Why Modern Concrete Gurugram is so different from Old Green Gurgaon? Why the air is so polluted? Why the water is contaminated? How much is too much? Who did this?
Gustakhi Maaf Haryana – Pawan Kumar Bansal
Extracts from Upcoming Book “Coco Speaks” by Vinod Bhatia, Retired IFS, Haryana
The Supreme Court recently highlighted the power dynamics within India’s bureaucratic structure, stating that Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers often assert their superiority over Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers. This observation emerged during a hearing on the misuse of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) fund in Uttarakhand, which was originally meant for afforestation and forest conservation. The news was prominently reported by the Hindustan Times and several other national dailies.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih noted that IAS officers frequently position themselves as superior to their IPS and IFS counterparts, leading to resentment among the latter. Justice Gavai, quoted by ANI, remarked, “There is always heartburn among the IPS and IFS officers that though they are part of the same cadre, the IAS treats them as subordinates.”
This issue is particularly relevant to retired IFS officer Vinod Bhatia, who has shared his perspective in his upcoming book “Coco Speaks.” Having spent over three decades in the labyrinth of Indian bureaucracy, particularly within Haryana’s IFS cadre, Bhatia reflects on the often-unspoken hierarchy within the All-India Services (AIS). He describes the IAS as an ‘elephant in the room,’ the IPS as a ‘blackbuck,’ and the IFS as a ‘small hare’—a metaphor illustrating the governance system’s inherent power imbalance.
The Systemic Issue of IAS Supremacy
Bhatia argues that IAS officers’ perceived superiority is a systemic issue rather than a matter of individual personalities. The IAS’s reputation as ‘generalists’—administrators capable of managing any department or crisis—has granted them a unique status within governance. However, in an era that increasingly demands specialized knowledge, the belief that generalists can master everything is flawed.
IFS officers, with their expertise in ecology, conservation, and resource management, and IPS officers, with their proficiency in law enforcement and public order, often find their specialized knowledge overshadowed by the IAS’s perceived universal competence. This dominance is further cemented by the IAS’s strategic placement in policymaking positions across central and state secretariats, district administrations, and public sector undertakings. Meanwhile, IFS officers are often relegated to managing forests and wildlife reserves, their contributions seen as less impactful than the IAS’s high-profile policy roles. IPS officers, though wielding significant authority, are typically confined to law-and-order enforcement, limiting their influence on broader governance issues.
Marginalization of Expertise
The IAS is widely regarded as the primary driver of ‘development.’ However, this perception often marginalizes the crucial roles played by other services. IFS officers, for instance, understand that sustainable development is not just about infrastructure expansion but also about preserving natural resources and ecosystems. Despite this, their input is frequently overlooked in favor of short-term economic priorities. Similarly, while the IPS ensures stability—an essential prerequisite for development—their role is often perceived as secondary to the IAS.
Hierarchy within the bureaucracy is often implicit rather than explicitly stated. It manifests in subtle ways—how officers are addressed in meetings, who is invited to key discussions, and whose opinions carry the most weight. The IAS is often seen as ‘first among equals,’ creating an unspoken yet pervasive sense of inferiority among other services.
Impact on Governance and Morale
This hierarchical system negatively impacts governance and the morale of non-IAS officers. When expertise is undervalued and contributions overlooked, it breeds disillusionment and a sense of powerlessness, ultimately reducing the effectiveness of governance. A more collaborative, multidisciplinary approach is needed—one that recognizes and respects the unique strengths of each service.
Haryana’s Bureaucratic Challenges
Having spent his career in Haryana, Bhatia specifically highlights the state’s unique challenges in balancing rapid urbanization and industrialization with environmental sustainability. He argues that IFS officers must play a larger role in policy formulation rather than being confined to fieldwork. For instance, Haryana’s southern districts face severe issues like desertification and declining forest cover. While IAS officers can draft policies, they often lack the ecological expertise needed to implement effective solutions.
The Way Forward
Bhatia calls for a paradigm shift in governance—one that moves away from an outdated generalist-dominated approach to a system that values specialization and inter-service collaboration. He emphasizes that governance effectiveness is not just about policy formulation but about ensuring policies lead to tangible, sustainable outcomes.
His hope is that his book will spark meaningful discussions and inspire much-needed reform in the structure of Indian bureaucracy. The goal should not be competition but cooperation among IAS, IPS, and IFS officers—where expertise is valued over hierarchy, and governance truly serves the nation’s best interests.