Bureaucracy in India: Babu power and red tape
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the challenges faced by the Indian bureaucracy amidst political and social changes. It highlights the irony of bureaucracy's increasing politicization and its complex relationship with politicians, which has led to a perceived loss of credibility and efficiency. The script also touches on the role of 'super bureaucrats' and the impact of scandals on the institution's integrity, emphasizing the need for a balance between political decision-making and bureaucratic objectivity.
Takeaways
- 🏛️ Bureaucracy is perceived as a stabilizing force amidst political and social changes, offering a sense of permanence to the political system.
- 🚫 There is a growing concern about bureaucracy being politicized, with politicians and bureaucrats influencing each other, leading to a potential compromise of neutrality.
- 🤝 The relationship between politicians and bureaucrats has been criticized for creating a nexus that can lead to favoritism and victimization.
- 👥 The bureaucracy is not a monolithic entity; it's composed of individuals with varying degrees of proximity to centers of power and influence.
- 📉 Politicization of bureaucracy is seen as detrimental to its efficiency and credibility, with some bureaucrats feeling insecure due to their association with certain political ideologies.
- 🛑 There is a call for a clear distinction between 'good politicization' where bureaucrats align with the welfare state goals, and 'bad politicization' which involves self-serving behaviors.
- 📚 The ideal role of a bureaucrat is to be apolitical, providing objective advice and implementing policies as directed, regardless of personal affiliations.
- 🔄 The practice of transferring bureaucrats upon a change in government is criticized for potentially undermining morale and wasting experienced talent.
- 💡 The bureaucracy is meant to serve as a buffer between political ambitions and citizen rights, ensuring that the state's actions are balanced and considerate.
- 🚨 Allegations of bureaucrats participating in corporate interest promotion through political connections have raised questions about integrity within the system.
- 🛑 The script emphasizes the need for accountability and the importance of distinguishing between political decision-making and undue political interference in bureaucratic processes.
Q & A
What is the primary role of bureaucracy in a democratic system?
-The primary role of bureaucracy in a democratic system is to provide stability and permanence amidst political and social changes. It is meant to implement policies and maintain an apolitical, dispassionate, and unbiased approach to administration.
How has the bureaucracy been criticized in the script?
-The bureaucracy has been criticized for becoming overly politicized, holding the system to ransom through pervasive influence, and for developing a nexus with politicians, which has led to a loss of objectivity and credibility.
What is the 'Iron Triangle' referred to in the script?
-The 'Iron Triangle' refers to the alleged unhealthy relationship between bureaucrats, politicians, and businessmen, where bureaucrats may collude with politicians to promote specific corporate interests, often for personal gain or advancement.
What is the difference between 'political decision-making' and 'political interference' as per the script?
-Political decision-making refers to the process where politicians make decisions within their domain of responsibility. In contrast, political interference is when politicians intrude into the day-to-day administration, potentially violating norms and laws.
How does the script describe the impact of politicization on the bureaucracy?
-The script describes the impact of politicization as damaging to the bureaucracy's credibility, efficiency, and effectiveness. It suggests that politicization has led to an erosion of the system and a reluctance among bureaucrats to give objective advice fearlessly.
What is the script's view on the relationship between bureaucrats and politicians?
-The script suggests that bureaucrats and politicians should work together but not collude or collaborate for illegal purposes. It emphasizes the importance of bureaucrats maintaining their integrity and objectivity, even when under political pressure.
What are the consequences of the bureaucracy being under attack, as mentioned in the script?
-The consequences of the bureaucracy being under attack include a loss of confidence between the people and the administration, a decrease in morale and effectiveness within the bureaucracy, and potential damage to the democratic process.
How does the script discuss the issue of bureaucracy serving different political masters?
-The script discusses that bureaucrats are expected to serve whoever is the political master faithfully, implementing policies as directed. However, it criticizes the tendency to label bureaucrats based on their association with certain politicians or parties as unfair.
What is the script's stance on the mass transfers of bureaucrats following a change in government?
-The script criticizes mass transfers of bureaucrats following a change in government as a dubious exercise that can damage morale and confidence within the bureaucracy. It suggests that such transfers often sacrifice seniority and merit and send disturbing signals down the rank-and-file.
How does the script address the issue of bureaucracy being influenced by the media?
-The script addresses the issue by highlighting how some bureaucrats have gained media attention and publicity, becoming 'super bureaucrats,' which is seen as a matter of great shame for democracy. It suggests that bureaucracy should remain anonymous and not be highlighted in the media.
What corrective actions are suggested in the script for dealing with instances of politicization and corruption within the bureaucracy?
-The script suggests that corrective actions should be taken as specified by the law, holding accountable both bureaucrats and politicians involved in unethical practices. It emphasizes the need for specific actions rather than general accusations.
Outlines
🏛️ Politicization of Bureaucracy
The first paragraph discusses the perceived stability that bureaucracy provides in a rapidly changing political and social landscape. However, it highlights the irony that bureaucracy is now facing criticism for being politicized. The speaker notes the increasing influence of politicians on the bureaucracy and the resulting dependency of bureaucrats on politicians for favors, leading to a concerning politicization. The paragraph also touches on the concept of 'good' and 'bad' politicization, where the former aligns with the government's welfare objectives, while the latter involves self-serving actions. The speaker emphasizes the need for bureaucrats to remain apolitical and to serve the political masters faithfully, regardless of who they are.
👥 The Role of Bureaucracy in State Administration
The second paragraph delves into the role of bureaucracy in state administration, challenging the notion of administrative neutrality. It argues that the administration cannot be neutral, especially when it comes to the interests of the state. The paragraph also addresses the issue of bureaucratic transfers and the impact of political changes on the bureaucracy. It criticizes the practice of 'administrative musical chairs' following government changes, suggesting that such transfers can damage morale and confidence within the bureaucracy. The speaker advocates for a balanced approach to transfers, acknowledging the right of a new government to shape its team but cautioning against mass transfers that sideline experienced officers.
🏢 Allegations of Political Interference in Bureaucracy
The third paragraph focuses on allegations of political interference in bureaucratic postings and transfers, particularly at the state level. It describes instances where bureaucratic decisions are influenced by extraneous considerations, such as caste affiliations and political patronage. The speaker also discusses the public's lack of confidence in the administration, which is evident when people bypass local officials to seek justice directly from ministers or prime ministers. The paragraph highlights the media's role in drawing attention to 'super bureaucrats' who wield excessive power, possibly due to an overcentralized decision-making process and the prominence of offices like the PMO.
🤝 The Iron Triangle of Bureaucracy, Politics, and Business
The fourth paragraph examines the alleged nexus between bureaucrats, politicians, and businessmen, which is seen as detrimental to the integrity of the bureaucracy. It criticizes the 'Iron Triangle' where bureaucrats may collude with politicians and businessmen to promote specific corporate interests, often at the expense of the public good. The speaker calls for bureaucrats and politicians to resist forming such unhealthy relationships and emphasizes the need for accountability in cases of misconduct. The paragraph also addresses the impact of scandals on the bureaucracy's credibility and the importance of maintaining high ethical standards.
🛠️ The Erosion of Bureaucratic Norms and Credibility
The fifth and final paragraph discusses the erosion of bureaucratic norms and the impact on the credibility and efficiency of the civil service. It suggests that the bureaucracy has become overly politicized, with bureaucrats being influenced by political considerations rather than objective decision-making. The speaker argues that this has led to a decline in the quality of advice given by bureaucrats, who may now be more cautious and less willing to provide fearless recommendations. The paragraph concludes by acknowledging the challenges faced by the Indian bureaucracy and the need to restore its credibility and effectiveness.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Bureaucracy
💡Politicization
💡Stability
💡Nexus
💡Victimization
💡Whitehall Model
💡Super Bureaucrats
💡Iron Triangle
💡Transfers
💡Credibility
💡Erosion
Highlights
The bureaucracy provides a sense of stability and permanence in a climate of quick political and social change.
Bureaucracy is increasingly under attack for being politicized and holding the system to ransom due to pervasive influence.
A nexus has developed between politicians and bureaucrats, leading to increased politicization of the bureaucracy.
Politicization of bureaucracy is largely due to identifications and victimizations within the system.
Bureaucrats are expected to serve the political master faithfully, regardless of who is in power.
The bureaucracy's role is to implement the policies of the elected government while maintaining objectivity and integrity.
The ideal relationship between bureaucrats and politicians is one of clear domain separation and smooth government dynamics.
Bureaucrats are apolitical and are expected to provide objective advice to politicians.
The bureaucracy is not neutral when it comes to representing the state's major interests.
Administrative changes with new governments often involve mass transfers, affecting the morale and confidence of the bureaucracy.
Mass transfers can be seen as a dubious exercise, often sacrificing seniority and merit.
The bureaucracy acts as a safety buffer between politicians' aims and citizens' rights.
Political interference in postings and transfers at the state level has led to allegations of victimization and rehabilitation.
The media has focused on the birth of 'super bureaucrats' and scandals involving key officials.
The bureaucracy is criticized for participating in a nexus with politicians and businessmen to promote corporate interests.
The bureaucracy's credibility has been eroded due to political interference and scandals.
The efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service have been affected by the politicization and scandals.
Bureaucrats are expected to resist political pressures and maintain the integrity of their roles.
The responsibility for the state of bureaucracy lies with politicians, who have the power to influence its functioning.
The bureaucracy is performing satisfactorily despite being criticized as the whipping boy of the press and Parliament.
Transcripts
as a crucial arm of our democracy has
never been in doubt today in a climate
of quick political and social change the
bureaucracy lends the semblance of
stability and permanence to Ankara
polity
yet it is ironical that it is now the
bureaucracy seems increasingly under
attack first for legitly holding the
system to ransom by the share all
pervasive influence at commands but more
seriously for having become too
politicized increasingly the bureaucracy
has been interfered with in more ways
than one by the politicians and bizarre
cursing in turn has depended for favors
on the politicians and so this nexus has
built up between some politicians on the
one hand and some bureaucrats on the
other and this number has increased so
if one say that there has been
politicization of bureaucracy I think by
and large it will be a correct statement
I would say that perhaps because of
these identifications and then
victimizations there has been this
politicization because otherwise it was
not necessary I would know I would know
for one for very easily that would
whoever be the political master I would
serve him because it is his policy that
I am being implementing and that is the
way I think most of the bureaucrats
really feel most of the bureaucrats that
I have talked to of course I've either
tired four years ago but most of the
bureaucrats that I have spoken to they
all seem very shaky because the majority
of them are not even anywhere near the
proximity of the centers of power it's
only a few individuals which are there
but then if you go along and identify or
label people as so and so's land or of
that party then I don't think that's
very very fair to the bureaucracy it
hurts it hurt the computer but it
Association is part of the process of
development which is taking place either
you look at it from the point of view of
economy or from the point of view of
quality or even from the point of view
of General Administration as such so
therefore to say that administration is
getting politicized is really to bring
out the nature of administration because
what is administration whatever your
case what a civil service
they are the tools as a state and it is
the character and the message which has
got to the stage has state has got to
give to the society that finds
expression through these particular
tools but if by politicization what you
really mean is that the politics of the
day is so very different from the
politics of yesterday that those who
were associated with the garment of
yesterday seems absolutely to be lost in
the whole midstream of administration as
such but could be so I would try to
differentiate between the good
politicization and the bad
politicization the good politicization
is where bureaucrats understand the aims
of the independent government of India
where the emphasis is on creating a
welfare state and tailor their
performance accordingly the other kind
of politicization is actually what
should we described a psycho fantasy
where you butter up your master so that
you get the good things of life in the
Whitehall model of parliamentary
democracy which we adopted the
bureaucrats brief is clearly defined his
is an apolitical
dispassionate and unbiased style to
imbibe the administration with
credibility and objectivity
simultaneously final authority is vested
with the politician who is the duly
elected representative of the people in
an ideal textbook situation the
bureaucrat and the politician are
expected to remain within the domain and
as long as they do so the normal
dynamics of government function smoothly
with no friction fear or favor the
bureaucrat is supposed to be someone who
is apolitical he is there who knows the
rules and the regulations all that has
gone on the past what are the precedents
what has been the particular policy and
his role is to give objective advice to
the political side thereafter
whether his advice is accepted or not it
then becomes his duty to implement with
all integrity and honesty
whatever directions are given therefore
the bureaucrat really has to serve the
political master and actually whoever
may be the political master it becomes
his duty to serve that person faithfully
I think it's not so categorical at all
that they don't have to follow they have
to follow the very definite prescribed
the lawns of propriety and if they've
all said that then they do it for
reasons which are other than the Pharos
logs
it is generally said that administration
has got to be neutral it is neutral
where it comes to the question of
non-discrimination between the various
what you call interests in a society or
the various individuals groups of
communities of the society but where the
major any of the state is concerned
administration can never be neutral you
see even during the British days when we
used to say that the administration was
above politics altogether but could you
really say that administration during
the British days could have taken a
stand against the interests of the
Empire could you say that it would have
said that no the dependence on the
British Empire is wrong and we support
what you call Gandhiji's movement of
quit India certainly not now to take
Epstein administration has got to
deflect the viewpoint of the state as
such I would go to the extent of
defining the role of the bureaucracy has
a safety buffer between the unlimited
aims of the politicians and the rights
of the citizens over the years a change
of government specially ones involving
change in the ruling party has seen the
ritual of administrative musical chairs
the transfusion of new Mura cretak blood
replacing the old the rationale behind
this exercise often being one of
locating and rewarding trusted
bureaucrats for most media observers
this has promoted a culture of
victimization and rehabilitation and in
its extreme blatant form it has been a
dubious exercise culminating often in
mass transfers
in the center it has now been an
accepted tradition that with the change
in government senior bureaucrats are
removed wholesale but the allegation has
been that often seniority and merit are
sacrificed in these transfers and that
the transfers themselves transmit
disturbing signals down the
rank-and-file damaging the morale and
confidence of the bureaucracy it is
wrong to do such a thing I would say
that wherever you find that certain
people skinned or they have got a public
public image of being associated with
one particular type of policies and the
other protocol pathway comes in with a
different type of ideology or a party it
was but necessary that some of these
people must move out as a matter of fact
you would remember the stacks our access
is a very good example though he was not
I would say a dirichlet when he left the
Planning Commission but he was very
clear in his mind that the type of
things with which mr. Hudson's name was
associated were not the type of things
which the next government was wanting to
do and he resigned and just a particular
thing and that is assume that if there
was another person who was very much in
the service at that time again
associated with certain ideas because
when you reach a certain level in the
government or in administration you get
associated with certain ideas and
certain names so the incoming government
I would say have a right to move some of
these particular people but mass
transfer to which you made the
difference will certainly not be good I
would say as a method of keeping the
morale of administration high well it
can happen why not one thing you have
the American administration where 5,000
people get transferred in one day but we
don't have that here we follow the white
wall model of not entirely not we follow
our own model we don't follow a right
hole or any other government we follow
our own system would you stay in the
middle no it's not that I mean it this
is again the question of you know
individual decision a new government
comes in you must have your own team you
have our own political team the
political team comes in it settles in
and then there are transfers which are
do I mean after all there are government
when there rules people are transferred
from
Minister another everyone doesn't stay
static in the same position so the
initial initial movements will always be
there there's nothing wrong in it if
there is a new government with a new
philosophy a new ideology new approach
and it wants to make a new beginning I
can imagine that they would like to
change say the finance secretary the
defense secretary the Foreign Secretary
these are understandable but I certainly
can't understand why they should change
the personnel secretary of the tourism
secretary or the agriculture secretary
in these areas that I don't think
there's a great difference between an
outgoing government and an incoming
government on philosophical or
ideological grounds senior officers
should dock bees should not be shifted
around just for the change of that would
they have put in well over 25 years
sometimes even 30 years of service and
we will seasons they have the fund of
knowledge which can be better utilized
and you you put them into sideline them
you are not utilizing a talent which is
available knowledge that is available
experience that is available there is a
loss to the country itself but it is in
the state level that these mass
transfers are often conducted as crude
exercises here the politician bureaucrat
interface is more frequent and direct
and in recent years there have been
allegations of substantial political
interference in postings and transfers
in most states some of these decisions
are quite explicitly influenced with
cost and extraneous considerations being
paramount I could tell you a number of
instances where the bureaucracy has been
so little sized and especially or long
cast lines in many states that every we
look at belonging to a particular caste
finds his patron in some politician of
the other and if the caste system is
strong then the politician is respected
or their political differences
congregate on the issue of cost and I
have I know personally of many officers
who have flourished in every regime only
other ways of the type that they have
protections
in every government the pressures there
are much greater and as the consequences
can be much more direct administration
in the States
sometimes objects in a very crude level
fix they make it very obvious that a
particular bureaucrat is being punished
for resisting the political pressures at
the center the thing that done in a more
subtle manner why is it that when a
minister or a prime minister visits a
particular place or a state or a
constituency people rush to him and they
say sir we need justice and you are the
only person who could do justice to me
why is it the people you see rush to or
write letters to the MPs and other
saying that the law and order is
breaking down and you do something all
this thing happens when there is lack of
confidence between the people and the
administration the collectors the
commissioners and people who are working
in the field at junior and middle levels
but they are as much politicized as the
bureaucrats in the hiring of a
bureaucracy because there the nexus
between the MLA the MP the local big-rig
the collector the deputy collector vespi
the deputy SP and all that and the
politicized notification is as the rest
of their as anywhere else
but if transfers in postings are the
carrots being offered to seduce the
bureaucrats loyalty it is the enormous
power some bureaucrats exercise which
has been the scope of media attention
some of these super bureaucrats or super
crats of the media calls them a power
way in excess of their normal brief and
many of them bask in the spotlight of
media publicity political observers
claim that it is the over centralized
nature of decision-making and the
importance given lately to offices such
as the PMO which has created the super
craft syndrome the public perception is
that these high-profile bureaucrats have
usurped power which is not dey's
legitimately it's a weak Minister allows
a bureaucrat to become what you call a
superclass
well what about situations like the
Prime Minister's Office Winston's there
are joint statutory you know it's more
powerful than second
many governments that again you see
depends on the Minister on the secretary
is it today we have a prime ministerial
system of government I think it's become
a long way from cabinet system even in
England nobody really believes that we
have a cabinet system the prime
ministerial system and therefore the
Prime Minister's office will enjoy a
certain status a certain power sudden
clout and officers who are in the Prime
Minister's office will have a certain
amount of apology and clout and I'm
afraid they will tend to be identified
with the Prime Minister
they are the staff of the Prime Minister
I can start for the president in the
United States but that's no reason why
another minister or secretary in that
ministry should feel that he is
overridden by the Prime Minister's joint
secretary well it is flattering to hear
this kind of thing but I think it's
simply untrue you are you I think
accurately described me as I was just a
joint secretary in the Prime Minister's
Office now that's exactly what I was I
was just a joint secretary in the Prime
Minister's office but being a joint
secretary in the Prime Minister's office
I was obliged to interact with ministers
and officials in a manner in which
perhaps I would not have been obliged to
interacted I'd be in a joint secretary
in the Ministry of External Affairs
beyond that I doubt that anyone losing
all of me we all worship a chair and
whereas the center of power that's where
everybody gets access to now is the
centre of power as the fabulous office
that everybody goes there now that is
not also very good because then in that
type of eventualities even the ministers
become redundant I don't think it can be
sustained that I or any of the my
colleagues in PMO really involved in
political activity as such we were
involved in serving our political
masters there is a general trend in in
our country to eulogize a bureaucrat I
mean look at what happened to money
Shankar Aiyar
Oba rota for instance there were
powerful people and not that there were
not powerful people in the past but the
way the press has given publicity the
media has given publicity to them I mean
they're not only super the bureaucrats
they were super ministers and I think
it's a matter of great shame for a
democracy that a service which is
supposed to be anonymous bureaucracy is
supposed to be anonymous should should
be highlighted like this the most
serious charge being leveled against the
Bureau cast today is that they are
actively participating in an alleged
nexus with the politician and the
businessman to promote specific
corporate interests in a political
atmosphere dominated by a dispensation
complex the role of a bureaucrat who
connives with the politician to dispense
favors on a quid pro quo basis becomes
crucial political analysts cite examples
of recent fi RS filed against senior
bureaucrats in the befores and hdw
scandals to raise questions on the
integrity and the changing morals of the
section of the Indian bureaucracy those
who were too eager to get into what you
call as I call it the Iron Triangle in
which you see the businessmen is
one-armed their bureaucracy is another
arm and the politician is another arm
and if you get into this particular
triangle you are trapped now this is
what we have got to avoid and I would
say that the bureaucracy and the
politicians both will have to learn the
lessons and I've got to see that they
will not be able to last if this sort of
an unhealthy triangle is formed this is
not a golden triangle this is a horrible
Iron Triangle I refuse to believe that a
bureaucrat becomes a part of the
triangle wholly because he's under great
pressure it's more often than not the
desire for rewards for promotion so many
monetary benefits that inducers
introduced on the call of the politician
is shrewd enough to fictions targets
well whether were just proved corrective
action should be taken and what kind of
corrective action who has a well to
whatever whatever the law specifies
should be taken who is held accountable
is the bureaucrat of the politician
everybody should be held
comfortable but as I said you cannot
discuss this in generalities you must be
specific about it well then I agree with
you that all these mixes well it exists
we know it exists but then again it's
upon the Minister concern all the
scandals that we are reading about in
the papers they show that the chicken
the chicks do come home to roost I mean
the reflection think that they can do
all these things violate all sorts of
norms and still get scot-free as evident
from the recent exposure obviously
bureaucrats are getting into trouble and
this is a very significant lesson for
them signal for them it cannot be denied
that the last few years
Indian bureaucracy has received a
battery from within the institution
there have been criticism of crumbling
conventions and damaging norms but
beyond the charges and allegations it
becomes important to locate the reason
for the malaise and in this context the
mood question is who is to blame for the
state of affairs I don't think the
bureaucrat is ever in doubt as to what
he has to do he he knows what exactly is
right and what is wrong and he knows
where he must resist pressure and where
he just cannot take pressure yield to
pressure but despite that they are doing
it a large number of severe crimes
because they want to advance you know
they want their promotions in time or
out of turn there is a lot of difference
there is a world of difference for
instance between a good posting and a
bad posting today and I think it is
postings more than anything else which
is the crumble which the politician
throws at the bureaucrat and the bureau
current bites no I think is basically
passing the buck as I told you a
bureaucrat is a tool he can be used for
good things you can be used for bad
things the responsibility is with the
politician under whom the bureaucrat has
to work so why not pin the blame where
it belongs the politician is already a
very bad nom kind of a person the
bureaucrat is not and what I am saying
is that there is a certain framework
within which the bureaucracy is supposed
to function and the must function within
that framework so I will rather bleh
the politician has no same therefore the
bureaucrat is more to be blamed than the
politician if somebody is coming to take
advantage of me it's up to me to resist
that and see that I am not taken
advantage of I would say yes or no
because I'll tell you there are more
than 40 to 50 percent of administrators
even today who don't have the feet of
clay I've always said that a secretary
and a minister should not develop a
symbiotic relationship they must work
together but not seem to be colluding or
collaborating and illegal purposes
that's nothing to do with political
interference that's clearly violating
the law there has been such an instance
I think both the minister and the
secretary are equally culpable most
politicians deny that they have
politicized the bureaucracy to any
substantial degree they assert their
right to make the final decisions and
point out the subtle but important
difference between political
decision-making and political
interference in to many critics it is
the bureaucracy which is allowed itself
to be blatantly tampered with often
being a willing partner in this dubious
Nexus to these critics the institution
has been subverted by those actively
colluding with unscrupulous politicians
only for their personal gain and
advancements political interference is
when the politician enters into
day-to-day administration but where
policy is given an administrator is
given the freedom to operate and work
then it does not really matter but this
is what you call a chemically pure
solution I am giving it to you we
shouldn't lose sight of the reality of
government in words now what you call
political interference now I would call
political decision-making if I was a
minister I would expect to make the
decisions I wish to make the decision to
myself and if I run my ministry and if I
direct that my ministry should take
certain kinds of decisions so that
Minister certain programs in a
particular way
that's not political interference
you have laid-back ministers you have
very assertive and active ministers we
don't believe in interference we believe
in results we hold people are
comfortable why should i interfere with
what if a bureaucrat doesn't want to
carry on carry out what you think is
what I think is government policy is his
job to carry it out and if he doesn't
because he feels that it's violating
some constitutional normal law it
doesn't change who I wouldn't give him
such an order they can be good politics
and bad politics good politicians and
bad politicians and to an extent the
bureaucrat has to consult his conscience
he knows what the rules and regulations
are what the law of the land is what the
Constitution declares and when he
realizes at any point of time the
instruction given to him goes outside
the purview of the Constitution outside
the purview of the laws outside the
purview of the rules and regulations it
is his business to stand up and tell the
politician where he gets off the media
focus on the changing face of Indian
bureaucracy the birth of super
bureaucrats the scandals tainting key
officials and the regular transfers of
inconvenient officers brings into sharp
relief the predicament of the system and
the question remains whether all these
factors have affected the efficiency of
the civil service and in the process
eroded the credibility of the
institution itself
it hasn't been ordered the credibility
of the bureaucracy but it is certainly
eroded the type of inputs of the
bureaucracy would be able to make I
think that is what has certainly
happened for example when you've done
that no bureaucrat would be prepared to
take the decision he would not be
prepared to go along and give very
objective advice he would always be
trying to hide out under some some text
or take shelter somewhere or the other
he would not be fearless in giving his
objective advice well it has not only
affected the certainly affected the
credibility and the morale it has also
affected its efficiency and its
effectiveness on the whole I would say
that the Indian bureaucracy has been
performing more satisfactorily than one
imagines
it has become the whipping boy of the
press and sadly enough even of
Parliament's the point is that you know
government systems once they eroded I
remember in 85 in because you admit the
government system is a total
test there's no doubt about it I mean
you Ronnie you can't dispute you can't
disprove something which has already
happened but it's not being done by you
to sort of check that erosion you know
first of all you must realize the
government of India is a very large
institution by itself and you will
always have isolated actions which may
smacko vendetta or personal pick or the
rest of it but by and large the exercise
which we are going through is that for
the last three four years we have seen a
gradual erosion of the system and we
want to restore
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Birokrasi dalam Filosofi Pemerintahan
Why Secular Hindus Are The BIGGEST DANGER To Hinduism
Identitas Nasional
Bangladesh Protest में भयानक हिंसा, फ़ौज पस्त, भारत को कैसा ख़तरा? Sheikh Hasina | Duniyadari E1148
Media Regulation: Crash Course Government and Politics #45
Balochistan Conflict - Geopolitical Battle or a Local Problem? - BLA Vs CPEC
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)