'IAS has built a myth around collector's infallibility': Ex-bureaucrat says DM post is outdated, stalling India's progress
"The district collector is not a facilitator of development; he or she is a bottleneck," says the former IAS
- Jun 1, 2025,
- Updated Jun 1, 2025 9:49 AM IST
The continued concentration of administrative power in the hands of the district magistrate is institutionally irrational and a serious impediment to development, former IAS officer TR Raghunandan has said in a sharply critical piece published in The Print.
Raghunandan, who earlier served in the Karnataka cadre, wrote: "The concentration of administrative powers in the district magistrate is an impediment to development. The IAS circle has carefully cultivated the myth of the collector’s infallibility and has pushed a narrative that citizens must be kept under check, lest they step out of line."
He had made similar observations earlier, but faced pushback from some of his former collegues. Reacting to criticism from former IAS colleagues, one of whom accused him of “demolishing” the service and contrasted his comments with the military's pride in its uniformed ranks, Raghunandan clarified that his intent was not to attack individuals.
"As far as I am concerned, I am immensely proud to have once been an IAS officer...However, that pride does not translate into blind loyalty to the IAS tribe or to the unequivocal acceptance of the mythology and group-speak of the service. Criticism of the IAS’s conservative clinging to outdated institutions does not denote a lack of pride; rather, it draws attention to the crying need for introspection, without bias or slant,” he wrote.
Raghunandan argued that comparisons between the civil service and armed forces are inappropriate, stressing that “in most circumstances, we are not dealing with an enemy; we are dealing with fellow citizens.”
The crux of his argument lies in the persistence of the district collector’s role as a centralised authority — despite three decades of economic liberalisation and the constitutional empowerment of local governments.
"The antiquated idea of district administration being handled by an overworked single officer has not been shed. This mindset has become a millstone around the neck of India," he stated. "The district collector is not a facilitator of development; he or she is a bottleneck."
Citing the 15th report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Raghunandan highlighted that collectors in Andhra Pradesh and Assam were chairing at least 50 and 43 committees, respectively — a number that has likely grown worse over time. He called attention to a largely forgotten reform experiment in Karnataka between 1987 and 1992, when then CM Ramakrishna Hegde and rural development minister Abdul Nazir Sab made the district collector subordinate to the Zilla Parishad chief. “In spite of dire warnings from the IAS that citizens would be confused and mayhem would ensue… nothing of the sort happened,” Raghunandan wrote. The IAS, he noted, reasserted control in 1992 by abolishing the chief secretary posts in Zilla Parishads and reinstating collectors as administrators.
Raghunandan also took aim at what he described as the IAS's long-standing resistance to empowering local governments. "Throughout one's service, one sees that the majority of IAS officers articulate policies and write up the fine print of centralisation," he said, adding that IAS officers often claim MLAs and higher-level politicians block decentralisation, but in reality, it is IAS "wordsmiths" who design the operational tools for subversion.
He noted that programmes like the Smart City Mission bypass elected bodies and are often implemented by special purpose vehicles headed by IAS officers, leaving no local accountability.
Addressing the argument that local governance may lead to elite capture or corruption, Raghunandan wrote: "This argument is ironic, as it ignores the fact that the IAS itself constitutes a powerful elite, which often looks the other way when higher political levels engage in grave acts of corruption."
He concluded that the post of district collector fits well into today’s "muscular, personality-oriented leadership" paradigm and that no real political push exists for participative governance. "What needs to be done—establishing truly functional local governments with constitutionally devolved powers—is clear as daylight to everybody," he said. "However, in the absence of any real political push for it, all government actions at the district level will remain constrained by the need to be supervised by the district collector. The country will stand to lose, in wasted time."
The continued concentration of administrative power in the hands of the district magistrate is institutionally irrational and a serious impediment to development, former IAS officer TR Raghunandan has said in a sharply critical piece published in The Print.
Raghunandan, who earlier served in the Karnataka cadre, wrote: "The concentration of administrative powers in the district magistrate is an impediment to development. The IAS circle has carefully cultivated the myth of the collector’s infallibility and has pushed a narrative that citizens must be kept under check, lest they step out of line."
He had made similar observations earlier, but faced pushback from some of his former collegues. Reacting to criticism from former IAS colleagues, one of whom accused him of “demolishing” the service and contrasted his comments with the military's pride in its uniformed ranks, Raghunandan clarified that his intent was not to attack individuals.
"As far as I am concerned, I am immensely proud to have once been an IAS officer...However, that pride does not translate into blind loyalty to the IAS tribe or to the unequivocal acceptance of the mythology and group-speak of the service. Criticism of the IAS’s conservative clinging to outdated institutions does not denote a lack of pride; rather, it draws attention to the crying need for introspection, without bias or slant,” he wrote.
Raghunandan argued that comparisons between the civil service and armed forces are inappropriate, stressing that “in most circumstances, we are not dealing with an enemy; we are dealing with fellow citizens.”
The crux of his argument lies in the persistence of the district collector’s role as a centralised authority — despite three decades of economic liberalisation and the constitutional empowerment of local governments.
"The antiquated idea of district administration being handled by an overworked single officer has not been shed. This mindset has become a millstone around the neck of India," he stated. "The district collector is not a facilitator of development; he or she is a bottleneck."
Citing the 15th report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Raghunandan highlighted that collectors in Andhra Pradesh and Assam were chairing at least 50 and 43 committees, respectively — a number that has likely grown worse over time. He called attention to a largely forgotten reform experiment in Karnataka between 1987 and 1992, when then CM Ramakrishna Hegde and rural development minister Abdul Nazir Sab made the district collector subordinate to the Zilla Parishad chief. “In spite of dire warnings from the IAS that citizens would be confused and mayhem would ensue… nothing of the sort happened,” Raghunandan wrote. The IAS, he noted, reasserted control in 1992 by abolishing the chief secretary posts in Zilla Parishads and reinstating collectors as administrators.
Raghunandan also took aim at what he described as the IAS's long-standing resistance to empowering local governments. "Throughout one's service, one sees that the majority of IAS officers articulate policies and write up the fine print of centralisation," he said, adding that IAS officers often claim MLAs and higher-level politicians block decentralisation, but in reality, it is IAS "wordsmiths" who design the operational tools for subversion.
He noted that programmes like the Smart City Mission bypass elected bodies and are often implemented by special purpose vehicles headed by IAS officers, leaving no local accountability.
Addressing the argument that local governance may lead to elite capture or corruption, Raghunandan wrote: "This argument is ironic, as it ignores the fact that the IAS itself constitutes a powerful elite, which often looks the other way when higher political levels engage in grave acts of corruption."
He concluded that the post of district collector fits well into today’s "muscular, personality-oriented leadership" paradigm and that no real political push exists for participative governance. "What needs to be done—establishing truly functional local governments with constitutionally devolved powers—is clear as daylight to everybody," he said. "However, in the absence of any real political push for it, all government actions at the district level will remain constrained by the need to be supervised by the district collector. The country will stand to lose, in wasted time."