The NDA government’s recent rollback of a well-conceived scheme to recruit talent laterally into the bureaucracy marks another instance where political expediency has overshadowed national interest. This decision represents the fifth major policy reversal by the current administration, a pattern that is increasingly concerning. While the opposition celebrates these rollbacks as political victories, the real loss is for Bharat.
Lateral Entry scheme: The lateral entry scheme aimed to bring fresh expertise into the bureaucratic system by allowing professionals from the private sector to join mid-level government positions. This initiative sought to introduce specialised knowledge and skills that traditional career bureaucrats might lack, thereby making the administrative machinery more agile and efficient. In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, lateral entry has been crucial in enhancing the quality of governance. For example, the U.S. government frequently hires experts from the private sector to lead agencies or manage complex projects, ensuring that the best talent is harnessed for public service. The UK’s Civil Service Fast Stream also encourages lateral entry to bring in fresh perspectives. The rollback of this scheme in India is a significant setback, as it denies the government access to a broader talent pool, ultimately affecting governance quality and, by extension, the nation’s progress.
Farm laws: The repeal of the three farm laws, despite their alignment with reforms proposed by the Congress in its 2019 manifesto, represents a missed opportunity for India’s agricultural sector. These laws aimed to provide farmers with more options to sell their produce, potentially leading to higher incomes. Increased farm incomes would have translated into greater rural consumption, a key driver of economic growth. In countries like the United States, reforms in agricultural policies have played a crucial role in stabilising farm incomes and ensuring food security. By rolling back these laws, the NDA government has not only undermined the potential for agricultural growth but also missed a chance to boost the broader economy through enhanced rural demand.
Waqf Act Amendment bill:
The decision to send the bill to amend the Waqf Act of 1995 to a Parliamentary committee rather than pushing it through reflects a hesitancy to address sensitive issues head-on. The Waqf Act, which governs the management of religious endowments for the Muslim community, has been criticised for creating disparities in how different religious communities are treated under the law. In a secular democracy, it is crucial that all communities are treated equally under the law to maintain national unity. Countries like France, with its strict separation of church and state, have shown that equal treatment under the law is essential for social cohesion. The delay in addressing these disparities only deepens societal divisions, weakening the fabric of Bharat.
The rollback of the lateral entry scheme by the NDA government is a significant setback in India’s efforts to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its bureaucratic system. Lateral entry, which allows professionals from diverse fields to bring their expertise into government roles, has been a key component in transforming governance in several Western countries.
For instance, the United States has long embraced the concept of lateral entry. The U.S. government routinely brings in experts from the private sector, academia, and nonprofits to fill senior positions in various departments. This practice is especially common in agencies like the Department of Defense and the National Security Council, where subject matter experts are essential for making informed decisions on complex issues. These experts provide fresh perspectives, innovative ideas, and specialised knowledge that career bureaucrats may lack, thereby driving more effective governance.
In the United Kingdom, lateral entry is also a well-established practice. The British Civil Service has a long tradition of appointing professionals from outside the government to senior positions. This practice is seen in the recruitment of Permanent Secretaries and Directors-General who bring with them a wealth of experience from the private sector. Their contributions have often led to more streamlined processes, cost savings, and better policy outcomes.
Similarly, in France, the École Nationale d’Administration (ENA) system allows for lateral entry into senior bureaucratic roles. The French government has benefited from this system by integrating individuals with diverse experiences into its administrative machinery, leading to a more dynamic and responsive government.
These examples from the U.S., the U.K., and France demonstrate how lateral entry can infuse new energy and expertise into the bureaucratic system, leading to better governance outcomes. By rolling back the lateral entry scheme, India risks missing out on the opportunity to tap into the vast reservoir of talent outside traditional bureaucratic channels. This rollback not only hinders the goal of making the bureaucracy more efficient but also deprives the nation of the potential benefits that come from diverse and specialised knowledge in governance.
In conclusion, while the opposition may claim victory over these rollbacks, it is crucial to understand that the real loser in this political tug-of-war is Bharat—the very fabric of our nation. These policy reversals represent far more than just the undoing of specific legislative measures; they symbolise a retreat from progress and a missed opportunity for national advancement. Each of these decisions, when viewed in isolation, may seem like a concession to public opinion or a response to political pressure, but collectively, they signal a troubling trend of sacrificing long-term national interest for short-term political gain.
The rollback of the lateral entry scheme, for instance, is not just a reversal of a policy but a missed opportunity to inject much-needed expertise and innovation into our bureaucratic system. The lateral entry scheme was a visionary initiative aimed at bridging the gap between the public and private sectors, fostering a more dynamic and responsive government. By rolling it back, we are not only denying ourselves the benefits of this cross-pollination of ideas and skills but also sending a message that the status quo is preferable to progress. This is a step backward for Bharat, a nation that aspires to be a global leader in governance and innovation.
Similarly, the repeal of the farm laws is not merely a victory for the opposition but a defeat for the millions of farmers who stood to benefit from the increased market access and financial security these laws promised. The rollback has stalled the momentum for agricultural reform, which is desperately needed to modernise our farming practices and improve the livelihoods of those who feed the nation. This decision has wider implications for Bharat’s economic growth, as a vibrant agricultural sector is essential for sustaining rural economies and driving overall national development.
Furthermore, the decision to delay the amendment of the Waqf Act by sending it to a Parliamentary committee is a significant setback for the principle of secularism in our country. The amendment was a critical step towards ensuring equal treatment of all religious communities under the law—a cornerstone of our constitutional values. By postponing this necessary reform, we are allowing the existing disparities to persist, which only deepens societal divisions and undermines national unity. In a country as diverse as Bharat, maintaining social harmony and cohesion is paramount for our progress as a nation. Delaying such reforms weakens the very foundation of our secular democracy.
Each of these rollbacks, therefore, is not just a policy reversal but a step backward in Bharat’s journey towards becoming a more prosperous, unified, and efficient nation. The opposition may claim these as victories, but in reality, they are victories at the expense of national interest. These decisions reflect a lack of commitment to the hard choices and bold actions needed to propel Bharat forward. They represent a retreat into complacency and a reluctance to embrace the changes necessary for our nation to thrive in the 21st century.
As citizens, it is essential to recognize that the true cost of these rollbacks is borne by the nation as a whole. The path to progress is often fraught with challenges and resistance, but it is only through perseverance and a steadfast commitment to reform that we can hope to achieve our full potential. The rollbacks may have appeased certain factions in the short term, but they have done so at the expense of Bharat’s long-term prosperity and unity. The true victory will come when we collectively prioritise the nation’s future over immediate political gains, ensuring that every decision made is a step forward in the journey towards a stronger, more unified, and prosperous Bharat.
Siddhartha Dave is an alumnus of the United Nations University in Tokyo and a former Lok Sabha Research Fellow. He writes on foreign affairs and national security.
