Keralam made headlines last week. The first, and the more prominent one, was that the Union Cabinet approved changing the name of the state from Kerala to Keralam. It drew abundant media attention. The ruling LDF, major components of the UDF and the BJP hailed it as a ‘historic’ step, in line with the current decolonisation drive.
The Keralam state Assembly had passed a unanimous resolution on this issue twenty months ago (June 2024). Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to X to send out his congratulations to the people of Keralam in Malayalam. The only critique came in from the Congress wordsmith, Shashi Tharoor, who pointed out that while Kerala appeared in Sanskrit and Tamil texts and the Ashokan edicts as far back as the 2nd century BCE, the name “Keralam” was referenced only around the 11th century CE.
However, the second announcement did not make it to the front page or merit a comment from Tharoor, or, for that matter, from anyone across the political spectrum. It was about India’s most ‘literate and empowered’ state joining the ranks of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, UP and Uttarakhand in raising the eligibility age for taking the state civil services examination. It has been increased to 40 years in the general category, with a five-year relaxation for those from other categories. As many readers may be aware, the state civil services are also a feeder service to the IAS. Given that it takes eighteen months for the recruitment process, and another eighteen to twenty-four months for institutional and on-the-job training, many such officers will be just a few years from their retirement when they step into their first ‘Sarkari job’.
While those who argue in favour of this populist move—for it raises hope without an expansion of opportunity—invoke the argument of diversity and inclusion, it is also important look at the counterfactual. Those who join beyond the age of 30 have limited chances of making it to the apex scale, irrespective of the service they join. In fact, after years of preparation, the frustration of not making it to leadership positions will continue to haunt them. This point was forcefully made by D Subbarao, former IAS officer and ex-RBI chief, and Yashovardhan Jha Azad, a former IPS officer and ex-central information commissioner.
Also read: In IAS exam age limit debate, focus should be on delaying retirement for Dalits, OBCs
Over the years
Let us take a look at the trajectory of entry-level age for civil servants. In 1955, the Public Services (Qualifications for Recruitment) Committee recommended an age band of 21–23 for the IAS, IFS and Central services, and 20 years for the IPS and the Forest service. The Kothari Committee (1976) and Satish Chandra Committee (1989) supported an upper limit of 26.
But political imperatives, particularly post-Mandal, saw the government raise it to 28, and later 30. By the turn of the century, committees headed by Yoginder Alagh and PC Hota proposed lowering the upper age limit to 26 and 24, respectively. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) echoed this, recommending a limit of 25.
Unfortunately, one of the last decisions of the UPA government was to raise the entry level age to 32. This was ostensibly done to address the concerns of aspirants against the key recommendations of the Arun Nigavekar Committee, which, in any case, were only partially accepted. The two main propositions—that of restricting the choice of the optional paper to the aspirant’s subject during undergraduate, and limiting the age to 25—were rejected.
The politics of lowering the age limit
One had hoped that UPA’s decision would be reversed by the Modi government. Especially as the 2017 NITI Aayog paper ‘Strategy for New India @ 75’ listed many civil service reforms. One of the major recommendations was the reduction in the upper age limit for the civil services to 27 years for the general category in a phased manner by 2022-23. However, the suggestion was turned down in 2018. The political calculus was clear: Lowering the age limit risks alienating a vocal and aspirational constituency.
Let us, however, juxtapose the concerns of the political leadership with facts on the ground. The main arguments made for increasing the upper age limit are to give a fair chance to candidates from tier 2 and 3 cities and rural areas, and to ensure equity in representation. The Civil Services Exam of the UPSC—colloquially the IAS exam—attracts over 1.3 million candidates every year.
However, much before this examination, there are four major entrance-level examinations, which school-leaving students take every year—NEET, JEE, CUET and the CLAT. In these entrance examinations, reservation exists on exactly the same lines as the UPSC. There is one minor difference only with respect to persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD)—for these entrance exams, it is 5 per cent, while in the UPSC, it is 4 per cent.
Also read: After 37 yrs in IAS, I can say UPSC exam isn’t the villain. Postings & incentives are
Five arguments to lower the age
Let us now take a look at the figures of students who take the entrance examinations mentioned above. Over 2 million students appear for the NEET, another 1.3-1.5 million for the JEE, 1.13 million for the CUET, and 92,000 for the CLAT. In each of the premier education institutions, the factor of inclusion has already been incorporated, and therefore, the country has a large enough pool from which candidates will be eligible for the UPSC exam. Except for a minuscule number of vacancies in some of the new IITs and IIMs, every single seat is filled up at the entry level. The NTA—which conducts the NEET, JEE and CUET—establishes centres across the country—over 500 for the NEET and 350 for the CUET—thereby blunting the argument that students of Tier 2/3 cities are at any disadvantage. In fact, it has been reported that 46 per cent of the top 500 students in the JEE exam are from the so-called disadvantaged geographies.
The second point to note is that with the proliferation of the coaching industry, opportunities for preparation are now at par across the country, from Rajouri in J&K to Itanagar in Arunachal Pradesh. The ubiquity of smartphones, coupled with the absolutely affordable data costs, and the availability of preparation material in every major language, and intense competition among the multiple centres, has seen deep discounts being offered. Let us not forget that this intervention is market, rather than state-driven.
Third, and more crucially, the numbers will not change: If, for example, there are two hundred vacancies in the IAS, thirty will go to the SC, fifteen to the STs, fifty-four to non-creamy layer OBC and twenty to the EWS and eight for PwBD, leaving sixty-three unreserved seats. When we have younger people in each category, there will be better bonding among them. Whether we like it or not, age cohorts get formed in the training academies. When the variation in age ranges from 23 to 43, the interests and expectations are certainly going to be different.
Fourth, is the oft-raised point about those in the reserved categories not becoming Secretaries to the Government of India and ambassadors to bigger nations. This will also be rationalised when the age barrier is lowered.
Fifth, organisations need younger people at the cutting-edge level. Just as the Commanding Officer is the key person in the army’s operational structure, for the IAS, it is the Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate. The army has made a conscious attempt to ensure that its Commanding officers are in their early thirties. Is it not imperative that we attempt to bring down the average age of a DC? As officers rise to this position after seven to nine years of service, they must take the exam when they are still in their early twenties.
To give my argument a context, Alexander had won all his decisive victories, including the one against Porus when he was all of 30 years of age, Swami Vivekananda delivered the famous Chicago address at the same age, Adi Shakracharya had established all the four Peeths and expounded the Advaita by the time he was thirty two, and Napolean had crowned himself as the Emperor when he turned 35. Therefore, while experience, wisdom and restraint may be important for advisory roles in statecraft, on-ground action calls for a younger, more energetic set with greater ability to take risks without fear or favour.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)