An Interview with Dr. Pradeep Kumar

Former Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

View as PDF

Dr. Pradeep Kumar is a former Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Over a distinguished 36-year career, he held positions at both the central and state levels of administration.

In the Union Government, Dr. Kumar held key positions, including Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture; Special Secretary, Ministry of Mines; Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor, Ministry of External Affairs; Joint Secretary, Planning Commission; and Director (Banking), Ministry of Finance. He also served as Government Director on the boards of several PSUs and public sector banks.

In the Government of Uttar Pradesh, he held multiple roles, notably as Principal Secretary, Home; Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment; and Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board. Earlier in his career, he served as Commissioner, Bareilly, and District Magistrate, Bahraich, etc.

Dr. Kumar has a PhD in Applied Economics and a Master’s degree in Physics and Development Studies. He is the author of Medicinal Plants in India: Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation in Emerging Global Scenario, reflecting his long-standing interest in environmental sustainability and the interface between natural resources and public policy.

In this conversation with The Policy Edge team, Dr. Kumar reflects on lessons from the field, the discipline of remaining principled amid change, the trade-offs between tenure and delivery, and what these mean for India’s next generation of public servants.

You come from a modest background in Meerut and have served in both the IPS and later the IAS, with close exposure to other services as well. How did this journey shape your understanding of public service?

I grew up in a middle-class family in Meerut with limited exposure to the civil services – my parents were educationists, and there weren’t many civil servants around to seek guidance or inspiration. After my Master’s, I decided to pursue civil services. I had initially appeared only for the IPS, but I was always fascinated by the IAS because of the variety of experiences it provides, besides prestige.

I also had the unique privilege of seeing other services from close quarters – Forest Service as Principal Secretary, Forest; IPS as Principal Secretary, Home; and IFS as Financial Advisor, Ministry of External Affairs. Every service has its own strengths and limitations, and it depends on one’s inclination and interest which service a civil services aspirant chooses.

Across these services I had the chance to see how administration shapes everyday life, and how complex that responsibility is. Those years taught me the balance between authority on one side and respect and fairness on the other.

While working in the field early in my career, I realised that no amount of training can fully prepare you for it. Each posting is different; and comes with its own lessons and challenges. The most valuable trait an officer can cultivate is the willingness to listen and to learn.

Curiosity has kept me steady through changing assignments and circumstance.

Your first field postings, from Nainital to Kanpur, shaped how you think about leadership. What did they teach you about government on the ground?

Nainital was my first real lesson in how administration works in layers – law, people, and politics often move together, but not always in sync. As the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, I handled a case where a patwari (holding the powers of an SHO in the hills) had been assaulted. I acted quickly, arrested the culprits, and thought the matter was settled. But soon after, a fictitious complaint was made by an influential local representative, and I was transferred without being given an opportunity to explain.

The episode stayed with me. It reminded me that administration is not only about acting within the law but also about understanding the ground beneath it. Leadership, I realised, is not about assertion, but awareness – seeing people and circumstances for what they are before deciding how to act. Law gives one power, but power also operates outside of it.

Two short postings in Kanpur as General Manager, UP Export Corporation, and later as Administrator, Milk Board, provided a different type of lesson. Both organisations were meant to promote private enterprise, yet I found ourselves competing with the private sector and losing in the bargain.

The intentions behind setting up these organisations might have been good, but the approach and implementation often missed the point. It made me reflect on what the government should do, and what it should leave to the private sector. Government works best when it enables rather than replaces. The role of an administrator is not to control every outcome but to create space for others to succeed.

Bureaucratic tenures are short; development timelines are not. How do you create continuity in a system built on rotation, and how do you make that continuity sustainable?

That mismatch lies at the heart of governance. Officers may serve in a posting for two or three years, but the outcomes we manage - soil health, groundwater, education, environment - unfold over long periods. In agriculture, for example, the constant pressure to raise food output often came with hidden costs. Eucalyptus provides timber but depletes water; chemical fertilisers may boost yields but weaken soil; subsidies for water have led to many unintended results and distorted cropping patterns. The short horizons of administration and limited mandates, compared with long-term impacts, are a reminder that bureaucratic and ecological clocks move at different speeds.

While posted in the Planning Commission, I found that there was an emphasis on internalising environmental concerns in plan formulation, but the mechanisms to ensure implementation were not yet in place. That problem continues. Whether in the international arena or at national or local levels, the talk on sustainable development is aplenty. But, in practice, environmental degradation continues, as reflected in the increasing number of natural calamities. The fact remains that environmental concerns have not entered the policy mainstream, and rhetoric often overshadows action. Words must align with action if environment protection is to be ensured.

In your experience, how does an officer stay steady in moments of institutional pressures - be it legal or political?

Every officer faces such moments.

I recall two cases involving the judiciary during my posting as Chairman, Pollution Control Board. There was a writ in the Supreme Court for which the Ministry of Environment and Forests convened a meeting in Delhi. On the same day, there was a hearing on a public interest litigation in the Lucknow High Court. I went to Delhi for the meeting, leaving my subordinates to attend the hearing at the High Court, but the Hon’ble judges expressed concern over my absence, and a contempt notice was issued. I was asked to appear in their chamber, and very strong language was used. The case was closed after intervention at the highest political and judicial levels. In another case, acting under legal advice, I faced a contempt notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had to tender an unconditional apology even though I believed that nothing wrong had been done.

That experience taught me something lasting. Institutions often move at different speeds and interpret responsibility differently. As officers, we can find ourselves caught in that overlap. But confrontation serves no purpose; composure does.

In many postings, I had to deal with those in positions of influence and power, but I had a simple solution that the best safeguard is clarity – never compromise, and never fear a transfer. What matters is to remain transparent, act in good faith, and keep a full record of decisions. Public service tests not only competence but balance – how one reacts under pressure. You can’t control proceedings, but you can control your conduct.

After four decades in public life, what gives you confidence about the next generation of officers?

The officers joining civil services are generally more experienced now as the recruitment age has gone up. The young officers I meet are sharper, more analytical, and more globally connected than earlier. They are comfortable with technology. Digital systems have streamlined routine work and that’s a good thing. It leaves officers more time for design, coordination, and innovation.

Governance itself has become more collaborative. Younger officers work easily with civil society. They see the government not as a fortress but as a platform. That’s a cultural shift – from command to cooperation.

Of course, challenges remain. People are more demanding as awareness has increased, for example through the Right to Information. We live in glass houses and are under constant scrutiny. Continuity varies across states – some demonstrate how consistency of process builds public trust, while others are still learning that lesson. Overall, though, the trend is positive: the system is more open, more professional, and more self-correcting than before.

If the next generation can pair efficiency with empathy, and technology with trust, India’s public institutions will continue to renew themselves and deliver what is expected of them.

View as PDF

Views are personal.