The favourite whipping boy

By S. S. Gill

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU wrote in his Autobiography, ``But of one thing I am quite sure, that no new order can be built up in India as long as the spirit of the ICS pervades our administration and our public services. Therefore it seems to me quite essential that the ICS and similar services must disappear completely, as such, before we can start real work on a new order''. This was not a casual, off-the-cuff remark. Nehru had seen at close quarters the working of the Indian bureaucracy and had been at its receiving end for nearly two decades before he made this observation. Even after he took over as Prime Minister of the Interim Government, he wrote to Sardar Patel, ``I am shocked at the slowness of our work and the delays that continuously occur. I felt, therefore, and still feel that it is necessary to overhaul this entire system.''

Nehru set up several committees to overhaul the system. The First Five Year Plan stressed ``the need for structural changes to raise the level of administration''. But the colonial bureaucracy not only remained completely in tact but became much more powerful; systems and procedures were never altered, and we are still governed by the legal framework designed in the middle of the 19th century to serve the goals of a colonial power.

After she became Prime Minister, Nehru's daughter also lamented that her father had not been able to reform the bureaucracy. But Indira Gandhi did not initiate the necessary reforms. After her, practically all the Prime Ministers have blamed the bureaucracy for the lack of the country's rapid progress. But, despite all the power at their command, none of them has ever introduced any radical changes in our administrative system. And there are any number of cases where the elected representatives have sabotaged any reform meant to transfer powers from the bureaucracy to the people.

It is not my case that the Indian bureaucracy needs no reforms. By and large it is insensitive to the plight of the poor, it is inefficient and slow-moving, and it has become increasingly self- serving and corrupt. It never shed its colonial paternal syndrome to assume the role of a public service provider. But these failings are not the only reason for its having become the favourite whipping boy of the press, the public and the politicians. It lies in the very nature of this institution to wield power without being directly accountable to the electorate.

The bureaucracy's hold becomes all the more pervasive owing to the character of our political executive. Most of our Ministers are insufficiently educated to comprehend the complexities of modern governance and have to depend heavily on their officers to discharge their functions. What aggravates this dependence is their compulsion to continuously extend patronage to their constituents, and quickly make their pile for future contingencies. These pursuits they can follow only with the active connivance of the bureaucracy, which further strengthens its hold over the system.

As you cannot get rid of bureaucracy, serious attempts need to be made to reform it. One of the most effective means to restrict its ubiquitous power is to reduce its functions and size by vigorously implementing panchayati raj. But so far the elected representatives have shown little inclination to empower the people, as an empowered citizenry means not only weaker bureaucracy but also reduction in the area of influence to the political bosses.

The fact that the bureaucracy has a vast spread also renders it liable for the sins which are not of its commission. For instance, civic amenities in most cities and towns have steadily deteriorated. Roads are full of potholes, power supply has become erratic and water supply undependable. And in the public mind it is the civil administration which bears the blame for these failures. But, in fact, it is the elected municipal bodies which are primarily responsible for making plans and allocating funds for these amenities. It is no secret that the councillors consider the municipality a milch cow and siphon off funds through contracts awarded to their cronies. In fact, wherever a municipal committee has been superseded and a bureaucrat appointed as administrator, things have invariably improved.

Coming to specifics, nearly half the power supplied by the Delhi Vidyut Board gets stolen. Residents of unauthorised colonies and industrialists are the major culprits. Whenever the Board tries to stop the theft in these colonies, the local politicians intervene on the plea that the slum-dwellers are their vote bank and should be spared. And if the industrialists are hauled up, the politicians come to their rescue on the ground that they are their financiers and should not be alienated. This situation creates an environment where the employees get an opportunity to indulge in rampant corruption under the protection of their political patrons. Or take the aftermath of the Gujarat earthquake. Slackness of the local administration in organising relief has come in for a lot of criticism, and rightly so. But what has not been sufficiently appreciated is the manner in which the local politicians and the municipal councillors contributed to this situation by their in-fighting and their rivalry to make political capital out of the misery of their constituents. Again, if the havoc in Ahmedabad was caused by the collapse of 70 newly- constructed buildings, it resulted from the use of sub-standard material and flagrant violation of the safety norms by the contractors who were hand-in-glove with the local politicians. Government employees also shared a good bit of the loot, but theirs was only an incidental gain.

As compared to the mismanagement of the relief operations in Gujarat, look at the manner in which the Maha Kumbh Mela was managed by the local administration. Despite a gathering of 30 million pilgrims milling around the Ghats, there was not a single major mishap, no fracas occurred among the competing akharas, and there was no outbreak of any epidemic. A high level of sanitation was maintained and supply of necessities assured. How was this feat performed? Here the politicians did not meddle with the administration, as smooth management of this religious festival was in their interest also.

It is not uncommon that a bureaucrat who has displeased an influential politician or taken a principled stand against his Minister is victimised and humiliated, without anyone coming to his rescue. It is all right to say that as he has the protection of permanent service, a civil servant should willingly pay such a price in the interests of clean administration. But when a young District Collector with two school-going children is repeatedly transferred from one place to the other, or an outstanding officer gets rotten postings, his idealism take a heavy beating. Yet, despite these odds, there are numerous cases where bureaucrats have shown commendable social commitment. Several NGOs would tell you about the leading role played by some Collectors in promoting literacy campaigns. The manner in which the civic administration of cities such as Baroda, Mumbai, Pune and Jalandhar was radically improved has also attracted considerable media attention. Several Collectors have taken a lead in promoting water harvesting and fostering panchayati raj institutions.

The point I am trying to make is not that our bureaucracy has done a magnificent job and is criticised without good reason. Its sins are legion, and it has to bear a part of the responsibility for the steep decline in the performance of civil administration. But several of its failings stem from the intervention and depravity of the political class. The bureaucracy is the creation of the prevailing political system, and a thoroughly corrupt and self-serving political system cannot foster an honest and public- spirited bureaucracy.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The Nepal crisis & Indian diplomacy
Next     : A hasty comment