The richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, considered by many to be the de facto president of the United States, recently asked federal employees to summarise their work for the week, and that a failure to do so would be taken as a resignation. In the backdrop of this, I was curious to know whether Indian bureaucrats require such directions in the present scenario? Because, there are differing views about Indian bureaucracy, ranging from adoration to contempt, depending on the circumstance. People have called it “babudom” and the “steel frame.” Some have cautiously approved of it, despite the fact that many have been dissatisfied. Now, however, most people agree that it is a “creaking structure” instead of a “steel frame.”
The Macaulay Committee gave India its first modern civil service in 1854. The Macaulay’s Report said, “Henceforth, an appointment to the civil service of the Company will not be a matter of favour but a matter of right. He who obtains such an appointment will owe it solely to his own abilities and industry”
Between 1855 and 1878, the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was dominated by university-educated Britons, primarily from Oxford and Cambridge, forming an elite service with a strong emphasis on a “liberal and finished education”. The ICS eventually opened its doors to Indians, marking a shift in the service’s composition.
From 1922 onwards, the Indian Civil Service Examination began to be held in India, allowing for Indian candidates to compete on the same basis as their British counterparts. While establishing a successor civil service, the Indian political leaders chose to preserve elements of the British system of a unified administrative structure, such as an open-entry system based on academic achievements, intricate training arrangements, and permanent tenure.
In the governance of the nation, Indian bureaucracy, or the civil services, are extremely important. The functions of bureaucracy in India include implementing policies and programs, maintaining continuity in government and administration, and acting as a check on elected leaders’ authority. With millions of employees nationwide, the Indian bureaucracy is among the biggest in the world.
India’s bureaucracy is not the worst in the world, yet its officials are not the greatest either. There are then instances of both good and bad bureaucrats in India. The government also has some extremely effective departments and other very ineffective ones. On the whole, however, Indian bureaucracy does not serve the public interest due to its size and the degree of discretion it is permitted. We kept using the same bureaucratic structure after the independence struggle, which should have been changed. In a free India, this system became the ideal antithesis of the goal for which it was designed.
Tasks that should be finished in a few days take months or even years because of the Indian bureaucracy’s procrastination, sluggishness, inefficiency, harassment, and disarray. Some of the problems facing the Indian bureaucracy include increased corruption, political interference, lack of accountability and transparency, technical backwardness, public inaccessibility, lack of specialised skills among officials, and power abuse. These challenges may affect the overall efficacy of the bureaucracy and complicate the implementation of programs and policies.
Barack Obama, in his book “A Promised Land”, writes that India remained a poor and chaotic country, mostly divided by caste and religion, subject to the whims of dishonest local officials and power brokers, and constrained by a local bureaucracy that was reluctant to reform, despite its real economic development.
Ayn Rand, a Russian-born American author and philosopher, is famed for saying, “If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers.” If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer,” emphasising the difference in personal accountability between a free market and a bureaucratic system, where a business that makes a mistake or loses money faces the repercussions. When a mistake is made, taxpayers bear the consequences. In business, the customer is the ultimate boss. In government, sadly, the taxpayer is not.
India’s bureaucratic system frequently resembles a feudal one, with centralised power and opaque decision-making. Regardless of the government’s good intentions, Indian taxpayers will continue to suffer until structural reforms are implemented. According to a 2012 study by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, a Hong Kong-based organisation, Indian bureaucracy is the worst in Asia. Indian bureaucrats scored highly on the red tape index compared to other Asian bureaucracies (9.21 points out of 10) and Singapore bureaucracy was rated as the best in Asia.
It became clear that dealing with Indian public workers is a laborious and drawn-out affair. Because bureaucrats are rarely held responsible for their acts, this impression endures and encourages carelessness and recklessness. The system discourages meritocracy and encourages inefficiency by rewarding political allegiance above skill. Political meddling stifles unbiased decision-making by favouring certain organisations and punishing others. For instance, following verdicts that favoured the party, prominent ex-servicemen, judges, public officers, and former bureaucrats have joined the BJP. Not even Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the Chief Justice of India, is excluded.
Singapore, initially a fishing village and trading port, became a British colony in the 19th century, and after gaining independence in 1965, it faced challenges like limited land and resources, but developed into a prosperous nation. In 1995, the Singapore government launched the “Public Service for the 21st Century” initiative (PS21) aimed to modernize the Singapore public service and equip it to meet the demands of the 21st century. The initiative emphasized institutional ethos, including innovation, quality, customer service, and staff well-being. PS21 is considered the most comprehensive administrative reform in Singapore’s history.
Singapore invests much in education and pays public servants competitively in an attempt to attract and retain the best talent. Bureaucrats are paid about the same as those in the private sector. This makes sure that knowledge and the general welfare, not individual interests, are taken into consideration when making choices. Merit-based hiring and advancement are guaranteed by this technocratic method.
Corruption and inefficiency are decreased since only capable and diligent people receive rewards. India may take a cue from Singapore by adopting meritocracy, decentralisation, talent investment, continual development, and anti-corruption measures. By using this strategy, India’s bureaucratic system may become an engine for efficiency and innovation, becoming more open, responsible, and sensitive to the demands of its people.
This would avoid the problems caused by inflexible bureaucracy, as was the case in India. By acting as a facilitator, the system will level the playing field for all players rather than selecting the winner and loser. Performance determines the winners and losers, not loyalty to power. Furthermore, a nation’s economic situation will always be a reflection of the values that its system upholds.
The American system promotes innovation (innovative economy); the Chinese promotes scale (export-orientated economy); while the Indian system promotes inefficiency and sycophancy. No matter how well the government does its job, Indian taxpayers will continue to suffer unless fundamental changes are implemented. A strongman leader like Narendra Modi should reform the Indian bureaucracy, reduce superfluous procedures in its perfect standard operating procedures, and enhance people’s quality of life.
If government employees were asked to regularly state what work they had done in the preceding week, it could lead to increased accountability and transparency within the government workforce, potentially resulting in improved efficiency and productivity, but it could also create concerns about micromanagement and excessive workload depending on the implementation method.
Subjecting government employees to efficiency tests, along with other measures like performance reviews and accountability mechanisms, can potentially improve efficiency and combat corruption, but it’s crucial to implement them fairly and transparently to avoid unintended consequences.
A strongman leader like PM Narendra Modi with impeccable integrity should reform the Indian bureaucracy, reduce superfluous procedures in its perfect standard operating procedures, and enhance people’s quality of life.
(The Author is Deputy Director of Boilers (Retd) Government of Karnataka. Feedback: [email protected])
