UPSC reforms | Are we asking the right questions?

As someone who has also trained multiple batches of civil servants, I can affirm that those with real-world exposure — parenting, private sector, or grassroots activism — often engage more deeply with issues of poverty, inequality, and justice.

The ritualistic call for reforming India’s civil services examination resurfaces with predictable intensity each time the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) publishes its results. Former RBI Governor D Subbarao, in a recent piece, advocated reducing the upper age limit and number of attempts for aspirants while expanding lateral entry options to bring in talent at later stages.

While the motivations are clear — enhancing efficiency and agility — the underlying assumptions merit deeper scrutiny. Do younger entrants inherently make better civil servants? Is early recruitment a proxy for brilliance? Is lateral entry the only route for injecting talent into governance? Or are we missing a far more inclusive reform opportunity?

A system built to eliminate, not select

India’s civil services exam is not designed as a selection system — it is fundamentally an elimination mechanism. Over 1 million candidates apply annually, and only about 800 are finally recommended. This filtering is necessary given the scale, but its design tends to privilege those with early access to resources, coaching, and elite education — factors often correlated with social privilege rather than raw administrative potential.

What we need is not just filtration, but selection and curation of talent. That can only begin when we consciously recognise that maturity, insight, and commitment are not bound by age.

What the world has already understood

Many advanced democracies have moved toward broader inclusion in their civil services. The United Kingdom Civil Service Fast Stream allows candidates across age groups, with no upper age limit for most tracks. The emphasis lies on behavioural assessments and job simulations, not memorised general studies.

France’s decision to abolish the École Nationale d’Administration (ENA) and promote a more representative bureaucracy through ISMaPP was driven by the same goal: open the system to people with real-life exposure and social commitment. Germany, Australia, and Canada have mature frameworks to induct experienced professionals and career switchers at multiple levels, focusing on skill diversity, not just age.

These systems display a deep institutional confidence that India must emulate: that governance improves when the entry gate welcomes both promise and perspective.

Widening the gate, reducing the distortion

Instead of reinforcing a narrow window in one’s early 20s, India could allow aspirants up to 50 years of age to compete, provided they have sufficient residual service and cap attempts to ensure focus and economy. This would allow those who discover their calling later in life — teachers, healthcare workers, entrepreneurs, social workers — to participate meaningfully in governance.

Indeed, recent UPSC data shows that the age profile of successful candidates is already shifting. In the 2022 cycle, over 30 per cent of recommended candidates were aged 28 and above.

With such inclusive access, the need for lateral entry may naturally diminish. A truly open front door reduces the compulsion to create special side doors. Rather than debate lateral-versus-direct entry, the focus should be on ensuring that whoever enters is assigned roles based on performance and alignment with public good — not merely on seniority.

Learning from the ground

Having served for 18 years across multiple administrative and development portfolios, I have witnessed firsthand how some effective officers inducted into the IAS in their 40s via promotion from the ranks have performed well. Their institutional memory, life experiences, and sense of proportion are often invaluable in complex decision-making environments.

Conversely, some younger officers — despite academic brilliance — have stumbled when faced with ethical choices, public pressure, or field realities. Publicity mania over social media reels, blatant corruption, and display of arrogance have all come from these carefully ‘selected’ young candidates. Governance is not a university quiz — it is a continuous test of discretion, empathy, and courage.

As someone who has also trained multiple batches of civil servants, I can affirm that those with real-world exposure — be it parenting, private sector, or grassroots activism — often engage more deeply with issues of poverty, inequality, and justice. These are not weaknesses — they are strengths born of lived life.

Age myth and machinery that must change

The notion that older officers are harder to train is outdated. If anything, institutions must evolve to accommodate learners of all ages. India’s own Mission Karmayogi, launched in 2020, represents a visionary step in this direction. It aims to build a ‘future-ready civil service’ through competency-based continuous learning, behavioural transformation, and technology-enabled evaluation.

What Mission Karmayogi affirms — without explicitly stating — is that age is no barrier to excellence when the system is designed to nurture it. It is performance, not pedigree, that must guide public service roles. Dynamism is not a function of age. A P J Abdul Kalam inspired the nation’s youth well into his seventies. E Sreedharan revolutionised Indian metro infrastructure in his sixties. T N Seshan restored electoral credibility in his fifties. What they had in common was not their age — but their clarity of purpose. Civil service recruitment should serve the goal of attracting maximum good talent, from every corner of India, across every age group and social background. If a farmer’s son discovers the desire to serve the nation at 38, or a woman reclaims her career after motherhood at 45, the nation should welcome their idealism — not penalise their delay.

Indeed, our true challenge lies not in the age of entry, but in what kind of system they enter, and how we nurture their talent. Much of our administrative architecture still functions with colonial rigidity — valuing compliance over creativity, and hierarchy over initiative and results.

It is time we stopped obsessing over the filter and started redesigning the machine to suit the times.

Dharma: The real qualification

Ultimately, the core of public service is not speed, or memory, or youthful plasticity — it is understanding and adherence to Dharma.

Not in its ritualistic sense, but as a moral framework of selfless duty, public good, and inner balance that is contextual. Dharma enables an officer to listen to the voiceless, to choose what is right over what is easy, and to recognise power as a responsibility, not a prize.

Dharma — this quiet, incorruptible clarity — often matures with age, and enables you to arrive at contextually just decisions.

Why India must ask better questions

Let us stop asking how young is too old. Let us start asking whether we are ready to accept wisdom, experience, and compassion — wherever they emerge. Let us not narrow the gates of service out of administrative convenience. Let us widen them in the spirit of the Constitution. Let us stop designing our recruitment processes to suit the administrative machinery of the colonial past. Let us rebuild the machinery to suit the aspirations of our future. In the end, the strength of a nation lies not in how early its servants arrive, but in how deeply they care, how wisely they act, and how selflessly they serve.

Let the civil services not be a race against time — but a doorway to purpose. Let it recognise not just the swift, but the steady; not just the coached, but the conscious; not just the young, but the ready.

For when the gates of governance open to all who are worthy — whenever they come — India will not just be administered….India will be served.

(Prasanth Nair is a civil servant and author. X: @PrasanthIAS.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.