In a recent article, Ms Shailaja Chandra — among the most illustrious officers of the Indian Administrative Service — argued that the UPSC Civil Services Examination has degenerated into a memory contest.
In particular, she stated: “Training cannot create qualities that never existed. If the bureaucracy is to guide the nation toward the goal of Viksit Bharat by 2047, the CSE must find capabilities — not memory.”
I must respectfully, but fundamentally, disagree with this premise. I joined the IAS with All India Rank 2 in 1984, served thirty-seven years in the Punjab cadre and the Government of India, and retired in 2021. Later, as Director General of the Punjab State Institute of Public Administration, I mentored aspirants for the All-India and State Services. From that vantage point, I can say with confidence: today’s CSE is anything but a rote-learning test.
Also Read: UPSC Civil Services Exam has been reduced to a memory test. That’s not how you select officers
What the exam actually tests
The General Studies papers force candidates to analyse complex issues under time pressure, weave facts into coherent answers, and defend a perspective. There are no perfect answers, only argued ones. Success depends on clarity, internal consistency, and the ability to prioritise.
The interview, likewise, is not about right or wrong but about reasoning, composure, and adaptability. To dismiss this as mere memory work is to confuse preparation with pedantry. The strongest candidates practise structuring arguments and anticipating counter-questions — skills directly relevant to governance.
The AI argument, misapplied
A common critique is that artificial intelligence has made recall redundant, so the exam should shift to psychometrics. This misunderstands both. AI is a tool — excellent for retrieving precedents and flagging inconsistencies — but it cannot carry accountability.
Civil servants routinely face choices between near-equal alternatives: prioritising projects, balancing relief with sustainability, applying rules where equity and efficiency diverge. These demand judgment under uncertainty and moral courage, not algorithmic pattern-matching. AI can inform; it cannot answer for consequences in legislatures or courts.
The real bottleneck: deployment, not selection
We select individuals capable of becoming Formula One drivers. Then we give them rickety Maruti 800s on potholed roads and expect championship lap times. The disappointment is blamed on “poor selection”. In reality, the fault lies in how officers are deployed and rewarded.
Tenures are unstable, postings arbitrary, and empanelment opaque. Promotions often reward compliance and patronage, not outcomes. When the system punishes honest speed — by dredging up files years later to allege “undue haste” — rational officers respond by minimising risk, not maximising initiative. No exam can compensate for such systemic disincentives.
On innate qualities and training
The claim that “training cannot create what never existed” is too deterministic. Institutions shape people. Mentoring, exposure to real crises, the discipline of writing reasoned orders, and scrutiny by courts all help develop prudence, empathy, and courage.
Yes, individuals differ in disposition, but organisational culture amplifies or stifles those traits. Capability is not pre-installed; it is cultivated.
The value of preparation
I also respectfully disagree that CSE preparation is merely a drain on lakhs of students and their families. Even those who do not clear the exam emerge better informed, disciplined, and analytical. They learn to connect dots, view issues broadly, and handle pressure — qualities useful in other careers and in life.
The process itself, though costly, offers commensurate benefits: intellectual breadth, discipline, and resilience. These remain long after the exam is over, distinguishing candidates from peers who never undertook this rigour.
What really needs reform
Where the system falters is in fairness. Misuse of eligibility criteria — gaming income thresholds or transferring assets — must be checked rigorously. Verification should be strict, consequences real.
Training, too, must become more demanding. Not lectures, but simulations — disaster drills, budget trade-offs, ethical dilemmas — where reasoning matters more than “right answers”.
These reforms would strengthen the service without dismantling the exam’s core strengths.
Measures that would actually help
If the aim is a bureaucracy fit for Viksit Bharat by 2047, the reforms we need are:
- Transparent empanelment. Publish criteria and reasons; ensure oversight.
- Tenure protection. Guarantee stability unless misconduct occurs.
- Protection for honest speed. Reward timely decisions made with due process.
- Structured mentoring. Make it a responsibility for senior officers.
- Simulation-based training. Practise judgment under pressure.
- Smarter use of AI. Deploy it to reduce busywork, not replace accountability.
- Rigorous fairness audits. Verify misuse of categories with full transparency.
Performance in the clutch
Critics overlook one truth: when calamities strike, the administrative steel shows. Be it pandemics, floods, or elections, District Collectors and field officers mobilise the machinery of the state and deliver results.
If India has held together as a union of states through repeated stress tests, the All-India Services deserve credit.
Also Read: A century of UPSC. A ‘colonial tool’ rewired by protests, committees, even scandal
Fix incentives, not the exam
The CSE is not perfect, but it is not the villain. Governance will not improve by chasing a metaphysical idea of “innate capability”. It will improve by selecting bright, motivated generalists — which the exam already does — and then nurturing them through fair incentives, stable tenures, and rigorous training.
Capability is not a chip you either have or lack. It is shaped by institutions, incentives, and example. If we build those right, India will have the administrators it needs for Viksit Bharat 2047.
KBS Sidhu is a former IAS officer who retired as Special Chief Secretary, Punjab. He tweets @kbssidhu1961. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
This is strawman and a poor article in general. It basically doesn’t even address the issues in UPSC, just one complaint out of many. It’s not just the memory based exam issue but the idealisation of the service to an extent that it’s not even considered a public service anymore, but a position of power, thoroughly abused as seen in many cases and probably many unreported cases. The amount of behavioral issues among civil servants is so prevalent, that it has rightly earned its reputation of being the puppets of politicians. Anyway, I see no mention of safeguards against abuse by politicians for their own benefit. A thousand issues with the UPSC, an outdated exam pattern with no transparent selection process. Obviously a former civil servant would defend the institution that made him, but this desperate effort to counter valid criticism falls flat. If they know how to drive in formula 1, who is giving them the maruti? Funny. It’s you thats the beraucracy. It’s you who atleast get to drive the maruti, metaphorically, while the people that rely on your work, are not even able to ride a bicycle, metaphorically ofcourse. I had a couple of chuckles reading the article. Funny man
The schools have become the schools training Godi Giri , Questioning punishable, freedom from accountability and compliance and freedom from corruption. They are competing with the politicians in growing.
I really appreciate your views. Very nicely written and expressed.
Best Regards
alakesh
Besides the issues in selection process, the induction as well as future trainings seem improper and inadequate. The officers do not take it as a public service but to act as a boss to command! They keep themselves isolated from the general public and feel they are superior to others unlike in other advanced countries! They fail to honour the technocrats who really deliver on the ground. On the other hand they fall victims to political bosses. Whole criss cross and confusion to show right direction to nation. Training should be so good that shapes up their mindset and personality.