An Interview with Dr. R. S. Sharma
Former Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
View as PDF
Dr. R. S. Sharma, retired IAS, is a former Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Over a distinguished four-decade career in public service, he has held several key positions in government and public institutions, including Chief Executive Officer, National Health Authority (NHA); Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology; and Director-General and Mission Director, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). He also served in the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, where he worked with multilateral and bilateral financial institutions.
At the state level, Dr. Sharma served as Chief Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, and as Principal Secretary in the Departments of Science and Technology and Information Technology. In Bihar, he held key field and departmental assignments, including Transport Commissioner and District Magistrate and Collector in Purnia, Dhanbad, and Begusarai.
Dr. Sharma was instrumental in implementing the Ayushman Bharat - Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) and in launching the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM), a transformative initiative to build a digital health ecosystem for India.
Dr. Sharma holds Master’s degrees in Mathematics from IIT Kanpur and Computer Science from the University of California, Riverside, and has a Ph.D. in e-Governance from IIT Delhi. He is the author of The Making of Aadhaar: World’s Largest Identity Platform, which chronicles the design, challenges, and policy vision behind India’s digital identity programme.
In this conversation with The Policy Edge team, Dr. R. S. Sharma reflects on a career that spans district administration, digital transformation, and institutional reform. From early administrative and computerisation initiatives in Bihar to leading national platforms such as Aadhaar and Digital India, steering TRAI, and guiding the NHA, he discusses how technology, transparency, and process discipline can strengthen public trust and make governance work predictably for every citizen.
You began your administrative career in Bihar in the late 1970s, when public expectations were high but systems were often under strain. What shaped your early approach to governance?
The districts were a great learning ground. I saw first-hand how deeply citizens depend on even the smallest government decision: a pension approval, a land record, a certificate. Being that close to people’s realities teaches you perspective and humility.
In those days, government processes were entirely manual. Treasury accounts would take months to reconcile. Out of curiosity and impatience, I wrote a small MS-DOS program to automate the ledgers. It wasn’t meant as a reform – just a way to save time and errors. But once the results came faster and more accurately, everyone wanted it replicated.
Later, as Transport Commissioner, I applied the same idea to vehicle tax payments, linking multiple districts through a basic Unix network, making it easy for drivers to pay vehicle taxes at counters without harassment. Within four years, revenues rose from ₹48 crore to ₹152 crore. More importantly, compliance went up because people trusted the process.
Reform doesn’t always need big budgets – sometimes all it needs is curiosity, a willingness to question inertia, and resolve to fix what affects people most.
Administration often involves navigating delicate local dynamics. How did you handle complex or sensitive situations?
The key is to focus on the process. When decisions are taken fairly and according to the law, they tend to hold up on their own. In Kishanganj, we arrested a major salt smuggler who was also very influential locally. Within hours, calls came from everywhere asking for his release. I refused and the government stood by me.
That moment crystallised something for me. Honesty can feel limiting in the short run – but multiplies your freedom over time. And credibility compounds. Once people know your decisions are clean, they stop negotiating with you on improper grounds.
Of course, it’s never easy. There are moments when you feel isolated, but over time, consistency builds a kind of moral capital. In governance, that’s the only currency that doesn’t depreciate.
You moved from field administration to digital transformation - leading Aadhaar and helping conceptualise Digital India. What was that transition like?
In a way, it wasn’t a transition; it was a continuation of the same principle. The same logic that worked in Purnia’s treasury applied at national scale: simplify the system, build trust through transparency, and use technology as a leveller.
When I joined the UIDAI as its first Director General in 2009, many people were sceptical. Some thought Aadhaar was surveillance; others said it was impossible to enrol a billion people. But Nandan Nilekani brought vision and energy, and I brought system discipline from the field. We were clear that Aadhaar was not a scheme – it was public infrastructure. A platform on which the state could deliver subsidies, pensions, or bank access efficiently and fairly.
In many ways, the criticism strengthened the system. We built in privacy safeguards, audit trails, and consent frameworks that later became models for other programmes. For me, Aadhaar was always about inclusion: giving every citizen a portable, digital identity that made them visible to the state – sometimes for the first time.
Later, as Secretary of Electronics and IT, we carried that thinking into Digital India. The goal was simple: make government services work like utilities - reliable, transparent, and on-demand. India didn’t just need technology; it needed systems that reduced friction.
As Chairman of TRAI, you moved into regulation, where consensus can be difficult and interests often diverge. How did you view that responsibility?
Regulation requires balance and patience. When I took over TRAI in 2015, the telecom sector was evolving rapidly. We had to modernise rules without disrupting growth. Our approach was simple – make every major decision through open consultation and evidence, while staying anchored in consumer interest.
On net neutrality, for example, many stakeholders wanted differential pricing. Civil society groups wanted a free and open internet. We invited public comments and published submissions online – transparency became our armour. When we finally ruled to uphold net neutrality, some called it anti-business. I said it was pro-future.
We applied the same principle to everyday issues like interconnection and tariff transparency. The objective was not just regulation, but predictability and fairness. When stakeholders understand the reasoning, compliance improves naturally. And at the core was a simple belief: consumers must know the regulator is on their side..
In a democracy, autonomy isn’t about being defiant – it’s about earning trust. If your processes are fair and your intent is clear, independence comes on its own. In the end, transparency gives you the real authority.
After TRAI, you led the National Health Authority and the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission. What continuity do you see across these different roles?
Public service is more than a job; it’s a continuum. In health, the opportunity was to take the same principles further – portability, interoperability, and citizen ownership of data. Health records should move with the patient, not stay locked inside hospital systems.
We often underestimate how transformative simple design principles can be – a common identifier, digital consent and open standards that unlock enormous efficiencies. Once the basic rails exist, innovation builds naturally..
I have seen India move from paper files to digital dashboards. The real transformation is about embedding technology into everyday culture. Governance is about treating citizens as users, not subjects. Reform is about designing systems that make doing the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult.
You often say you never really retired from public service, even after your retirement. What continues to motivate you after four decades in public life?
I have been fortunate to work on ideas that are connected directly to people’s lives. That sense of purpose doesn’t retire with a position. I continue to be involved in technology and health initiatives, while I also spend time farming in my village. It reminds me why systems matter - because they eventually have to work for someone who may not have access to technology – someone like a farmer who is waiting in line for a document or a subsidy.
The best reforms are those that don’t depend on who sits in the chair. Good systems should outlast good officers. That’s when governance becomes durable – when institutions, not individuals, carry the mission forward.
View as PDF
Views are personal.