Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy has proposed an overhaul to the civil services, recommending that Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service officers be recruited from business schools and private sector rather than solely relying on the Union Public Service Commission examinations. While speaking at an event this month, Murthy said, “It is time for India to move from an administrative mindset to a management mindset. The administration is all about the status quo. On the other hand, management is all about vision and high aspiration. It’s about achieving the plausible impossible." According to the Infosys co-founder, the current system of competitive UPSC examinations can only produce civil servants trained in general administration. He recommended a management-based approach that focuses on vision, cost control, innovation, and rapid execution to cater to the changing demands of governance. To what extent is the co-founder right about not solely relying on the Union Public Service Commission examinations for hiring civil servants? Manas Srivastava talks to Ravi Kapoor, our expert, who answers some of the pertinent questions arising from the above mentioned comments of Narayana Murthy. About our Expert: Ravi Kapoor (Ex-IRS) offers free quality mentorship to UPSC aspirants, drawing upon his ten years of experience to create customised and productive curriculum. Through a free mentorship programme, he integrates tailored educational materials, psychological principles, visual learning techniques, and a strong emphasis on mental well-being into his teaching skills granting aspirants a chance to learn from his expertise. Q. What is your take on the recent comment of Narayana Murthy on IAS, IPS, UPSC? Ravi Kapoor: He has a point, but it’s not entirely accurate. UPSC and LBSNAA are not static institutions — they’ve evolved with the times. Ideas such as digitisation, e-governance, and New Public Management, which draw inspiration from the private sector, are already part of governance today. However, comparing civil services to the private sector overlooks fundamental differences in their nature of work. For example, an SP managing law and order in a district deals with situations like communal tensions, protests, or even natural disasters. Their decisions directly impact lives, public safety, and societal harmony, often in unpredictable, high-stakes scenarios. Contrast this with the CEO of a car manufacturer, whose primary focus is on optimising production, increasing sales, and ensuring profitability. While the CEO can focus on clear metrics like revenue growth, an SP or IAS officer must often work under conflicting pressures, balancing diverse public interests with limited resources. Similarly, an IAS officer implementing rural development schemes must navigate political, cultural, and logistical challenges that have no parallel in the corporate world. They don’t have the luxury of unilateral decision-making or the flexibility to pivot quickly without public accountability. While the push for greater efficiency and innovation in governance is valid, it’s essential to recognise that the public sphere operates under a completely different set of principles—focused on equity, inclusion, and accountability rather than profit. Suggesting that civil servants adopt corporate practices is useful, but the comparison must be made with an understanding of these stark contrasts. Q. What do you feel about Narayana Murthy's comparison between Civil Servants and IIM graduates? Ravi Kapoor: I respect Narayana Murthy for his immense contributions, but his comparison between IAS officers and corporate professionals misses some critical nuances. IAS officers already undergo training at premier institutions like IIMs as part of their induction. Interestingly, many IIM graduates themselves choose to join the civil services, recognizing the broader impact and challenges of governance. Moreover, the government routinely engages consultancy firms like Deloitte, which is populated by IIM alumni, to provide specialised inputs on policy and execution. When it comes to intellectual and behavioral qualities, IIM graduates hold no inherent advantage over IAS officers. If anything, IAS officers bring a more well-rounded skill set to the table. They possess a higher degree of emotional intelligence, broader exposure to diverse socio-political landscapes, and the ability to work under extreme constraints. Their roles demand dynamism, resilience, and an unmatched ability to balance competing interests — all while operating in a highly scrutinised public sphere. While efficiency and innovation are vital, it’s incorrect to assume that importing more IIM-trained individuals into the IAS would be a game-changer. The two groups are already part of the same intellectual ecosystem, but IAS officers often face far greater challenges, requiring them to rise to levels of adaptability and leadership that few others experience. Q. What is the difference between B-schools and Civil Services as institutions? Ravi Kapoor: B-schools and the civil services are fundamentally different in purpose, training, and principles. B-schools are designed to prepare individuals for profit-driven environments. For example, at IIMs, students are trained in marketing strategies, consumer behavior, and profit maximisation. They learn to sell products, manage brands, and drive business growth. Success in a B-school is measured by one’s ability to increase shareholder value and optimise efficiencies within a competitive market. In contrast, at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration (LBSNAA), civil servants are trained with a completely different focus. The core principle is not to sell, but to serve. Officers are prepared to handle governance, address public grievances, and implement policies that impact millions, often in environments fraught with political, social, and economic complexities. An IAS officer in training learns how to manage disaster relief, oversee public welfare programs, and balance development priorities, all while maintaining equity and accountability. For instance, a corporate CEO might focus on marketing a car to maximize sales, whereas a District Magistrate (DM) might focus on ensuring fair distribution of essential supplies like food or water during a crisis. While both roles require leadership, the DM works in an environment where profits are irrelevant, and the stakes involve human lives and public trust. Q. What is wrong with Civil Services for which reforms are being suggested? Ravi Kapoor: The civil services face challenges like rigidity, bureaucratic silos, and a slow pace of decision-making, which often stem from their hierarchical structure. In a democracy, governance prioritizes consensus over speed, which can create delays, but that doesn’t mean the system is beyond reform. One key issue is the lack of specialisation. Officers frequently rotate between departments, making it difficult to build deep expertise in critical sectors like health, technology, or urban planning. Introducing more lateral entry, where professionals from diverse fields join the civil services mid-career, is a reform I strongly support. This would inject fresh perspectives and domain-specific expertise into governance while complementing the generalist skills of IAS officers. Reforms like performance-linked evaluations, digitisation, and modern training methods have already begun addressing these issues. However, the focus must now shift to encouraging innovation, fostering accountability, and creating an environment where both civil servants and lateral entrants can thrive together. Q. How would such a comment impact aspirants and the institution of Civil Services? Ravi Kapoor: For aspirants, comments like these can be disheartening. But it’s important to see them as an opportunity for introspection. Instead of feeling demoralised, aspirants should focus on preparing for the real-world challenges of governance. As for the institution, such criticism reminds us that visible results matter. Civil servants must ensure their work inspires trust and confidence among the public, which is the ultimate test of their effectiveness. Q. What would you recommend as a way forward? Ravi Kapoor: The way forward lies in embracing reforms that make the system more agile, specialised, and outcome-oriented. Lateral entry is a step in the right direction. By bringing in professionals with deep domain expertise from outside the traditional bureaucracy, we can complement the broader skills of IAS officers and create a more dynamic governance ecosystem. Additionally: Encourage Specialisation: Allow officers to gain in-depth expertise in sectors like technology, health, and education to handle complex, modern challenges. Expand Training: LBSNAA’s curriculum should focus more on real-world problem-solving, case-based learning, and collaborative leadership. Reward Innovation: Build mechanisms to recognise and reward civil servants who demonstrate exceptional initiative and results. Promote Collaboration: Foster a culture where lateral entrants, civil servants, and external experts work together seamlessly to create holistic solutions. By combining the experience and adaptability of civil servants with the domain expertise of lateral entrants, we can create a governance model that is both modern and rooted in the values of public service. This balance is key to meeting India’s evolving challenges while ensuring efficiency and equity. For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com. The Indian Express UPSC Essentials brings to you the November issue of its monthly magazine. Click Here to read. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
