Indian Bureaucracy a legacy of British Colonialism By Binod Singh

 The bureaucrats in India are called "Babu" in Hindi which also means father in the same language. They enjoy a father-like status across the country since the colonial era. In the independent India, they are credited with holding back the Indian economy for more than four decades by curtailing the entrepreneurial spirit of many Indians.

In fact India has been performing very poor until recently when it comes to economic freedom. People do enjoy the freedom to speak but not to start their own business. Politicians come and go after five years or so with few exceptions but a "Babu" retires after his full term and no one can fire him without running a trial at one of the lengthiest judicial court of India where one case may take 20 years to be disposed.

When China was liberated in 1949 it almost got rid of the old system and totally created a new bureaucracy from top to bottom. As the famous saying of chairman Mao goes: xian da sao fang jian. zai qing ke". Clean the house before inviting guests.

But the case was just the opposite in India. The country inherited an administration which was created by its British rulers to serve the interest of their Queen and the British parliament. The whole set of Indian Civil Services was designed and trained by the British with the aim of extracting maximum revenues from the local Indians. The same was the case with the Indian army which was trained to sing the song "Long live the Queen".

India's red-tapism started under the colonial rule when then British government held competitive examination in London to select some of the smart Indians to work as servants of British government. Now after 63 years of Indian independence, the country's native rulers have not much tempered with the colonial legacy gifted to them which was known for its "rule of law" and centralized administration.

The only reform we have seen is some positive discrimination against the upper caste candidates (mainly Brahmins) who were supposed to be promoted by the Colonial government as well as the Congress party under Nehru and Indira.

But still some of the top bureaucrats in India hail from top class Brahmin families who seem to inherit the post as their natural right. The 'Menon' family originating from the southern state of Kerala is one of the prime examples of family legacy in the officialdom of New Delhi.

Unlike China, the one thing good about India's bureaucrats is that there is no foreign worship when it comes to foreign nationals. They are equally good at curtailing foreign investment coming into the country.

A project may take years to get approval in India which would have been done in a month in China. In some cases the concerned minister (local or central) has to be approached to get the project approved. It was only recent reforms that some direct windows facilities were created for the foreign investors just to avoid the bureaucratic hackles.

The point we take back home is that it is difficult to overpass an Indian bureaucrat. After all these bureaucrats are selected by a very competitive examination process which has no parallel in the world. In fact some say that it was implemented by the British in India on the pattern of Chinese Imperial Examination to choose the Mandarin scholars known as "keJu zhidu".

India still practices the so-called" rule of avoidance" practiced in the Qing dynasty of China which required that a bureaucrat will not work in a region where their family lived, or where members of their family were in office. Every three odd years they are transferred which was also practiced during the Qing Empire.

Each year India selects its civil servants through a rigorous examination conducted in three stages: mainly the preliminary exam, the main exam and final interview. Each stage is equally important and the whole examination process lasts for more than a year. One is always advised to check his self-confidence before taking this exam as it may land you in a state of frustration if not successful in the four attempts allowed before the age of 30 years.

Out of hundreds and thousands of candidates each year, only between 200 to 300 candidates are finally selected to be sent for two year training in a hill station located in north India. This is the reason that Indian bureaucracy is still not as huge as China. The country has one of the lowest numbers of per capita officers and it believes in the concept of small government.

The minimum qualification for the exam is to be an undergraduate. But many of the top bureaucrats have higher degrees including doctorates, which they yearn after taking leave from the services. Most of Indian bureaucrats are self-proclaimed intellectuals or even possess a PhD degree or MBA from abroad in what is now becoming a trend in China too. But Chinese bureaucrats are supposed to buy degrees and not supposed to yearn it. If you happen to encounter an Indian bureaucrat you can drag him for a coffee and he will deliver a lecture for hours.

Last year Lant Pritchett, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University published a manuscript on the efficiency of Indian bureaucracy and exposed the reality of intellectual bureaucrats in New Delhi. He was there to work for the World Bank and found the pathetic situation of the implementation of government policies planned at the Lutyens Delhi. He rightly decided to put a title to his report as "Is India a Flailing State? Detours on the Four Lane Highway to Modernization." His paper concluded that India has all the best policies and welfare major but it exists only on paper.

However I must remind here that what many believe that 'India has failed itself when it comes to governance and it is the private sector and NGOs who are running the show' are wrong. Some people do exaggerate the situation because of their frustration from the system. It is true that some middle class people may get stuck in the system and may not get the work done in time. But things are improving fast and people are becoming conscious of their rights.

There have been some honest officers who can run the one man show and things get moving. As the recent example of the Commonwealth Games in India displayed that despite various concerns the country did display an impressive show to the world.

Another successful example was the construction of Delhi Metro under the leadership of Mr. E. Sreedharan. who was figured in the TIME magazine for his excellence management of the Metro Project. New Delhi today boasts a world class new international airport and also a beautiful well connected Metro rail transport.

Despite all the pros and cons of Indian bureaucracy today each young Indian keeps it as his first choice when he decides his career plan. Some even decline Harvard and MIT offers just to serve the nation. Each year, the topper of the Indian civil services examination becomes a national hero and inspiration for others. Then he gets married with the daughter of a politician and thus the nexus is complete.

The writer is a PhD scholar at Peking University and teaches at Beijing foreign Studies University. He can be contacted at binod@126.com

Courtesy: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-11/08/content_11515582.htm

Prevalence of Colonial Influence in India’s Bureaucracy: Unraveling the Legacy - Ashutosh Debata

 India’s colonial past continues to cast a long shadow over many aspects of its society and institutions. One area where this influence remains particularly pronounced is the bureaucracy. The bureaucratic system in India, inherited from British colonial rule, reflects deep-rooted structures and practices that have persisted over time. This article explores the prevalence of colonial influence in India’s bureaucracy, delving into its historical origins, examining its impact on governance and administration, and discussing the need for reforms to ensure a more inclusive and efficient bureaucracy. 

The roots of India’s bureaucratic structure can be traced back to the British Raj, when the British colonial administration established a highly centralized and hierarchical system to govern the country. The British bureaucracy was characterized by its rigid hierarchy, bureaucratic red tape, and a top-down decision-making process. These features have seeped into the Indian bureaucratic system, shaping its functioning even after independence.

One of the enduring legacies of colonial influence is the focus on rules and procedures over outcomes. The bureaucracy in India often places a disproportionate emphasis on adhering to established protocols and bureaucratic formalities, which can hinder efficiency and responsiveness. This bureaucratic red tape can be a significant barrier to timely decision-making and effective implementation of policies, leading to delays and inefficiencies.

Another aspect of colonial influence is the hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy. The British introduced a clear distinction between the ruling class and the subjects, and this divide often perpetuated a culture of elitism and a sense of entitlement among bureaucrats. This hierarchical structure can impede the free flow of ideas, discourage innovative thinking, and create a disconnect between the bureaucracy and the citizens it is meant to serve.

Additionally, the colonial influence is evident in the lack of diversity and inclusivity within the bureaucratic system. The British administration primarily recruited individuals from the privileged classes, perpetuating a system that was dominated by a particular section of society. Even today, the Indian bureaucracy struggles with issues of representation and inclusivity, with underrepresentation of marginalized communities and limited opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds to rise to leadership positions.

The need for reform in India’s bureaucratic system is apparent. Efforts should be made to streamline bureaucratic processes, reduce red tape, and foster a culture of efficiency and accountability. Reforms should also prioritize inclusivity and diversity, ensuring representation from all sections of society within the bureaucracy. This can be achieved through targeted recruitment policies, training programs, and mentorship opportunities for individuals from marginalized communities.

Furthermore, the bureaucratic system should embrace a more participatory and consultative approach to decision-making. Engaging with citizens, civil society organizations, and experts from various fields can bring fresh perspectives, promote transparency, and enhance the quality of governance. Decentralization of decision-making powers can also empower local administrations and foster a sense of ownership and accountability at the grassroots level.

The transformation of India’s bureaucratic system requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach. It necessitates a critical examination of the colonial influences that still permeate the system and a collective effort to reform and modernize administrative practices. By moving away from the legacy of colonial bureaucracy, India can build a more inclusive, efficient, and citizen-centric administrative machinery that aligns with the needs and aspirations of its diverse population.

In conclusion, the prevalence of colonial influence in India’s bureaucracy is a significant challenge that the country must address. The bureaucratic system, inherited from the British colonial era, perpetuates hierarchical structures, bureaucratic red tape, and limited diversity. Reforms aimed at streamlining processes, promoting inclusivity, and embracing a participatory approach are necessary to create a bureaucracy that is efficient, responsive, and reflective of India’s vibrant and diverse society. By unraveling the legacy of colonial influence, India can forge a path towards a more effective and citizen-centric administrative system.

Courtesy: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/beyond-the-headlines/prevalence-of-colonial-influence-in-indias-bureaucracy-unraveling-the-legacy-54081/

A Short History of Public Opinion in Indian Public Life - Sandeep Balakrishna

The Buddhist Period

The Buddhist period not only continued the earlier tradition of debates, discussions and decisions in public assemblies, but made its own valuable contributions. It is noteworthy that in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, a philosophical work, Bhagavan Buddha found it necessary to tell his disciple Ananda that, “ so long as the people of the Vajji-Gana hold full and frequent public assemblies, so long they may be expected not to decline but to prosper.” Indeed, Buddha repeatedly stressed on the point that such public assemblies had to compulsorily meet frequently and attendance had to be full. The success of each such public discussion was measured by decision-making and problem-solving: solutions had to be found in a timely manner instead of the current national malaise of indefinitely postponing solutions.

Our ancients were far wiser than we can ever fathom.

The Buddhist Era which was dominated by powerful clans (Gana-s) had a thriving system of collecting public opinion publicly. Every city and town had a common Sanghagara (Town Hall) where people as young as fourteen up to aged people participated in vigorous public debates on various issues. The other vital point that catches our attention is the fact that they had full freedom to discuss the business of the State itself. A brilliant story illustrates this point like no other.

Maharaja Pasenadi of the Aikṣvāka dynasty ruling from Shravasti (Sāvatthī) proposed to marry a princess belonging to the Sākya clan. The proposal by itself is quite routine. But what makes it interesting is the fact that he made it public and asked the permission of his people. Members of the Sākya clan met in their own Sanghahara to discuss the proposal. This episode opens two important insights:

1. Each clan or Gana had its own Assembly Hall apart from the common Sanghaghara.

2. The importance that the general public attached to even the private affairs of their ruler.

The importance of the second point cannot be underemphasised. Why was it necessary for the people to give their approval for the ruler’s marriage? The answer: our political philosophers and Rishis right from the Vedic age understood that running a society and thereby a country was essentially the delicate art of maintaining a fine balance. They grasped the fundamental human impulse that the moment one group gains disproportionate power, the entire structure will collapse sooner than later. Thus, the Gana and the Mahajanapada system (roughly speaking, republics) that characterised the Buddhist Era remained a unified whole as long as this balance was maintained among these clans. This among others is a major factor behind the rule that people were generally discouraged from marrying outside their own Gana. It is also the reason Pasenadi had to seek public approval for his marriage. In hindsight, it appears that it was an extremely wise and highly prudent arrangement. The best example of how things can go horribly wrong is available right before our eyes: the marriage of an Italian lady to the son of a former Prime Minister of India. Did Indira or Rajiv Gandhi seek permission from the Indian people before embarking on such a sensitive decision? The same principle applies in the case of Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy who has all but Christianised his entire administration.

This well-oiled system of the Ganas and Mahajanapadas was also its fatal flaw. Over time, fierce clan loyalties weakened the overall civilizational consciousness, which is the only foundation for territorial and political unity. It was precisely this weakness that alarmed Chanakya, who understood that the Sanatana national unity had to be forged from a different steel. Which brings us to the next epoch: of how public opinion was collected in the Kautilyan State.

Public Opinion in the Mauryan Era

Although the full text of the Arthashastra was unearthed only in the beginning of the twentieth century, its imprint remained inextricable throughout Hindu political history. It is not an accident that the text itself disappeared by the twelfth century CE, roughly coinciding with the rise of the Muslim Sultanate in north and north-western India. Indeed, by the 17th century, the widespread opinion among Hindu litterateurs was that the Arthashastra was a “wicked and cruel work.” This is a reflection of the weakness of a psyche that discards Chanakya.

However, whether later kings realised or not, they essentially ruled their Empires according to Chanakyan diktats. In their administrative structures, military Mandalas, spy networks, and taxation, Kautilya was like air: all-encompassing, inescapable, inevitable.

If Kautilya set up an iron-clad administration and a ruthless political machinery, the philosopher in him had recognised the fundamental truth that the only force that could sustain all this was the goodwill of the people. And this goodwill was expressed through public opinion. Equally, when this goodwill turned to wrath, the people wouldn’t hesitate to kill the king—Kautilya mentions several kings who were killed in this fashion.

Thus, rather than await and sense the direction of public opinion, Kautilya proactively recommends the setting up of what can be called the Department of News Writers. In practice, this system generally took the form of issuing royal writs ( sasanas) under the seal of the king. The officer in-charge of these writs was called Lekha (literally, writer). Writs were classified typically as general purpose, royal commands, gifts, donations, or remission of taxes. There were specialised writs related to commerce and business/merchant guilds.

The qualifications of the Lekha were exacting. Here is a partial list. The Lekha had to

· Possess neat handwriting

· Be skilled in grammar, composition, and reading

· Be in constant touch with day-to-day events throughout the kingdom

· Keep a close watch on the events happening in other states, especially those with whom his state had an alliance

The other high office dealing with public opinion was the Espionage Bureau, which directly reported to the King. The Espionage Bureau recruited and sent spies in various disguises throughout the kingdom to collect news. No information was deemed trivial. News writers were stationed at provincial headquarters and they in turn, sent their reports to the Espionage Bureau at the Capital. It was a three-tiered system housed by the Espionage Bureau at the top, the provincial news writers, and wandering spies. Information was encrypted using cipher-writing (gudalekhya) and transmitted through carrier-pigeons. But the most remarkable feature of this system was the fact that spies and news writers were unknown to one another, and the Espionage Bureau collected information from other sources as well. Action was taken only if all these versions agreed with one another. News and information was collected from various sources: gathering at public assembly halls, parks, rest houses, festivals, fairs, and temples.

Public Opinion in Later Eras

Chanakya’s system indeed became a great blueprint that later kings followed. For example, the rich details of the Chola and Pandyan administrative system tell us of the Manrams (literally, “halls,” or public assemblies) where the public met and discussed social and political questions impacting them. The method of beating drums, blowing conches and trumpets to summon the people to these meetings was common in our villages even in the 1970s. Decisions of public importance taken in such meetings—such as sending requests for tax breaks, building tanks, making temple-endowments, famine relief, etc—were binding even on the king.

The history of the magnificent Vijayanagara Empire is replete with examples of the manner in which the monarchs feared public opinion. The usurpation of the throne by Saluva Narasimha caused huge uproar among the public and he as king had to go to extraordinary lengths to pacify the people. The same public opinion welcomed the accession of Sri Krishnadevaraya with open arms. And the same Krishnadevaraya had to abolish the marriage tax—payable both by the bride and the groom at the time of marriage—bowing to the force of public opinion.

Postscript

When we speak of the various golden ages of Hindu rule, what we really mean is that these Hindu rulers respected and even feared public opinion. The golden age was possible because there was this level of genuine harmony on the part of both the ruler and the people.

In many ways, the present system of democracy makes a sham of public opinion because our current political class is bothered merely about perception, not public opinion. Public opinion is meaningless unless both proactive action and timely redressal occur, measured by outcome. Unlike the Hindu monarchies of the past where direct appeal to the King was taken seriously, today’s political class has insulated itself from the public using a million degrees of separation. Cowardice and not decision is the mantra of the current Indian political class.

I will end this series with a news report I read long ago. The episode happened sometime in the early 1970s. A poor villager was fighting some case in our wonderful court system. The case had dragged on for years. It was time for yet another appearance in the court. But this time, when he gave his testimony, the judge told him, “You are lying. And you know that. Why?” The villager replied: “Why not? Our great ministers who have taken oath on all kinds of Holy Books lie with a clean conscience. I am merely following them.”

Think about this episode in the context of public opinion in our own time.

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/from-kautilya-to-congress-downfall-of-public-opinion-in-indian-public-life