T. E. Raja Simhan and N. Nagaraj
Bureaucrats, perhaps the most powerful personalities in the country, are no doubt the backbone of India. Even though politicians have the key in running the country, bureaucrats are the real decision makers and run the government from behind the scenes.
However, over the last few years, the scenario has changed, with a handful of bureaucrats, mostly retired, plunging into active politics.
Certain observations with respect to bureaucrats - whether in government or otherwise - are:
* The bureaucrat is, in all likelihood, not an expert in the industry he is assigned to.
* There is a lack of commitment from most of the bureaucrats towards the fate or well-being of the enterprise they are heading.
* There is lack of concentration on the work at hand as they are always "thinking of their next major move."
* Bureaucrats are also perceived as more vulnerable to pressure from politicians since they look to them for favourable postings and the like.
The case of the Chennai Port Trust (ChPT) is perhaps a good example of how a bureaucrat being the chief executive of an organisation in an industry - one that is a major service industry that is a lifeline to the economy - with which he is not familiar can mar effective functioning.
The problem here, however, is not the bureaucrat per se, but his appointment to a post for which he is not suited. There is no question about his ability as a good administrator; it is just that he also needs some special skills suiting his appointment. Also, there is a question of whether the appointee is actually interested in running the assigned organisation -in this case, the Chennai Port Trust.
In the last couple of years, the ChPT has had the dubious distinction of having four chairmen in two years. A senior officer of the ChPT puts it this way: "The growth of the Chennai port has been really affected in the last few years due to lack of proper leadership. During the last three years, the port did not develop upto what was felt to be its true potential because of lack of effective leadership."
This brings us to our old, and favourite, issue: Continuity. Arguments for job rotation apart, any new appointee would require some time to get used to the organisation, get his ideas circulated, get feedback on his ideas, and take decisions. This is also one reason why even some private sector enterprises have problems: CEOs/managers who are hired to turn around a company are rarely given enough time, and while evaluating the employee too soon,the board decides that he has not done a good job.
A leading shipping agent says: "It was pathetic that in the last three to four years, no major development work, other than the Berth Reservation Scheme(BRS), took place at Chennai port.
And even in the case of the BRS, the decision making was in fits and starts which in some way also negated the effectiveness of the decisions, leading to logistical problems for importers and exporters. Some exporters even felt that the port was losing its credibility in the international shipping arena to a large extent due to this kind of inaction from the Port Trust.
"Due to their superiority complex and egoism, they were not willing to come down to the bottom level even during crucial- decision making periods in the last couple of years", asserted an employee, who was involved in a strike a few months ago.
Harsh, perhaps, but that is the feeling one gets when interacting with a top ranking bureaucrat. This is probably because of the inherent dislike of for setting a precedent. Those who have been willing have been militant to the extreme, sometimes with unfortunate consequences. They also tend to live in their own world of suspended reality: something like, 'if you are not on the file, you don't exist for me.'There is no problem unless it is acknowledged, and what better way to handle it than not acknowledge that it exists?
The ChPT also suffers from the problem of the bureaucrat- technocrat tangle. : One major problem for bureaucrats is that, as bureaucrats, they are expected to take well-informed and impartial decisions. tangle for the appointment of the CEO. The question needs to be asked: Does the port trust, which is one of most important service providers in the country need a bureaucrat to head it ? Or a technocrat who knows the industry inside out? Answers from a cross-section of the industry are quite mixed.
An official of a major shipping agent had a peculiar experience when he had to explain what a barge was to a port trust chairman. This is a simple term in the shipping business and the new chairman did not know what it was. "It took me nearly 45 minutes to explain to him what a barge was and what its purposes were", commented the official. This is a really pathetic situation and tiresome too. "How can a port improve with officials like this?", he questioned.
According to Mr. K. J. Ramasamy former President, Federation of Ship Agents Association of India, a bureaucrat can give a neutral decision: He will listen to what the common man says. If the bureaucrat had risen through the ranks, having handled and experienced all kinds of problems, he can take his own decisions on a major issue.
Meanwhile, another senior officer of the port trust says that bureaucrats operate according to their rigid rules and procedures which could not be and are not practical at all times and circumstances.
According to a ChPT officer, bureaucrats can visualise and get to the root of the problem, but could not take an emphatic and quick decision on it. For example, corruption in the port is so widespread that only a miracle can control it.
Presently, at Chennai, both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are bureaucrats. According to a port official, the best solution to solve the problem is that at least the deputy chairman should be a technocrat, to run the day-to-day affairs of the port. In this arrangement, the chairman will be kept informed by his deputy about day-to-day affairs, so that the Chairman could deal with major policy matters, like dealing with the centre. This was, in fact, the arrangement at the Chennai port about eight years back. That was the best period in the history of the port trust, remarked one officer.
Another instance of indecisiveness and loss, and cause for many a heartburn among exporters/importers was the problem of dredging the Chennai harbour. The water inside the harbour was/is choked with garbage and has to be dredged immediately to increase the draft. However, with the port lacking adequate infrastructure, no chairman was in a position to take a correct step to solve the problem.
One solution was to hire a dredger (for which the money was not a problem), which was not rejected. The chairmen took the suggestions of some senior officers and did not go for hiring the dredger. However, in the last one month, the port trust has started dredging berths which had been choked to a great extent. The port trust is using its own dredger, which according to a port of officer is not very efficient.
One major problem for bureaucrats is that, as bureaucrats, they are expected to take well-informed and impartial decisions. What happens, however, is totally different, but completely understandable: Once the continuity principle goes down the drain, and appointments are not made on the basis of expertise, these people have to depend on someone they trust at the new workplace. It is entirely possible that they are not getting the right advice either technically, or in terms of equity and justice.
The lack of commitment and concentration on the work at hand is also understandable: who knows where the next posting is going to be. With no clear future or career path in mind, these people do not want to commit themselves to something that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, as they see it. They do have career graphs and that comes with the number of years of service and other accomplishments rather than on the basis of any real performance or result.
What is also lacking is ownership: to say that `this organisation is mine; or `this project is my baby'; the system does not ownership comes lack of passion -- the drive that is necessary to manage an operation as huge as the port.
According to Mr. Ramasamy, one of the biggest advantages of a bureaucrat heading a port trust is that he can take up his case with the powerful lobby at the centre. " If the chairman is a technocrat, he cannot even go near the IAS lobby in centre", however powerful he is here, he added.
The `old boy' network is alive and kicking. Yes, a bureaucrat is a better idea if the organisation needs more and better resources. But only if he/she is part of the 'network'. There are many bureaucrats who deliberately stay out of the network. In this case, a bureaucrat as a CEO only to serve as an access for a wider forum does not work. Also, one discounts the political factor in this argument not only influence by politicians but also by other bureaucrats.
Mr. Ramasamy regretted the intervention of the state government in the nomination of the port trust chairman. The post of the chairman is an important one and should be in the rank of a secretary at the centre, with enough knowledge about the industry and excellent administrative skills.
Mr. Ashok Thakkar, a trustee in the ChPT board, also aired the same views. He was of the opinion that the chairman should ideally be in the post for five years, or for a minimum of three years. Most of the Chairmen came from some other department and normally do not have adequate knowledge of running the port. The Chairman has to settle down, which takes up valuable time.
Leave alone the role of a bureaucrat heading an organisation as big as the Chennai port or any other port for that matter. In the appointment of a port trust chairman, particularly for the Chennai port, there has been a lot of political influence involved in the last couple of years.
A top official of the port trust remarked that when Mr. Ramakrishnan came into the office, he was full of enthusiasm, which however diminished as time passed by, mainly after a rift with a Minister.
If one needs one good reason to free the Indian bureaucracy of its political bosses, the example of the Chennai Port Trust is enough. The games that the politicians play are too much even for the finely tuned and politically sensitive minds of top bureaucrats. All the twists and turns that take place in the course of one appointment could make a nice little novel, with a little bit of machiavellian tacks thrown in.
With this type of functioning and lack of proper leadership, how can a port function, and in the process, expect to develop? If this scenario does not change, the port will be in utter turmoil in the next few years, and will be completely out of the international map.