Bureaucrats in India need to learn a lesson from their counterparts in the UK who have been instrumental in the removal of Dominic Raab from the posts of Deputy Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. The bureaucracy that the British bequeathed to India was known as the ‘steel frame’, meaning bureaucrats cannot be manipulated by their political bosses (or ministers) to wilt and deviate from their duty of advising them what to do and stopping them from doing things that would harm the people’s interests.
Indian bureaucrats, from the very beginning, performed their duties as slaves serving masters. Soon they all jointly, it seemed, decided to be reduced to puppets and happily wilting in the hands of ministers, doing their bidding and picking the bulk of the money and freebies that flow for governmental favors. For most of them, saving their jobs and getting plum postings by kowtowing before ministers has become more important than helping the politicians in power with correct advice regarding wrong decisions that would hurt the interests of the people and the nation. They never had the nerve to go against ministers, not to speak of defying them for just causes. We must remember the Indian bureaucracy was created to serve foreign colonial masters and not democratically elected leaders.
Also Read
British bureaucrats have shown they are made of sterner stuff when they decided to take on Raab for his alleged bullying of their colleagues. An inquiry was conducted against him and he was judged to have broken the ministerial code for bullying civil servants. This was the finding reached by Adam Trolley KC who interviewed 66 people during the past three months and examined complaints made during Raab’s tenures as foreign secretary, justice secretary and Brexit secretary. He then delivered a damning verdict on the basis of evidence he had got.
The irony is even after having been found guilty, Raab remains obdurate. In the process he only betrays the streak of arrogance that characterised his style of functioning as proved by the inquiry. The probe has established he had acted in an “intimidating,” “insulting” and “aggressive” manner with officials. Yet, after the judgement, he suggested he was the real victim of a “Kafkaesque saga” in which he had faced an inquisition. He also sent in a resignation letter which most thought was ungracious. He continued to speak in an arrogant vein and asserted that the government is being constrained by people (meaning bureaucrats) who have not been elected.
Instead of accepting responsibility for his behaviour, Raab complained in his letter that the inquiry would “have a chilling effect on those driving change on behalf of the government – and ultimately the British people.”
The removed minister even wrote an opinion piece in a major British daily to spin a conspiracy theory against him. He accused unionised officials of threatening to bring down ministers. In other words, he alleged bureaucrats had ganged up against him to prevent him from discharging his duties toward the nation.
That only shows what British bureaucrats, when united, could do to put in place politicians trying to subvert a democratic system by reducing the bureaucracy into a puppet in their hands. Bureaucrats who prefer to be subservient to ministers asking them to do their bidding for wrong reasons should be considered opponents of democracy and eventually damaging the people and the country. Their role is to be both an instrument of ministerial will and a check on ministerial whim.
There is a strain of thinking among ministers in the UK and India as well that since they have been elected by the people they have the right to do whatever they like without any criticism from any quarters. There are some ministers in India who have gone on record asking Opposition politicians to go sleep in their homes during their tenure as the people have elected them to rule for a definite period of time. The fact is, however, that electoral victory does not give any government immunity from criticism of its acts of omission and commission. Such wrong notions often make ministers believe they can do and say whatever they like with impunity. Last November Gavin Williamson, who was Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s cabinet fixer, had to resign for having told a senior civil servant that he would slit his throat while he was defence secretary.
Now, the question is whether Indian bureaucrats cannot do what their British counterparts can. After all, Indian bureaucracy was built by British rulers but for a completely different purpose. The short answer would be that the spine of Indian bureaucracy has never, ever, been strong and so it would perhaps be expecting too much of them to stand up to their political bosses. However, British civil servants have set a glorious example for democracy-loving people across the globe to emulate.
