Policy Paralysis refers to the state of being unable to implement new policies or make important decisions due to bureaucratic inefficiencies or political gridlock.

Authored by Dilip Cherian Forget about the slogans. The real story here is not about "opening the doors" to experts, but rather about how quickly the government panicked as soon as there was a hint of political trouble. It has been over a year since the UPSC advertised 45 lateral-entry positions at the Joint Secretary, Director, and Deputy Secretary levels, only to retract them immediately due to political backlash over reservations. And now, we find ourselves back in the stage of consultations. The Department of Personnel & Training claims to be discussing changes with various ministries, but as of now, it's all just words on paper. If lateral entry was truly the revolutionary change it was promised to be, then the bureaucracy, which is known to be one of the most rigid institutions in the country, would not be facing the same obstacles once again. What is concerning is that even though around 60 domain specialists were brought in before, only 38-40 of them remain now. This high attrition rate speaks volumes about the challenges faced by lateral entry. However, lateral entry in itself is not a bad idea. India's civil services can certainly benefit from the expertise of professionals from various fields such as economics, technology, and science, especially when policy challenges are becoming more complex. But the implementation process is crucial. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, we run the risk of losing the best of both worlds - compromising meritocracy while inviting nepotism and political interference. The backlash against reservations was not just a political drama. It highlighted a bigger issue - the fact that the reform was not thoroughly thought through in the context of India's legal framework and social justice commitments. Simply reviving the idea without addressing key aspects such as eligibility, evaluation criteria, accountability, and job security, will not suffice. Lateral entry should not be treated as a trendy slogan that is recycled every election cycle. For it to truly work, it must be institutionalized with clear and concise rules. It should not be discarded at the first sign of difficulty. Precise Missiles, Chaotic Administration The recent decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal to scrap the appointment of Jaiteerth R. Joshi as the Director General of BrahMos Aerospace sheds light on the incompetence of India's bureaucratic machinery, even when dealing with matters of utmost importance. When an institution as strategically crucial as BrahMos is ordered to "recommence the selection process," it is a polite way of saying that the governance standards need serious improvement. BrahMos is not just an ordinary innovation laboratory; it is a flagship Indo-Russian defense collaboration that plays a central role in India's deterrence capability and technological prestige. One would expect the appointment of its chief to be a model of transparency and institutional rigor. However, as is often the case, there were issues with seniority, evaluation, and a lack of convincing justification. The complaint filed by DRDO's Distinguished Scientist S. Nambi Naidu goes beyond a personal grievance. It highlights our deep-rooted discomfort with meritocracy when it conflicts with other considerations. If the most senior and highest-ranked candidate is overlooked, the system must have a solid and documented reason. This is not just a common courtesy; it is the foundation of good governance. But the bigger concern is that this incident is not an isolated one. From police chiefs to PSU leaders and regulatory heads, a significant number of crucial appointments end up in litigation because the government treats due process as an optional add-on. The courts and tribunals should not have to repeatedly remind the administrative bodies of their moral responsibilities. In defense institutions, the credibility of leadership is not just for show. If the government wants to claim efficiency and professionalism, it must demonstrate it where it matters the most. Cadre Expansion in Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh has recently increased the sanctioned strength of its IAS officers. This means more positions, more senior roles, and a more organized reserve system. This expansion indicates two truths. Firstly, there is now an official recognition of the magnitude of UP's governance challenges. A state as vast as this cannot be run with a handful of bureaucrats who are constantly putting out fires. But unless there is a shift in the culture surrounding postings, autonomy, and accountability, this move by the government could just be creating a larger administrative ensemble that will still be forced to dance to political tunes. The shortage of officers was never the only issue in Uttar Pradesh. Frequent transfers, short tenures, parallel power structures, and political interference have weakened the authority of the administrative bodies at every level. Hiring more District Magistrates, Commissioners, and Secretaries is not enough if they are only able to hold onto their positions for a few months rather than years. How does this strengthen governance? UP does not just need more officers; it needs a system that trusts them to do their job. A stable tenure, protection from arbitrary interference, well-defined responsibilities, and outcome-based accountability are far more valuable than just increasing the number of cadres. Otherwise, this entire exercise could turn into a classic Indian bureaucratic drama - impressive paperwork, impressive numbers, and impressive announcements, but a reality of governance that refuses to improve. In conclusion, the government must recognize the need for a comprehensive and transparent approach towards lateral entry, appointments of crucial positions, and cadre expansion. Without addressing the underlying issues and implementing effective measures, we risk compromising the integrity and efficiency of our bureaucratic system. It's time for a real change, not just empty slogans and short-term solutions.