Bureaucracy in India: Babu power and red tape

Summary

The 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

00:00

🏛️ 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.

05:01

👥 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.

10:04

🏢 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.

15:06

🤝 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.

20:07

🛠️ 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.

Keywords

💡Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy refers to the administrative body of an organization or government, typically characterized by a hierarchical structure and adherence to rules and regulations. In the video's context, it is portrayed as a crucial element of democracy that provides stability amidst political and social changes. However, it is also criticized for becoming politicized and being under attack for its perceived influence and favoritism, as seen in the script's discussion on the relationship between politicians and bureaucrats.

💡Politicization

Politicization is the act of making something political, or the process by which political considerations influence decisions and actions. The script discusses the concern that bureaucracy is becoming politicized, meaning that it is increasingly influenced by political motives or agendas. This is seen as problematic as it can lead to decisions being made based on political affiliations rather than merit or the public interest.

💡Stability

Stability, in this context, refers to the quality of being stable, consistent, and not changing rapidly. The script mentions that bureaucracy lends a semblance of stability and permanence to the political system, suggesting that despite the rapid changes in politics, the bureaucratic structure remains a constant factor.

💡Nexus

Nexus, in the script, denotes a connection or series of connections linking two or more things. The term is used to describe the complex and often problematic relationship between politicians and bureaucrats, where there is an exchange of favors and influence that can lead to corruption and a departure from the intended apolitical nature of bureaucracy.

💡Victimization

Victimization in this context refers to the act of being unfairly treated or disadvantaged due to political reasons. The script mentions 'victimization' in relation to the bureaucracy, suggesting that some bureaucrats may be targeted or disadvantaged because of their perceived political affiliations or resistance to political pressures.

💡Whitehall Model

The Whitehall Model is a term used to describe the British civil service system, characterized by a clear separation between politicians and civil servants, with the latter being apolitical and unbiased. The script contrasts this model with the perceived politicization of the bureaucracy in India, highlighting the ideal of an apolitical and dispassionate bureaucracy.

💡Super Bureaucrats

Super Bureaucrats, as mentioned in the script, refers to high-profile bureaucrats who are perceived to have more power and influence than is traditionally expected of their role. This concept is criticized as it suggests that these individuals may be overstepping their authority and becoming too involved in political decision-making.

💡Iron Triangle

The Iron Triangle is a term used in the script to describe a problematic relationship between bureaucrats, politicians, and businessmen, where each group exerts influence over the others for mutual benefit, potentially at the expense of the public interest. It is portrayed as a corrupt system that needs to be avoided.

💡Transfers

In the context of the script, transfers refer to the movement of bureaucrats from one position to another, often as a result of political decisions. The script criticizes mass transfers as a method of victimization and rehabilitation, suggesting that they can damage the morale and confidence of the bureaucracy.

💡Credibility

Credibility, in this context, refers to the trustworthiness and reliability of the bureaucracy. The script suggests that the perceived politicization and scandals involving bureaucrats have eroded the credibility of the institution, leading to a loss of public trust.

💡Erosion

Erosion in the script refers to the gradual wearing away or deterioration of something. In relation to the bureaucracy, it signifies the weakening of its norms, conventions, and efficiency due to factors such as politicization, scandals, and transfers. The term is used to express concern over the declining state of the institution.

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