Review by Udayan Hazarika
One of the recent publications of the Paranuchal Prakashan, ‘A History of Assam Civil Service’, is a long-awaited valuable document in the hands of the government and common man and also fulfils the long-standing needs of students getting ready for competitive examinations and officers undergoing foundational course training prior to their joining the ACS and IAS. The author and renowned historian and retired Indian Civil Service Officer Sri Laxmi Nath Tamuly made an honest submission in the prologue that it is not actually a well-researched history of the Assam Civil Service but rather a collection of articles written for souvenirs brought out on the occasion of annual meetings of the ACS Association. Despite this, the reader will inevitably come across a historian passionate about uncovering and presenting history thoughtfully to his readers. Here, the author treats the problem from five perspectives: the history of ACS, its politicisation, the historical handling of its basic postings, government apathy, the problems of IAS promotees and its gradual decline.
The origin of the ACS has its roots in the British soil, and the author – being a historian of intense liking for finding the roots – handled this part of the British history spontaneously, citing the precious historical facts and illustrations as to the emergence of the middle class, the decline of feudal barons and how the process of the emergence of public services was completed with the advent of the glorious revolution of the seventeenth century. Till that time, civil servants were only the king’s personal or private servants, and impersonal and merit-based public services were yet to take centre stage.
In England, the transition from private to public servants took almost three centuries, from the 16th to the 19th, and the system was brought to India initially by the East India Company and retained by the British government. The civil services in British India were classified as covenanted and uncovenanted services on the basis of the nature of work, pay scales and appointing authority. The lower-ranking posts were manned by the Indians, who had to play the subordinate and supportive roles in the administration. Indians were considered ineligible for advancement to positions designated for the Covenanted Civil Service. Indian recruitment into British India’s Statutory Civil Service (SCS) was made possible by the Act of 1870. Thereafter, in 1879, the nomenclatures of the services were changed – the Covenanted Civil Service was renamed as the Indian Civil Service (ICS), while the Uncovenanted Civil Service became the Provincial Civil Service. Another service, namely the Subordinate Civil Service, was created by separating the lower-grade appointments from the former Uncovenanted Service.
The author, initially a senior member of the ACS, writes on the politicisation of the service and emphasises how bureaucrats and political leaders both gained from the process. He describes the submission of an annual confidential report of a civil servant in each year as one of the tools through which the submissiveness of an officer is gauged and reported to higher-ups. He also considers recruitment practices from the British colonial era. High caste status, property, social respectability, and allegiance to the British were the attributes given priority when hiring educated people from well-known families for lesser administrative roles in British India. He showed the family line of Haliram Dhekial Phukan – the author of the first published history of Assam in the Bengali language – who was appointed as Assistant Magistrate. His brother Yagjyaram Kharghoria Phukan was appointed police officer; his illustrious son Ananadaram Dhekial Phukan was appointed sub-assistant, then Gunabhiram Baruah of the same family; thereafter his son Jnannadabhiram Barooah was appointed EAC. Etc. Even meritorious youths of lower castes and poor families need recommendations from the Assamese elite class for getting an administrative post. This trend continued till the Assam Public Service Commission was formed on the 1st of April, 1937, pursuant to the provisions of the Govt. of India Act. 1935, and the first batch of the Assam Civil Service officers was formally recruited by the APSC in 1937.
Following the British acquisition of Assam, the administrative structure put in place was a principal assistant as a head for each district, assisted by junior assistants and sub-assistants. The Junior Assistant post was created in 1838. In 1872, the separate roles of Sadar Amins and Munsifs were abolished, and some of them were appointed as Extra Assistant Commissioners. The Junior Assistants and Sub-Assistants were renamed as Assistant Commissioners and Extra Assistant Commissioners, respectively, gaining Munsif jurisdiction, while the Deputy Commissioner was appointed Sub-Judge. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1886 specifies the legal standing of these offices, with the exception of the Sub Deputy Collector. Here it seems that the author slightly deviated from the factual position regarding the post of SDC, as the Aitchison’s report of 1887 discusses this post in detail, and it was included in the list of revenue officers by the government vide notification No. 42R, dated July 1, 1886, exercising authority under Section 124(a) of ALRR 1886.
The author laments the government’s disregard for the Assam Civil Service and criticises senior ACS members for failing to record the organisation’s past or contribute to its advancement. He contends that it is unethical for them to accuse the ACS of its current decline and degeneration. The ACS’s standing is further threatened by the government’s perceived active and passive meddling. Despite notable distinctions in hiring practices, working conditions, promotions, pay scales, and facilities, the ACS, which was formerly a subordinate service of the British government, has been subordinated to the Indian Administrative Service.
The State Civil Services Officers Federation in Bangalore passed a resolution calling for more support for SCS nominations to the IAS, which the author mentions while contrasting IAS and ACS facilities. This and issues like removing nominations from non-SCS officers, offering seniority benefits, establishing a seniority-cum-merit basis, etc., are some of the main recommendations. The author highlights the necessity of making a clear choice on whether the State Civil Service should maintain the IAS’s administrative framework while pursuing independence or continuing its supportive role. They advise strengthening the SCS’s representation in the IAS while decreasing its subordination. After retirement, SCS-turned-IAS officers encounter complete isolation from both the SCS and the IAS, putting this fact to the test.
The author, in his last round, repeated the history of ACS from the perspective of ACS Class II officers. Then he took up the promotion matter of the cadre and attempted to show the irregularities that cropped up in the promotion method, which was observed by the administrative tribunal in an appeal petition. The author appears to be not so happy with the provision of promoting ACS II officers to ACS I. The book is full of valuable enclosures as appendices, including the lists of APSC selections of various years. As the functional part of the ACS officers has not been discussed here, another supporting volume of the history would be the need of the hour.
(The writer can be reached at udayanhazarika@hotmail.com)