Jawaharlal Nehru's speech in Second Annual General Body Meeting of Indian Institute of Public Administration.
(April 7, 1956)
Friends, for the third time you have elected me as your
President. For the tliird time I have come to this hall to preside
over this function, and in between I have done nothing in regard
to this organisation. When I come here I try rapidly to find out
through the report and from other papers as to what this organisa-
tion has been doing — ^of course from the speeches that are made
here also I try to make out what this organisation has been doing.
So, I am hardly a suitable person to criticise or to offer any worth-
while suggestions. Nevertheless, since I am here, let me put my
ideas before you. They are not very remarkable ones and I have
no doubt you have already thought about them.
Mr. Bapat spoke about the vast range of activities of Government today. The range continues to widen and deepen. How
far an administrative structure, which was meant to deal with a
much narrower range of activities can deal with this vast range,
including all kinds of expert, specialised, technical and managerial
functions is a matter which is also coming to the fore. Obviously,
the range of activities before us is infinitely wider than before.
The methods of choosing people for services are still the old
methods of choosing them for what may be called broadly the
general administrative service and not for any specialised branch
of service that we have today and that we are likely to have more
and more in the future.
I have often been troubled by the problem of having to deal
with a situation where the administrative machinery works rather
in a rigid framework which cannot automatically expand. How
are we going to deal with this new situation? The administrative
aspect is always important, but it is only in a very backward State
that only the administrative aspect is looked after. In all States
or countries, other aspects become equally important and they
might even become more important than the administrative aspect.
How are we to deal with that problem? How are we to deal with
it now? It is obvious that the biggest problem that we have to
face is the trained personnel for the future expansion of the State’s
activities in various directions. This is a problem which is continually troubling my colleague, Mr. V. T. Krishnamachari and
others in the Planning Commission. He wants, of course, engi-
neers, scientists, and other technicians in many fields and we can
perhaps make some kind of an estimate of our requirements, bulk
requirements, though not easily. I think our demands are likely
to be so great that we are always likely to fall short, and there
it is better to think in big terms rather than in small
terms.
hen there is another aspect, that of the future development
of State organisations. State-controlled industries, factories, etc.
Of course, it may be hoped that a good administrative officer may
go and manage any of these as their head. In fact, in some
countries, the opposite process is at work, that is, opposed to the
position where the administrator goes as the head of an industrial
or technical organisation. It is coming to be believed more and
more that the administrative head of a technical organisation
should himself be a technician, or at least should know a good deal
about the techniques operated there. We see, in some countries,
that technical people come in as administrators, as heads of purely
administrative concerns. In some countries they— technicians-— •
come into the diplomatic service because the whole background is
technical. The technician comes in as ambassador; he becomes a
Minister because the background of the country is beconnng pro-
gressively governed by the technological advances.
Certainly our background is not that; it is more or less
administrative. It is good so far as it goes, but is it likely to be
adequate for the changing conditions? Are we prepared for
tomorrow? If we are not, then we shall have the biggest bottle-
neck that you can imagine— money thrown in building huge
factories, industrial concerns. State corporations and the like and
not finding proper persons for running them— proper persons not
only because of their competence and experience but, if I may say
so, a certain enthusiasm for the work and a certain kinship and
spirit with the idea of the State doing it. It is no good if a person
says: 'I am doing it, though I basically disagree with the idea of
the State running these concerns’; because that does not fit in,
even though as a technician he may fit in. Therefore, it is of high
importance that we should train people, a special class of personnel
for this kind of managerial appointments in State corporations,
undertakings, etc. We may, of course, draw upon the private
sector or other sectors. But the point is that, even if we draw
upon the private sector, the men from it must develop a public
conscience and not private conscience. Only then will they fit
in. I think that this is one of the most important things that we
have to consider. We are on the eve of a big industrial change,
in a sense. Industrial revolution in India is a fact and we have to
keep pace in all directions. That is the first point.
‘‘Secondly, even in thinking purely of administration, here
is something which is quite beyond my understanding. It is so
complicated— various departments, traditions, this and that. I
confess I have not understood it at all; I feel lost in it. Once
or twice, I had an occasion to look at the civil service rules and the
like. I was astonished how the Government of India had continu-
ed to exist so long with these rules. It should have collapsed
under them. In spite of the impediments that the rules put before
it, it is a wonder how it has survived. There are three or four
volumes with thousands of slips and the like. Only some selected
high pandits understand them. That is bad.
“But what is worse is that these rules were framed — ^I do not
know but I imagine — some 50 years back or 40 or 30 or 20 years;
they are in their present form hardly less than 20 years old.
They are not only pre-Independence but pre-many things. Even
without looking at them, I cannot conceive that these rules,
framed 20-40 years ago, can be made wholly applicable today*
There is, first of all, a big political change. India has become an
independent country. Secondly^ apart from any political change,
I doubt if, even in countries like the U K., 30 or 40 years old rules
are still applicable* I imagine that many things have changed
there from time to time. We have been much more static in this
respect. The whole background has changed and a new approach
has to be made to this problem. If we have to deal with the rules
framed not only in the pre-Independence days but long ago in the
remote antiquity, one might say, politically speaking, that we are
bound hand and foot by something which has no place or relevance
today. There may be some rules which are still relevant but the
whole outlook or frame is different; the circumstances are
different.
Thirdly— this is a major factor— we have, rightly or fairly
rightly, developed into a State with not only a social outlook but
with a social programme which the State undertakes. We have
the objective of socialism or the socialist pattern. Now, every
machine that you make is meant to turn out something you want.
If we want socialism, then the administrative machinery that we
have must gradually turn out socialism. If it is turning out
something else, then, it does not fit in with the objective we have
and there is a constant conflict between these two. I am not
referring to the individual; I am referring to the pattern of the
organisation right from the recruitment, etc., promotion, and all
that.
There are some factors, which, no doubt, have to be common
for any efficient system of administration, whatever tlie objective
may be. But there are some factors which are likely to be different
It is just that any decent person you choose may fit into a parti-
cular job; he may not fit in well with another job. Take a Vice-
Chancellor of a University or a manager of a steel plant, for
instance. As a Vice-Chancellor, he may be an excellent person
but, as the manager of a steel plant,he may be hopeless; it may be
vice versa. Therefore, the same person who may be very good in
an administrative machine, meant to produce somethmg, may not
be good at all for another purpose when the machine is supposed
to produce something quite different.
“Therefore, we have to view what is the ideal or the objective
of the State. Where do we want to go? What kind of a factory
or society are we working for? There we come up to the objective
aimed at.
An equally important thing is the long-term or perspective
planning — not mere planning for five years. What are we thinking
of 15 years hence or 20 years hence? I do not mean to say
that you should consider the process of running a factory, or
think what our people would be like, 20 years hence. Of
course, that is there but I mean to say that, in spite of our ideals
and objectives, our general approach has been pragmatic. We
have got no fixed pattern and we are prepared to learn by our
experiences and efforts. Therefore we do not have a 20 years’
picture wliich can be called rigid; but we have some picture.
Therefore, even in preparing the administrator of tomorrow or
the administrator of 10 years later, we have got to keep that
broad picture in view. All this is important at any time, but
it becomes much more important when the tempo of change is
rather fast as it is progressively getting in India and, as I said,
wall be even more so in our country later. Therefore, this is a
very important consideration for you.
Tn other countries — I suppose in some other countries — ^the
tempo of change is much faster than ours. Take the United States
of America which is conditioned more and more by the technologi-
cal changes. There the Government changes continuously, for
good or bad as it may be. A tremendous change is going on
technologically, rather frightening change; frightening in the sense
how far that may affect the. human being; how far the machine
will dominate the mere human being and how far the human
being will keep himself in command of the machine. It is rather
frightening. Whether frightening or not, those changes are there
and they will come elsewhere too. Therefore, let us get to under-
stand them.
My point is that all our outlook has to be from a wide view-
point of constantly trying to understand this changing world of
ours. I was just reading a book yesterday by a very eminent
historian: History in a Changing World. In fact, the whole
conception of history has changed now. All eminent historians
in the past — ^very eminent and very modern as they were — are out
of date. The whole of warfare has completely changed. Every
book written from the ancient days to the last war is out of date
with the coming of the atom botnb and the hydrogen bomb. The
whole conception of the physical world has changed by the
development of physics. In every department of life you will see
how the basic conceptions are changing and we are well on the
threshold of unknown regions of mind.
If all this is happening around us, obviously, the texture of
human life is changing. If that changes, obviously all this business
of administration will necessarily be affected. Administration is
not static; it is a changing, dynamic, revolutionary process to fit in
with the changing times. It is in that spirit that you should
approach this question and, naturally, study the peculiar condi-
tions and problems that we have before us.
Now, that leads me to another line of thought. I said:
‘peculiar problems we have before us’. More and more I come to
the conclusion that, while we must make every effort to learn
from the great advances made in other countries in every field, and
more especially in scientific and technological field— in every field
nevertheless— we shall have to strike our own path. We shall
have to find our own path guided by other people’s advice and
wisdom, but not blindly following any either.
“All the books on Economics written in America, England,
Russia or China may help us, but will not suit us in the final
analysis because we have got to take the conditions of our country.
And with the help of others, no doubt, find out, first of all, what
our problems are and then seek their solution. Of course, we are
doing that. It will not do if we were to get hold of some problem
in some other country and may be, a solution of another country
and try to apply it to the problem here, which may be different.
Now, coming to a more limited approach to this problem of
administration, I was thinking, as I Was sitting here, how in the
early days of the industrial revolution great inventions did not
come from the people at the top. Very few of these came from
people at the top. They came from ordinary mechanics working
in those rather primitive factories some 150 years ago. They came
from the overseers, mechanics and others. Every big invention
in the early days of the industrial revolution came from somebody
rather low down in the scheme of things; some mistry or a mechanic
who dealt with things by his hands and not thinking about things
in his head. Even subsequently, although we have had naturally
great inventors, great scientists, Edisons and Einsteins, it is astoni-
shing how science has progressed, how technology has progressed
by the innumerable small conclusions of unknown persons and not
by the giants of sciences. Especially, technology progressed by
the conclusions of the mechanics. They find out something in
their daily work and their suggestions are adopted.
Though this is not entirely applicable to the administrative
apparatus, there is no reason why it should not apply to it to some
extent. That is to say, do we ever consult or make an effort to
get ideas from the people lower down in the scale of the adminis-
trative apparatus? Do we ever care to know what they think
about their own work? Do we ever find out from the third grade,
the fourth grade — I do not know what all grades are there— or the
clerks if they have any suggestions for their own work? I think
it would be very profitable if we ask them to suggest improve-
ments. Of course, 90 per cent of the suggestions may not be good ;
that does not matter. But, even if one or two are good, they are
worthwhile. That has a double purpose in view. One is that
we might get good suggestions from the persons who are actually
doing the job. The second is that you will make them have a
sense of partnership, much more than they do at present. They
are being consulted, treated as equals in the matter of getting
suggestions even though they may be inferior in grade.
How can this be done? I think it will be a good thing to ask
them sometimes to meet together in their own rooms, discuss
things and make suggestions for the improvement of their own
work, to have better efficiency and less wastage. Whatever the
procedure may be, the main purpose of that would be really to
give them a sense of partnership in their work and to take away
something that I consider very harmful and which still persists;
that is, the sense of caste in our Services — ^the superior service, the
second grade, the third grade and so on.
Naturally, there have to be grades in the sense of higher
responsibility, etc. Men with greater experience and intelligence
may be placed in the higher grade. But, do not convert that higher
grade into a higher caste. It is bad in every way, but, we in India,
who are confirmed practitioners of the caste system, bring in this
caste system wherever there is the slightest loophole for it. You
must change it. Therefore, I would beg of you to view this
problem so as to eliminate this caste system in the services.
To talk about caste in our services, about the superior services
thinking themselves not merely to be equipped with the
experience and intelligence, but belonging to a higher order of
human beings, is a bad thing; especially it is a very bad thing
in a democratic set-up.
Somebody here referred to contacts with the public. There
again, it is important that we should get rid of some of the old
practices and evolve a new line. One should never give the idea
to any member of the public, however humble he may be, that
one is treating him with discourtesy. A politician, under the
stress of circumstances, does not do that. But, in the services,
if people, on account of the security of their pensions, begin to
think that it does not matter what the public feels, that is
dangerous. This must go. I have received far too many com-
plaints about such treatment of the public.
People whom I have known for dozens of yearS' — ^they are
humble folk, may be peasants— come to me. I might not have
time to see Secretaries to Government or any officials. But I
never say ‘No’ to an ordinary man who comes to see me. I would
very much like to stop in the middle of the road and talk to him.
Perhaps you may not be able to do like that. This democratic
approach is admittedly wasteful. My time is precious; your
time is precious. However wasteful it may be, I think it
is higlily important that I should meet him, talk to him, and
if I could not help him, tell him so sweetly and send him
away with a feeling of comfort. When he comes to see me,
that individual is not an individual. He represents to me the
millions of people like him. I think in terms of those millions.
How am I to speak to them and comfort them? So, he becomes
the embodiment of something huge and big. India is not me and ,
you. India is the lot whom we presume to treat with contempt .
and discourtesy. It is therefore very important how we deal with '
the pubhc. A lot of people come to make mischief and waste ; ;
time. Anyhow, never allow the common man take the idea that \
he is being treated with discourtesy and contempt. This is of the !
highest importance in a democratic set-up. T can teU you- that the ;
biggest man in India, Gandhiji, never turned a man away, whether f ■
he came from any distant country or from our own country. He y
never said ‘Nb’ to any one who papje to see him. Remember, he
was a frightfully busy man.
I have placed some ideas before you and I hope you will
think about them. I have done so with a feeling of guilt, because,
I do not know much about what the organisation is doing, but
when I come here, I must, to a slight extent, justify myself.”
Tags:
Speech