Rahul Gandhi Criticizes Modi Government Lateral Entry Policy, Calls it an Attack on Social Justice
Rahul Gandhi has criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for what he describes as an assault on constitutional institutions through the Centre’s lateral entry policy into high-ranking government positions. Gandhi accuses the Modi administration of bypassing the traditional Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) route to recruit candidates aligned with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This move, according to Gandhi, undermines the rights of marginalized communities and threatens the principles of social justice and reservation.
Gandhi took to social media to voice his concerns, stating that the Modi government’s recruitment practices are sidestepping the established process in favor of candidates affiliated with the RSS. He argues that this approach is not only an attack on the Constitution but also a deliberate attempt to erode the representation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in top government positions.
The Congress leader emphasized the existing underrepresentation of marginalized communities in senior bureaucratic roles. Instead of working to correct this imbalance, Gandhi believes that the lateral entry policy exacerbates it by making it even harder for these communities to access these prestigious positions.
Gandhi’s critique extended to the broader implications of the lateral entry system. He warned that the policy is essentially a “robbery” of opportunities for talented youth preparing for the UPSC, which has traditionally been the gateway to India’s civil services. He framed the policy as a direct threat to the concept of social justice, arguing that it diminishes the chances of the underprivileged to rise to significant positions within the government.
One of the most pointed criticisms Gandhi made was regarding the appointment of private sector professionals to key government roles, citing the example of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), where a private sector individual was appointed as Chairperson for the first time. He questioned the potential impact of such appointments on the functioning of the government and the preservation of social justice.
Gandhi went on to describe the lateral entry policy as a step toward the “privatization” of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), suggesting that this move could lead to the dismantling of the reservation system that has been a cornerstone of India’s social justice framework. He vowed that the INDIA bloc, a coalition opposed to Modi’s policies, would strongly resist this “anti-national” step, which he believes harms both the administrative structure and the principles of social justice.
The controversy arose after the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) announced the recruitment of 45 positions through lateral entry, including 10 Joint Secretary roles and 35 Director/Deputy Secretary roles. This represents the largest batch of lateral entry recruitment undertaken by the Central Government, signaling a significant shift from traditional hiring practices that have historically relied on officers from the IAS, Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Forest Service (IFoS), and other Group A services.
Traditionally, these top government roles have been filled by career bureaucrats who have climbed the ranks within the civil services, but the Modi government’s lateral entry policy is designed to bring in fresh perspectives from the private sector and academia. While supporters of the policy argue that it introduces expertise and innovation into the government, critics like Gandhi warn that it could undermine the foundational principles of India’s administrative system.
Gandhi’s remarks have ignited a debate about the future of India’s bureaucracy and the role of reservation in promoting social equity. The Congress leader’s strong stance against the lateral entry policy reflects broader concerns about the direction in which the Modi government is taking the country, particularly in relation to the representation of marginalized communities in the nation’s governance.