Not Just Bureaucracy, It’s Everywhere

Bikash Sarmah

(Bikash Sarmah can be reached at bksarmah07@rediffmail.com, sarmah.b@yahoo.com)

THE REALITY MIRROR

We are a submissive society, the typical Indian society. We are compliant because we are comfortable in being compliant as we resist change and out-of-box thinking. We, in general, are not of the questioning kind because we have strange fears about being intimidated or harassed by the authority or because we just want to be in the good books of our masters, whoever the master may be.

The Indian bureaucracy is a classic example of some of the most bizarre heights of compliance or submissiveness. The typical bureaucrat, despite his intelligence and abilities, merrily kowtows to his political master because he does not want any punishment posting or because he is extra-desirous of climbing up the bureaucratic ladder by being pleasant to his political boss – or because he wants a cosy posting with no hassles of the day as could be encountered if he were to be bold and intelligently and honestly irreverent. Most of these extremely qualified officers, who are expected by the public to speak up whenever the need arises, are yes-men. They do no service to the democracy in place.

There are exceptions though. Two very eminent names would come to our minds – TN Seshan and JM Lyngdoh (one of the most illustrious IAS officers from Northeast India). Both of them were chief election commissioners. When they were at the helm of affairs steering a very responsible chair – which is quite prone to political manipulations and criticisms – they very boldly resisted all sorts of political pressure in the discharge of their duties and endeared themselves to the masses. They could stare directly at the eyes of the dishonest political executive and tell him to mind his own business.

It took these two radical bureaucrats a lot of courage to do all that. But what was defining was their integrity, their commitment to the cause of public service (they knew they were public servants first), and the consistency of their belief that whatever they were doing, it was all in the interest of a functioning democracy in the making. We remember them with adulatory salute. But how many other names in that category adorning that chair do we remember or want to remember? It is an inconvenient question in just one particular case.

A few days ago, Meeran Chadha Borwankar, an IPS officer of the Maharashtra cadre who retired as Director General, Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), wrote a very illuminating opinion piece titled “Clones in the civil service” for The Indian Express (May 6, 2019), in which the risk of the prestigious Indian civil services, especially IAS and IPS, producing “just clones who seek precedence, not innovation in work” has been beautifully elucidated. Every civil servant, especially those in IAS and IPS, would do well to go through the piece and ponder on the very serious food for thought provided there. That article is with particular reference to the sudden and before-time shift of the Chief of Enforcement Directorate, Western Zone.

While lamenting the “shunting” of officers who summon the required courage to stand up to political pressures, Borwankar also talks of the culture within the civil services: that “nowhere have we questioned the culture prevailing within the civil services – whether it is conducive to civil servants taking value-based personal positions, and colleagues standing by such officers and supporting them”.

The next paragraph is far more striking: “The sad truth is, the civil services induct some of the most talented and intelligent individuals in the country, and then labour hard on making them mediocre. We want clones in each of our departments (emphasis added). Original thinkers? The word does not exist in the dictionary of civil servants. Our prime focus is ‘safety’, and to be in the good books of the party in power. We feel insecure, very often, especially at the slightest departure from ‘precedence’, that holy word. We convey the same sentiment to the political bosses, too. Though they are a little more adventurous initially, soon they fall in line. The result is an opaque governance, the slow chugging train of Indian democracy.”

The sensible argument put forth in the article is that what the civil services need is “a culture that accepts and values questioning and the irreverence of bold officers” because “the ultimate objective is to have integrity in one’s work ethic and a steady commitment to the common good”. But the sad part of the story is that in our oversized bureaucracy flooded by yes-men, questioning of the existing systems and advocacy of an out-of-box paradigm to evolve better systems of governance and administration are just not encouraged. In fact, officers who dare tread that line are punished. This has been a terribly unsettling bane of our civil services.

Well, it is not just about the civil services alone. It is witnessed in every service, though in the corporate world, innovative or out-of-box minds and thought leaders get a lot of encouragement – and get heeded too. Every government service is crowded by yes-men, people who are quite content with following each and every stereotype, however antiquated, blindly and adhering to the law of precedence set by their bosses. There is hardly any questioning, hardly any fresh and radical idea. What is at work is a fear factor: “What if my boss were to be unhappy with me for suggesting something different, and what if I were to be punished?” Such meekness has played havoc with most of our government departments. No wonder, then, that these entities, where a lot of money flows in, should stagnate and eventually get notorious either for corruption or for total inefficiency and lack of productivity.

In fact, the two-fold malaise of discouragement of innovative thinking or out-of-box ideas and encouragement of adherence to stereotypes begins right in our schools. The education system, which has yet to evolve into something really valid, reliable, and thus meaningful, is such that students are discouraged from being of the questioning kind. They are encouraged, rather, to abide by the law of precedence. Whatever way the teacher teaches, and what he says is true and untrue, all have to be accepted by the student hook, line and sinker. After all, the questioning student is a source of huge discomfiture to the teacher in general, he being himself not competent enough to answer out-of-box queries. When the student matures after being made to go through a stagnant education system, he does not have any original resource in his command to work on and engender fresh ideas.

So, in the ultimate analysis, is that the precise reason why we are still considered a mediocre nation despite our potential? When will this disgrace come to an end?