Essay on Bureaucracy in India

Article shared by :
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/bureaucracy-essay/essay-on-bureaucracy-in-india/63469
Bureaucracy in India!
General Introduction:
Gone are the days when the powers of the government were divided into three main parts or
branches—legislature, executive and judiciary. This formula still exists but the executive branch
has proliferated considerably. Today we are accustomed to treat the executive as not only a very
important branch but also a branch consisting of long array of persons and numerous
departments.

At the top of the executive there are ministers accountable to the legislature. The ministers are
generally called the temporary executives because their tenure is linked with the election. But
besides the temporary executive there is a large number of executives or government officers
whose tenure is fixed. These persons are called permanent executives. In fact, these permanent
executives constitute the main body of public administration. These officers are generally called
(of course in a pejorative sense) bureaucrats.

Almost in all countries of the world the general administration is run or managed by the
bureaucrats or civil servants. The term civil servants is so called because it is different from
military or ecclesiastical matters. It implies that in a state there may exist different forms or
services of administration and civil service is not only one of them—but also the most important
one. The two terms civil service and bureaucracy—are interchangeably used but the latter has a
pejorative sense. But this has not stood on the way of its meteoric rise.

Today even an ordinary citizen knows the enormous importance of bureaucracy. We can think of
an administration without a minister, but not without a bureaucrat. So is the importance of
bureaucracy. Because of its importance now-a-days many people call it the fourth organ of
government and in this estimation there is nothing wrong.

Before the British Raj, in ancient and medieval India, there was monarchical form of
government and the general administration was run by people having near or distant
relationship with the King. But gradually the administration assumed complexities and this
required specialist knowledge.

The British rulers established a new form of administration analogous to their own
administrative system. The purpose of British administration in India was to establish law and
order and to collect revenue. From the very beginning of British rule the public administration
was formulated keeping this general objective in mind.

The British rulers formed and trained a group of persons whose function would be to strengthen
the foundation of British Raj. There was a king/queen in London and he/she ruled India
through the Viceroy and Secretary of State and the Secretary of State ruled through a group of
government officers who were known as bureaucrats. In this connection we can remember the
considered opinion of L. I. and S. H. Rudolph. “A distant king-emperor and his secretary of state
and a viceroy close at hand were political masters of a sort but the British Raj approximated
bureaucratic more than monarchical absolutism.” The British type of monarchical absolutism
was introduced in India through the administrative machinery that was introduced in India.

The Origin of Indian Bureaucracy:

The civil service system or bureaucracy in India owes its origin to British system of civil service.
For this reason logic demands that a very brief analysis of British system of civil service is
essential.

During the Saxon and Norman monarchs the posts of state administration were distributed
among the families of kings and their relatives. Persons were appointed to the posts-both high
and low-on the basis of patronage and not on the ground of efficiency. This was sufficient to
damage or adversely affect the efficiency and real purpose of administration. Many people
thought of a change in the system of appointment of government officers or employees. But the
change in the appointment system was strongly opposed by many-and Edmund Burke was one
of them. Burke was a great conservative.

He thought that there was no necessity of the change in the system. On the other hand, the great
utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated for the introduction of examination for the
recruitment of government employees. He had great sympathy for the educated middle class—
an outgrowth of Industrial Revolution. His suggestion received tacit support from many
quarters.

In the middle of the nineteenth century the demand for recruitment in the administration
became vociferous and the British parliament accepted the demand. Northcote and Trevelyan
were appointed to look into the various aspects of recruitment to the posts of government
services and they submitted their recommendations in 1854 and these are regarded as the
beginning of the civil service system.

They made the following recommendations:

(a) The recruitment to government services should be by competitive examinations. In other
words, the competitive examination is the best method to judge the ability and other qualities of
the candidate,

(b) Each government officer shall enjoy the facility of promotion and this should be based on
merit and seniority,

(c) The intellectual capacity and merit of the government employee should always be given
priority.

Able and efficient persons should always be rewarded. In this way a clear system of civil service
was introduced in Great Britain and subsequently many other countries followed. Particularly
the states which were under British rule adopted the British system of civil service.
It has already been pointed out that in 1858 the British Crown took the full responsibility of
India’s administration through the Government of India Act 1858 — and that was the beginning
of the commencement of British rule through a group of experts in administration.

The British rulers realised it quite well that the attainment of colonial rule and exploitation of
natural resources could be done only through a group of specially trained officers. The
government at London arrived at the realisation that without a body of civil service consisting of
able and qualified administrators it was not possible to achieve the objectives of the British, and
the civil service to the British government was a machinery to translate the laws into action and
implement the policies of the government into reality.

It is interesting to note that Northcote-Trevelyan Committee suggested introduction of an

efficient group of civil servants and, in 1858, the British civil service system in India started its
journey.

I have earlier stated that the Indian bureaucracy can reasonably be traced to the British Raj. The
British rulers created a steel-frame of administration for achieving certain objectives and the
most important of them is to plunder the wealth of India —and the British rulers felt that to
achieve this coveted goal a steel-frame administration was needed.

Marx and Engels in their On Colonialism have said that the British India had three main
departments —Finance, War and Public Works. Marx and Engels have said that finance means
the plunder of internal resources. Since plundering of resources was the leitmotif it built up a
strong and able administrative body.

The British Raj built up a strong body of able administrators and a large number of this body
was recruited from the educated section of Indians. In nineteenth century the middle class and
upper middle class people received higher education from the British educational institutions
and these men sought government jobs because in those days government jobs were lucrative
from the standpoints of money, status and social prestige.

Within a span of less than one hundred years the British government created an able body of
administration. A large numbers of this body were Indians and they owed their allegiance to the
British Raj. All the members of administration were recruited through competitive examination
which was held in England.

The administrative body built by the British Raj was, in fact, the sine qua non of British rule in
India. In British India government officers (topmost officers) were called the maa-baap (mother
and father) of the people. The chief objective of British rule in India was to plunder the wealth
and maintain law and order. They had no accountability to the people.

Naturally, welfare activities were never prioritised. Ruthless administration was imposed by the
rulers and the unread masses of men were exploited in all possible ways. In this way a new
chapter was added to the British administrative history in India.
The British rulers knew it very well that only through an able and efficient administrative body
Britain would be-able to achieve its goal. Naturally the neutrality of administration was quickly
jettisoned and, instead, a committed administrative body was established. It is interesting to
note that, when a vast area of Asia and Africa was under the British rule or imperialism only a
system of public administration was introduced in India and it is regarded by many as an
important plus point.

One writer makes the following observation:

“At a time when many Third World states were struggling to build qualified and effective career
services, the standing of India’s senior bureaucracy was exceptional. It gave the state after
independence an autonomy and continuity that has persisted in times of uncertainty and
unsteady political control at the national and state levels”.

We thus see that the foundation of Indian public administration or bureaucracy was laid down
by the British Raj. The people of free India are enjoying the benefits of a steel-frame
administrative system. The civil service system of British Raj had many disqualifications, but the
most laudable aspect is Britain left for India an able administrative system. It is an important
point to remember.

Indianisation of Bureaucracy:
India’s struggle for freedom was increasing from the forties and fifties of the nineteenth century
and the Indians demanded increasing participation in public administration. Though the
competitive examination was open to Indians a very small number of Indians appeared in the
competitive examination and very few were successful.

The civil service in those days was called covenanted service and Satyendra Nath Tagore was the
first Indian who was selected for this service in 1864. But the Indians demanded larger number
of persons in the Indian Civil Service Cadre. This demand went unheeded and when the Indian
National Congress was established in 1885, the demand for greater number of Indians in the ICS
increased.

The process of Indianisation of bureaucracy started in the eighties of the nineteenth century.
From the past records we come to know that the British government formed a commission to
find out the ways of how to increase the number of Indians in the participation of a public
administration and for that purpose a commission was set up in 1886 (one year after the
formation of Indian National Congress).

The commission suggested that the entire public administration should be divided into three
groups or categories. These were —Imperial services, Provincial services and Subordinate
services. The persons for imperial services, were to be recruited in London and for the other two
services in India. But these recommendations did not find satisfactory headway. The main
reason was the British raj showed lackadaisical attitude towards the greater participation of
Indians in the public administration.
The demand for larger participation in state administration went on rising and the British
government, on August 20, 1917, made the following declaration: “Increasing association of
Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing
institutions with a view to progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as
an integral part of the British India”

The piecemeal approach to the demands for larger participation in public administration failed
to satisfy the demands of Indian freedom fighters for larger participation in the administrative
affairs of the state. As an offshoot of this demand as well as agitation the British government
introduced some reforms in 1919 and it was decided that the first civil service examination
would be held in India and it was held at Allahabad.

The reforms of 1919 helped the Indianisation of civil service considerably. But the freedom
fighters under the flag of Indian National Congress were not at all satisfied. It was due to the fact
that the Indian National Congress demanded more participation in public administration.

The British raj reasonably felt that it was gradually becoming difficult for it .to control the
galloping growth of freedom movement and demand for greater number of persons in the entire
administrative system. It was vociferously claimed by the Indians that they must be allowed to
decide their fate —even going to hell. It was in the latter part of the twenties of the last century
that the British raj took some decisions for greater participation of Indians.

The British government constituted the Lee Commission to favourably consider the demands of
Indians. The Lee Commission made the following recommendation. Prior to the formation of
the Lee Commission the Secretary of State was the sole authority of appointing to the posts of all
central and provincial services.

The Lee Commission recommended that henceforth the Secretary of State cannot appoint to the
posts of Indian Forest Services, Indian Educational Services and Indian Agricultural Services
etc. There are also other services which are included in this list. All these were treated as
provincial services and the provincial government was the sole appointing authority.

The provincial government was also empowered to make laws and rules for these services. The
Lee Commission also recommended other changes for both central and provincial services and
as a result the share of Indians in the ICS increased considerably, but it was far below the share
enjoyed by the Englishmen.

The commencement of the Second World War brought about considerable changes in the share
of Indian services between British and India. The Indians received a larger share in services
during the war. This has a clear political reason. India was reluctant to be with Britain in its
involvement in the war and that was a great headache for Britain. Freedom fighters of India
started a bargaining and since Britain was in great crisis she agreed to make more space for
Indians’ participation in administrative services. The share of Indians in ICS increased and that
of Britain fell considerably. This may be treated as a great leap towards the Indianisation of
bureaucracy.
The Government of India Act 1935 brought about radical change in the Indianisation of civil
service in bureaucracy. This may be summarised in the following way. In all the previous
Government of India Acts there was the predominance of unitary character which means that
the union government was dominant. The Act of 1935 gave ample autonomy to the provincial
governments.

This means that in the field of public administration the provincial governments will enjoy
autonomy or greater freedom. There was another change. The Government of India Act 1935
suggested a three-fold division of services —the Federal List, the Provincial List and the
Concurrent List. This scheme of three-fold division of services considerably enhanced the scope
of Indianisation of bureaucracy. The state governments got larger scope of recruiting people of
their choice in public administration of states. Since the Second World War was continuing the
Secretary of State was also eager to give larger scope to Indians in the field of administration.

By 1945 the progress of Indianisation of Indian bureaucracy had achieved a remarkable progress
and large numbers of Indians were convinced that freedom was not far away. The top leaders of
National Congress were busy in shaping the public administration of India. Many of them were
faced with the problem—whether to continue the steel-frame of Indian bureaucracy built up by
the British raj or to abolish it and create a new genre of administrative system for free India.

There was a controversy between Patel and Nehru. The former was in favour of keeping the steel
frame of bureaucracy created and nurtured by British raj and, on the other hand, Nehru was
against keeping the bureaucratic system. Nehru however, changed his stance and supported the
continuation of ICS system. Patel once said: “I have worked with them during the difficult
period.Remove them and I see nothing but a picture of chaos all over the country”.

Nehru, who had been unconvinced, changed his stance…”The old distinctions and differences
are gone. In the difficult days ahead our service and experts have a vital role to play and we
invite them to do so as comrades in the service of India”. L. I. and S. H. Rudolph A few more
words.

It is true that the British raj created a steel-frame administration for India primarily for the
purpose of keeping law and order within close-fisted hands and to exploit natural resources, and
collect revenue. The ICS did this job successfully. From the very beginning of the twentieth
century the British administration under the bold leadership of ICS ruthlessly controlled the
freedom movement.

These activities of the British government in India were strongly disapproved by the Indians.
Even the educated Indians thought that the public administration created by the British
government was fully responsible for repression and all sorts of repressive measures. This
section strongly disfavoured the continuation of the steel-frame British administration.

But it should not be forgotten that the British administrative system was not an evil from top to
bottom. Or, even though it was a evil, it was a necessary evil. The top leaders of freedom
movement genuinely felt that to create a new system of public administration over night is
impossible. Naturally the continuation of the British administrative system was badly needed.

Guardianship, Neutrality and Accountability:

During the first few years of independent India the civil service was faced with some issues
which may also be called problems. During the British rule the ICS officers were all-powerful
and they posed as the protector or guardian of British interests in India. The British Raj ruled
this country with the help of few ICS officers and, in fact, they were the rulers of this vast
country. An ICS officer or any of his powerful subordinate, thought himself as the representative
of British government in India.

At provincial, district or sub-divisional level, an officer of British Raj was treated by Indians as
their maa-baap which means they were their guardians and protectors in all eventualities. Many
people treated the ICS officers and their subordinates as demons and some as God on earth. In
this way the steel-frame of British administration was the most powerful section of admin-
istration.

A critic makes the following observation:

“It is the policy and direction, integrity and depth that give the civil servant cohesion and knit
him, in spite of heterogeneity, to the thrust of effective, massive organisation, pursuing and
achieving difficult and complex tasks”. In British India since very few persons were at the helm
of power; the real administrators were the ICS officers and in; that sense they were the
guardians of British raj. During the freedom movement there’ was long array of protests over the
high-handedness of, these bureaucrats.

So far as the idea of accountability is concerned the British administration does not encourage
us at all. The ICS officers were not accountable to the people though their services were meant
primarily for the people. Whatever they did- whether right or wrong-was the final and they did
not think anything unjust. They of course felt a typical form of accountability-to the British
rulers. The ICS officers thought that the members of the British government were their real
masters.

The protection of the interests of Indians was to them not at all an important issue. Maintenance
of law and order and collection of taxes were the most important functions. The inability caused
by natural calamity or any other factor was to them a non-issue. This was the nature of British
bureaucracy in India. The ICS officers were the guardians of the maintenance of law and order
but not the protectors of people’s interests. They were the representatives of colonialism and
imperialism.

From the above analysis, we can draw another conclusion. The British ICS officers were not
neutral at all. Whereas, neutrality is the most important feature bureaucracy. The chief features
of the steel-frame of administration was to carry out the order of British Raj in all probable ways
and to exploit the masses. The milk of human kindness was not found in their behaviour and
activities.
They were not neutral administrators but the puppets of the British government. The ICS
officers were virtually committed to their British masters and this led to the non-existence of
neutrality. The rulers of free India inherited this bureaucracy from the British government. In
free India this underwent changes in number of places. But the main idea of public
administration remains.

New Role of Indian Bureaucracy:

The bureaucratic system is an indispensable part of any modern administration. Though this
system was created by Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century, today it has become
an indispensable part of administration of both developed and developing nations. The leaders
of free India thought it prudent to continue the bureaucratic system of public administration
created by the British raj. Indians fought against British domination in India.

The main aim of freedom movement was to drive away the British rulers but not the adminis-
trative system built by them. The result was that, in free India, there are new rulers and
administrators but the process and techniques of administration have remained almost same.
Few new names have been introduced in free India. Such as IAS in place of ICS.

The most important change that found place in India’s administrative system is the role of
administration. The purpose of ICS officers was to maintain law and order and collect taxes
from the people. They had no feeling for Indians nor any accountability to the general mass. In
free India it was emphatically pointed out that the ethos of British system of public admin-
istration must be changed.

The public administration of India will have to follow a new system of culture and ethos. Herein
lies the new role of -bureaucracy. P. C. Alexander in his article Civil Service: Continuity and
Change.

‘The new role of the civil service was that it should serve the basic objectives laid down in the
Preamble of the Constitution, namely to secure for all citizens: justice —social, economic and
political, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and
opportunity and to promote, among them all, fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual
and the unity and integrity of the nation.” The Preamble to the Constitution has clearly stated
the objective of Indian Republic and the responsibility of the realisation of these objectives falls
upon the shoulder of public administration — that is upon the bureaucracy or civil service.

This is invariably a new responsibility or role. The civil service of British raj did not have this
role. Again, the Directive Principles of the State Policy have imposed certain responsibilities
upon the authority of the Indian state. The principles have no legal status, but the
administration of the state cannot willingly ignore them. The mere fact is that the public
administration must make all sorts of efforts in the tune of Directive Principles.

We thus find that the role of Indian bureaucracy in free India has increased enormously and this
role primarily relates the construction of free India in the line of Preamble and Directive
Principles. Another point is —India has adopted the parliamentary form of government of the
British type. The majority party forms the government and which party will form the
government depends on the result of the general election.

Naturally the party system changes. But the continuity in administration cannot change. It is the
duty of bureaucracy to see that the welfare activities must continue. The British Raj had no
concern for welfare functions. The steel-frame of bureaucracy did not find any reason to see that
peoples welfare should be given priority.

Paul R Brass (The Politics of India since Independence) writes, “Both at the top and the bottom,
the Indian administrative system that has evolved since independence departs significantly from
“Weberian” criteria of a rational legal system. The mechanisms, ties and attachments that make
the system work are based rather on a personal and social obligations to patrons and clients, kin
and caste follows, on informal connections”. The ICS officers were not accountable to the public.

They were only accountable to their masters. But the role of Indian Administrative Service
(hereafter only IAS) has radically changed. The IAS officers are accountable to the ministers
because they are their political masters. They are also accountable to the people or electorate
because they are the supreme masters. This is the new role of Indian bureaucracy.

The new role of Indian bureaucracy may still be viewed from another angle. India is a
developing nation. To develop it with limited resources within a short span of time is really a
herculean task. The ministers are temporary executives and, naturally, converting a developing
state into a developed one is to be done by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of the developed
countries is considerably free from this task. Frankly speaking, the responsibility of the
developmental work falls upon the bureaucracy.

The legislature sanctions fund and gives general outline, the council of ministers frames policies
and the real task—the implementing, the policy —is performed by the bureaucracy. This burden
has been imposed upon the bureaucracy of free India. This role is not simply new but very much
important. The time-old functions on the collection of revenues and maintenance of law and
order remain as before and the additional —accelerate progress —is not only new but
comparatively important.

Conclusion:
The bureaucracy of post-independent India can reasonably be called the legacy of British India.
There was debate on this issue and, finally, it was decided that since the civil service system
created by the British government was of superior quality and extremely helped for the
administration of post-independent India, the system should be continued.

The Indians may have ill-feelings against British imperialism but should have no ill-feeling
against British administrative system, the British language and other good aspects of Britain.
“The new civil service system”, writes P. C. Alexander, “for all practical purposes was the
continuation of the old one (italics mine) with the difference that it was now to functions in a
parliamentary system of a government, accepting the undoubted primacy of the political
executive which in turn was responsible to the people through their elected representatives in
the legislature.

The changeover for civil servants belonging to the old colonial administration, to the new
culture of democracy with accountability to elected representatives of the people was
remarkably smooth”.

During the first two decades of post-independent India the ICS officers practically dominated
the Indian administrative system. But gradually the old guards began to retire and by the end of
1970s most of the ICS officers retired from service and the responsibility of Indian public
administration fell on the shoulders of IAS officers and the process of Indianisation was almost
complete in the 1980s. This heralded the advent of a new age of Indian bureaucracy. Today the
bureaucratic structure is not only powerful but it controls the administration.