced.
A little consideration goes a long way in human relationships and decisions. And no government officer anywhere is under any obligation to serve you if you won’t lend them that. Not just in India, elsewhere too. In the Philippines, for instance, government officials at immigration expressly state that rude and inconsiderate passengers or customers will not be served, plus, they will be barred from further entry. Somehow, Indians were specifically mentioned in the notice.
Now we know why.
If “respect” is your currency, and you are stingy with that; then “service” is the other person’s currency, and they will be stingy with that in return.
The earned position has no respect whatsoever. No self respecting person ought to stand in attention to a venal bureaucrat. I understand that self debasement comes naturally to some people. But then the likes of you are free to stand for as long as you want for any parasitic government employee.
In case, eveyone needs countless people to do their jobs properly to survive for a day. I haven't seen them standing in attention to those people.
A public servant has absolute obligation to serve the public. The payment for the service is the paycheck funded by taxpayer.
Then the self-respecting person should not care to show up to a venal bureaucrat’s office for any service.
Showing due consideration to others is a basic rule of civilised society so obvious it doesn’t need to be passed by law.
In all instances when you seek the services of other people, you stand in line, at attention and show them due respect and consideration. Whether this be at the supermarket checkout, the bank teller queue, the bus stand queue, even at a beauty salon (before you are led to your station) etc etc. All these are instances where you show respect to the person providing the service.
Nothing less is expected at a bureaucrat’s office either. The sense of entitlement is being shown by your character type here not the other person.
That this needs spelling out to some in such minute detail is a remark on the poor state of upbringing in the country in general. It’s all about a little respect and consideration, nothing more.
The fact that you can't comprehend that in none of your example people stand up in attention to greet the service provider is a reflection of lack of neurons in that cranium of yours. I don't know what salon requires every customer in the room to stand in unison when a barber enters the room.
Like I said, you can debase yourself however much you want. Next time fall at the feet of the venal parasite. Normal taxpayers would keep visiting government offices because they fund the said establishment.
To offer an explanation as to why these exams used to include poetry and literature; it was to make sure that successful applicants, who would become administrators of the realm, were in tune with the values of the ruler, and that they would be more inclined to carry orders out.
Familiarity, it is hoped, would breed sympathy and loyalty.
Well spotted, and yes - part of the reason the Chinese exams survived so long (though with some starts and stops) was because they were a simple way to make sure the ruling elite of the vast realm had culture and values in common. Same reason the British adopted the system, so they could make sure their own empire had bureaucrats with the 'right' values (and also to give Classics graduates from Oxbridge something to do - not even joking, this was literally one of the reasons cited in parliamentary debates).
What I find particularly striking is that at a time when India’s youth are flocking to civil services exams, the authorities are not using this interest to systematically expand the country’s bureaucratic capacity. This under capacity is repeatedly cited as a key bottleneck in the implementation of government programmes, yet the number of posts remains constrained and a significant share of sanctioned positions are left unfilled year after year.
To quote the recent vacancy figures:
IAS (Indian Administrative Service): 1,316 vacancies, or 19.2% of the sanctioned strength of 6,858.
IPS (Indian Police Service): 586 vacancies, or 11.6% of the sanctioned strength of 5,055.
IFS (Indian Forest Service): 1,042 vacancies, or 32.6% of the sanctioned strength of 3,193.
Public sector employment stands at only about 6% of the total workforce, compared with roughly 23% in China and 13.6% in the United States. In other words, India is trying to deliver big state ambitions - universal schemes, large scale infrastructure, extensive regulation with a markedly understaffed public sector.
One explanation is that taking these exams is the natural extension to a life spent preparing for entrance exams. They're a well defined path which will lead to rewards without dealing with the ambiguity of the real world.
If you don't pass one, there's always another one waiting around the corner.
And if your relatives ask what you're doing, you can always give the excuse of "studying for UPSC". I wonder how many of the aspirants even study that hard.
I think it's both! There's absolutely some group of people taking the UPSC because it would mean they're 'doing something', regardless of their interest in the actual end goal. I do believe though, that most applicants are there in earnest - but the reason they're so willing to put in years is that prepping for the UPSC is accepted as a full-time job, so they can tell themselves they're busy with *something*. It's partly about having something to tell other people, but a lot about having something to tell yourself.
The educated from the most unproductive states take these exams at a higher rate.
Which further worsens the macro economic impact.
2.
The class/caste profile of successful candidates has changed. In the beginning the civil services were a preserve of certain groups like Kayasths and Brahmins from the south, Bengal, Kashmir. And similar urban communities like Nasranis.
While there was always an economic incentive, there was also a sense of public spiritedness in joining the civil services.
That has changed. Most people from these historically dominant groups today generally choose to emigrate abroad.
The class factor did create a sense of aspiration among other groups.
So general category selection is dominated now by mercantile and landholding groups. These were generally materially well-to-do communities that took up English education later and wished upward class mobility.
The selection among reserved categories is dominated by a handful of politically influential castes.
Reforming the system is tough due to entrenched lobbies but also due to a political economy that has developed around the exam.
We’re stuck in a sub-optimal but stable equilibria.
This was a terrific read. I would also like to suggest the element of class and caste does come into play here. I think in one of Kunal Kamra's nope videos, there was a discussion how MNCs and corporation surreptitiously only look for poised, polished candidates who most often come from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. UPSC preparation is more of an equal ground, where a candidate sees more people like themselves when they look around the tuition room. And here too your observation of "if you can't beat them, be them" comes into play a little bit as you said, its safer to be a public officer and a minority in this country.
" Plus, India is now younger than ever – two in every three Indians is below 35..."
Damn, such precious Youth Demographic dividend is being wasted to rise up "prestige" & "job security" & social/community power representation goal - a precious thing which could've been "skill" & then used to "scale" the Industrial/manufacturing power of the country thus putting to actual utilisation & truly become developed/rich.
For the lure of secure jobs where there is full responsibility but zero accountability which also lead to remarkable wealth creation for the UPSC exam clearers even beyond retirement
The administrative system left by British suits well to Indian political parties elected to govern at center or state. It provides continuity. Tradionally, we Indians have habit of respecting the government machinery from Raj times. The practices of administration is also by pressure on masses. The administrative system is also very comlicated and slow moving. This forces too much follow up and palm greasing at various levels and has given birth to numerous illegal agents. All in all it begets huge corruption, misuse of power and sycophency. Also hierachy of these jobs is such that all technical departments are under them. So the best minds and not so are attracted to it. A large no of aspirants are from higher middle class and can be supported for long period of time for several attempts.
Incredibly written! It must take genuine curiosity to cover such a question from academic, cultural and data lens.
I can only imagine the depths of research and links you must have gone through to find what you did.
I am continuously surrounded by bright young and top-educated people who have taken "an year to prep" and I always wonder, what has that cost to the country's gdp.
Then I ask them, but what if you had continued.. the answer is usually a justification for the reputation premium and that the risk will be worth it. Lest the opportunity cost is a delay in climbing the corporate ladder.
The UPSC queue is a throughput problem. Roughly a million aspirants compete for roughly a thousand selections per year. The interesting structural question is what happens to the people who spend three to seven years in preparation and don't clear. That's a skills pipeline feeding directly into nothing — or into coaching institutes that train the next cohort. The institution reproduces itself by consuming the people who failed it.
Extremely well structured and articulated. The wave of applicants has been astonishing recently. We all understood that implicitly, but seeing the figures laid out like that really clarifies things.
This was a very good read! I really liked the protection premium explanation: it's something we all understand intuitively, but I had not seen it articulated well.
A lot of this craze seems unfortunately driven by: i) poor expected value calculation (i.e., being too optimistic about your own prospects in the exam), ii) low opportunity costs (not enough high-quality jobs easily available), iii) gain-seeking behavior (counterpart of loss aversion), and iv) memetic desire.
Not too long ago, I found myself in the office of an Additional Chief Secretary, a woman known for her work on local democracy. The waiting room was full of the flotsam and jetsam of humanity: software providers looking for contracts, NGO staff looking for local democracy, every kind of favor seeker and intermediary.
I was there for a 3:00 PM meeting, but it was 4:00 PM before the first signs of her arrival came as portents on the horizon. Three junior IAS officers trickled into the room and made small talk with all and sundry. Ten minutes later, the doorman announced to the faithful: “Madam is coming,” and a few seconds later she stormed into the room, upon which, I kid you not, everyone besides me stood at attention with their hands to the side like soldiers being inspected by a visiting head of state.
Who in their right mind wouldn’t want to be part of a system where you can skim off the top and people salute you while you’re doing so?
Would it have hurt your ego so much as to offer your respects to the presiding officer by standing up in attention? Or does one have to pay you a bribe to obtain your cooperation?
I would imagine that would have been the wrong place to be a hero.
Civilians live in a world where they choose who they respect. Every fibre of my being would rebel if I had to stand up in attention when I didn't want to.
I choose to live in a society where people perform their duties without unnecessary power dynamics involved.
That would be great in a place where you did not have to demand others to do anything for you. Otherwise, standing up in attention is part of the consideration you offer others to get work done.
You not standing up in attention, and wishing to rebel needlessly, is also an unnecessary power play and wholly uncalled for.
That government officer is also a civilian. And you are not addressing the person by standing in attention, but the earned position.
Chances are you aren’t given to lending consideration to most people. Shouldn’t complain if treated in the same coin. Just a walking talking fighting machine. And you use “respect” as your alibi. It is cheap. It is also misplaced.
A little consideration goes a long way in human relationships and decisions. And no government officer anywhere is under any obligation to serve you if you won’t lend them that. Not just in India, elsewhere too. In the Philippines, for instance, government officials at immigration expressly state that rude and inconsiderate passengers or customers will not be served, plus, they will be barred from further entry. Somehow, Indians were specifically mentioned in the notice.
Now we know why.
If “respect” is your currency, and you are stingy with that; then “service” is the other person’s currency, and they will be stingy with that in return.
The earned position has no respect whatsoever. No self respecting person ought to stand in attention to a venal bureaucrat. I understand that self debasement comes naturally to some people. But then the likes of you are free to stand for as long as you want for any parasitic government employee.
In case, eveyone needs countless people to do their jobs properly to survive for a day. I haven't seen them standing in attention to those people.
A public servant has absolute obligation to serve the public. The payment for the service is the paycheck funded by taxpayer.
Then the self-respecting person should not care to show up to a venal bureaucrat’s office for any service.
Showing due consideration to others is a basic rule of civilised society so obvious it doesn’t need to be passed by law.
In all instances when you seek the services of other people, you stand in line, at attention and show them due respect and consideration. Whether this be at the supermarket checkout, the bank teller queue, the bus stand queue, even at a beauty salon (before you are led to your station) etc etc. All these are instances where you show respect to the person providing the service.
Nothing less is expected at a bureaucrat’s office either. The sense of entitlement is being shown by your character type here not the other person.
That this needs spelling out to some in such minute detail is a remark on the poor state of upbringing in the country in general. It’s all about a little respect and consideration, nothing more.
The fact that you can't comprehend that in none of your example people stand up in attention to greet the service provider is a reflection of lack of neurons in that cranium of yours. I don't know what salon requires every customer in the room to stand in unison when a barber enters the room.
Like I said, you can debase yourself however much you want. Next time fall at the feet of the venal parasite. Normal taxpayers would keep visiting government offices because they fund the said establishment.
To offer an explanation as to why these exams used to include poetry and literature; it was to make sure that successful applicants, who would become administrators of the realm, were in tune with the values of the ruler, and that they would be more inclined to carry orders out.
Familiarity, it is hoped, would breed sympathy and loyalty.
Well spotted, and yes - part of the reason the Chinese exams survived so long (though with some starts and stops) was because they were a simple way to make sure the ruling elite of the vast realm had culture and values in common. Same reason the British adopted the system, so they could make sure their own empire had bureaucrats with the 'right' values (and also to give Classics graduates from Oxbridge something to do - not even joking, this was literally one of the reasons cited in parliamentary debates).
Very well written.
What I find particularly striking is that at a time when India’s youth are flocking to civil services exams, the authorities are not using this interest to systematically expand the country’s bureaucratic capacity. This under capacity is repeatedly cited as a key bottleneck in the implementation of government programmes, yet the number of posts remains constrained and a significant share of sanctioned positions are left unfilled year after year.
To quote the recent vacancy figures:
IAS (Indian Administrative Service): 1,316 vacancies, or 19.2% of the sanctioned strength of 6,858.
IPS (Indian Police Service): 586 vacancies, or 11.6% of the sanctioned strength of 5,055.
IFS (Indian Forest Service): 1,042 vacancies, or 32.6% of the sanctioned strength of 3,193.
Public sector employment stands at only about 6% of the total workforce, compared with roughly 23% in China and 13.6% in the United States. In other words, India is trying to deliver big state ambitions - universal schemes, large scale infrastructure, extensive regulation with a markedly understaffed public sector.
I unsuccessfully studied for civil service exams for 5 years after quitting my job. I wish someone had written this article 15 years back.
One explanation is that taking these exams is the natural extension to a life spent preparing for entrance exams. They're a well defined path which will lead to rewards without dealing with the ambiguity of the real world.
If you don't pass one, there's always another one waiting around the corner.
And if your relatives ask what you're doing, you can always give the excuse of "studying for UPSC". I wonder how many of the aspirants even study that hard.
I think people are just trying their best, it's not about thinking relationally and having something to say to other people
I think it's both! There's absolutely some group of people taking the UPSC because it would mean they're 'doing something', regardless of their interest in the actual end goal. I do believe though, that most applicants are there in earnest - but the reason they're so willing to put in years is that prepping for the UPSC is accepted as a full-time job, so they can tell themselves they're busy with *something*. It's partly about having something to tell other people, but a lot about having something to tell yourself.
Couple of thoughts:
1.
There is a regional angle here as well.
The educated from the most unproductive states take these exams at a higher rate.
Which further worsens the macro economic impact.
2.
The class/caste profile of successful candidates has changed. In the beginning the civil services were a preserve of certain groups like Kayasths and Brahmins from the south, Bengal, Kashmir. And similar urban communities like Nasranis.
While there was always an economic incentive, there was also a sense of public spiritedness in joining the civil services.
That has changed. Most people from these historically dominant groups today generally choose to emigrate abroad.
The class factor did create a sense of aspiration among other groups.
So general category selection is dominated now by mercantile and landholding groups. These were generally materially well-to-do communities that took up English education later and wished upward class mobility.
The selection among reserved categories is dominated by a handful of politically influential castes.
Reforming the system is tough due to entrenched lobbies but also due to a political economy that has developed around the exam.
We’re stuck in a sub-optimal but stable equilibria.
Unless Trump slaps India with 500% tariffs…one can hope!
This was a terrific read. I would also like to suggest the element of class and caste does come into play here. I think in one of Kunal Kamra's nope videos, there was a discussion how MNCs and corporation surreptitiously only look for poised, polished candidates who most often come from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. UPSC preparation is more of an equal ground, where a candidate sees more people like themselves when they look around the tuition room. And here too your observation of "if you can't beat them, be them" comes into play a little bit as you said, its safer to be a public officer and a minority in this country.
" Plus, India is now younger than ever – two in every three Indians is below 35..."
Damn, such precious Youth Demographic dividend is being wasted to rise up "prestige" & "job security" & social/community power representation goal - a precious thing which could've been "skill" & then used to "scale" the Industrial/manufacturing power of the country thus putting to actual utilisation & truly become developed/rich.
"The only shield is being part of the system itself."
So true for a country with minimal systemic safeguards against arbitrary state action and virtually no possibility of genuine systemic reform.
Well said!
Reminds me of Raghuram Rajan's comment that India continues to be a "political economy" despite 3 decades of economic liberalization.
Guess liberalization wasn't genuine reform.
Regulatory choices, state intervention, and political manipulations - normally all are arbitrary - continue to strongly influence economic impacts.
For the lure of secure jobs where there is full responsibility but zero accountability which also lead to remarkable wealth creation for the UPSC exam clearers even beyond retirement
The administrative system left by British suits well to Indian political parties elected to govern at center or state. It provides continuity. Tradionally, we Indians have habit of respecting the government machinery from Raj times. The practices of administration is also by pressure on masses. The administrative system is also very comlicated and slow moving. This forces too much follow up and palm greasing at various levels and has given birth to numerous illegal agents. All in all it begets huge corruption, misuse of power and sycophency. Also hierachy of these jobs is such that all technical departments are under them. So the best minds and not so are attracted to it. A large no of aspirants are from higher middle class and can be supported for long period of time for several attempts.
Incredibly written! It must take genuine curiosity to cover such a question from academic, cultural and data lens.
I can only imagine the depths of research and links you must have gone through to find what you did.
I am continuously surrounded by bright young and top-educated people who have taken "an year to prep" and I always wonder, what has that cost to the country's gdp.
Then I ask them, but what if you had continued.. the answer is usually a justification for the reputation premium and that the risk will be worth it. Lest the opportunity cost is a delay in climbing the corporate ladder.
Loved the article!
The UPSC queue is a throughput problem. Roughly a million aspirants compete for roughly a thousand selections per year. The interesting structural question is what happens to the people who spend three to seven years in preparation and don't clear. That's a skills pipeline feeding directly into nothing — or into coaching institutes that train the next cohort. The institution reproduces itself by consuming the people who failed it.
Extremely well structured and articulated. The wave of applicants has been astonishing recently. We all understood that implicitly, but seeing the figures laid out like that really clarifies things.
https://writing326.substack.com/p/cultural-diplomacy-and-immigration?r=78adv7&utm_medium=ios
This was a very good read! I really liked the protection premium explanation: it's something we all understand intuitively, but I had not seen it articulated well.
A lot of this craze seems unfortunately driven by: i) poor expected value calculation (i.e., being too optimistic about your own prospects in the exam), ii) low opportunity costs (not enough high-quality jobs easily available), iii) gain-seeking behavior (counterpart of loss aversion), and iv) memetic desire.