"Former IAS officer critique centralized administration system, stating it does not serve as a facilitator for..."
VIRAL
In a scathing critique, former IAS officer TR Raghunandan blasts the centralized power held by district magistrates, calling it a major hindrance to development and a damaging leftover from an outdated system.
Pravrajya Suruchi
Updated: June 1, 2025, 6:01 PM IST
TR Raghunandan, a retired IAS officer, has lashed out at the continued concentration of administrative power in the hands of district collectors, decrying it as "institutionally illogical" and a significant barrier to India's progress. In a blunt article published in The Print, Raghunandan, once a member of the Karnataka cadre, argues that this antiquated system warrants immediate reform.
Raghunandan argued that granting such immense power to a single individual – the district collector – no longer serves modern India. He claimed that the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) has instilled an unhealthy belief that collectors have ultimate authority and that the public must be subdued. This, he insisted, is detrimental and harmful.
While many have echoed Raghunandan's sentiments in the past, some of his former IAS colleagues have criticized him. One officer even asserted that he was tarnishing the image of the service and compared his views unfavorably to the pride displayed in the military. Raghunandan retorted by stating that he takes pride in his time as an IAS officer, but that doesn't mean he'll unquestioningly endorse everything about it. He believes genuine criticism is paramount to fostering actual improvement.
IN THE NEWS NOW
Centralized Control Is Stifling Growth
At the core of Raghunandan's argument lies the persistence of district magistrates' influence, even after three decades of economic reforms and attempts to empower local governments. He characterized the current system as antiquated, viewing it as an obstacle to the nation's advancement.
Raghunandan highlighted instances in Andhra Pradesh and Assam, where district collectors were in charge of 50 and 43 committees, respectively. This demonstrates the over-reliance on, and centralization of, this system. He also recalled a forgotten reform in Karnataka between 1987 and 1992, when the district collector answered to the elected head of Zilla Parishad. Despite concerns from IAS officers that chaos would ensue, everything ran smoothly – until the IAS took control back in 1992.
Raghunandan accused the IAS of resisting genuine devolution of power. He contended that although IAS officers often blame politicians for thwarting local governance, it is actually bureaucrats who draft rulebooks that maintain power in their own hands. He provided the Smart City Mission as an example, where local elected bodies are frequently ignored in favor of IAS-led committees, reducing accountability and transparency.
In response to concerns about corruption in local bodies, he stated that the IAS itself is an exclusive group that typically remains silent when powerful political leaders engage in corrupt practices.
Raghunandan concluded his piece by stating that the collector's role conforms to the current trend of strong, centralized leadership found in India. Unless there is a strong political will to empower local governments with genuine authority, he cautioned, progress will continue to falter.
Recent Developments
- Sports News
- Entertainment News
- Lifestyle News
- Stay updated with DNA on WhatsApp.*
TR Raghunandan
- IAS
- District Magistrate
- Central Government
- Decentralization
- Local Governance
- Corruption
- Andhra Pradesh
- Assam
- Karnataka
- The Print
- Reform
- elite capture
- IAS critique
- Abdul Nazir Sab
- Ramakrishna Hegde
- Panchayati Raj Institutions
- Urban Local Governments
- PRAGATI
- District Mineral Foundations
- Governing Councils
- 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments
- Development Projects
- Infrastructure
- Grievance Redressal
- Administrative Efficiency
- Decentralized Governance
- Participatory Governance
- Local Empowerment
Additional Insights
While the centralized power of district magistrates has its advantages, such as efficient planning, unified control, and coordination across departments, critics argue that it can lead to undermining local self-governance, inconsistent implementation of decentralization, reduced accountability, and administrative bottlenecks. Balancing these factors necessitates strengthening local institutions, clarifying roles, and fostering collaborative governance mechanisms, ensuring that both district administration and grassroots elected bodies can contribute optimally to India’s development.
- The former IAS officer TR Raghunandan, in a scathing article published in The Print, critiques the continued concentration of administrative power in the hands of district collectors, linking this issue to the obstacles faced by India in achieving progress.
- Raghunandan's piece also mentions the influence of district magistrates even after three decades of economic reforms, suggesting that this antiquated system is a hindrance to India's development and the empowerment of local governments.
- In the realm of policy-and-legislation and politics, Raghunandan's critique of the IAS and the centralized power held by district collectors adds a unique perspective to the ongoing discourse about decentralization, local governance, and corruption, calling for immediate reform in these areas.
