From Indore water contamination to Sabarimala gold heist: Bureaucratic inefficiency haunts India

Viewed as politically powerful compared with other institutions in society, India’s bureaucracy is widely acknowledged as a potent institution. Bureaucrats enjoy a complex mix of formal benefits, informal advantages (such as patronage and corruption), and historical power structures, granting officials access to resources, influence, and lucrative opportunities. Often achieved through bribery and nepotism despite laws against it, these practices have led to systemic issues but also reflect a historical base of elite influence in governance. These privileges typically manifest as expedited services and wealth accumulation, intricately tied to the enduring "bureaucratic-executive state" alliance that shapes power dynamics. Bureaucratic power lies not only in structure but also in culture — how things are done — and in the socio-political environment surrounding it.

Colonial rule in India witnessed a profoundly unbalanced institutional landscape. Administrative capacity and powers resided almost entirely with the Indian Civil Service (ICS), while political parties remained underdeveloped. Post-Independence, the only major change was cosmetic: the ICS was renamed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), yet the alliance between bureaucracy and the executive, dominant during the British era, continued unabated.

The Indian post-Independence state represents a particularly strong combination of administrative and executive power underpinned by an elite alliance. The legitimacy of the executive and the coercive capacity of the administration have consolidated a highly resilient ‘bureaucratic-executive’ state. Bureaucracy in India has evolved uniquely as both powerful and weak — simultaneously strong and powerless, overdeveloped in size yet underdeveloped in functional terms.

Competition for lucrative posts in the Indian bureaucracy has become intense, often informal, involving political manoeuvring for positions that offer perks, power, and influence. While political leaders focus on short-term gains to retain office rather than long-term state-building, bureaucrats exercise considerable power by deciding which initiatives advance or stall, using a complex maze of rules and regulations. Bureaucrats wield authority selectively, granting or denying services to citizens at their discretion. The executive, legislature, and judiciary are complicit, as omissions and commissions set precedents that empower bureaucrats to exercise undue discretion.

Indian politicians rarely disagree on ideology or the country’s future. Their disputes centre on corruption, leadership legitimacy, electoral outcomes, allegations of ‘vote-chori’, or manipulated electronic voting machines (EVMs). Politicians are like architects: only a few can design and construct substantial achievements, while the majority engage in mirage-like ambitions and slander, battling for over 70 years. Meanwhile, bureaucratic chameleons, with over 100 shades of ‘integrity’, vie for key positions that have become whirlpools of power, influence, and wealth.

Bureaucratic posts are tacitly categorised as elite, premium, standard, and ordinary, based on the extent of power that can be exercised, creating pockets of effectiveness. These pockets fluctuate, depending on the policies of the leading bureaucrat and the loyalty of subordinates. Different bureaucratic settlements emerge periodically, distinguished by the horizontal and vertical distribution of power, producing posts of varying “horsepower”. Intra-bureaucratic struggles primarily aim to occupy posts of high horsepower.

The pressing question is how long India can continue the ICS (1858) model, renamed IAS (1947). Administrative breakdowns, such as the Indore water tragedy, Goa nightclub incident, gold loot in Kerala’s Sabarimala, Tamil Nadu Deepam conflict, Karnataka demolitions, and Himachal ragging horror, alongside routine corruption, governance failures, security lapses, and inefficient public service, reflect political instability in many states, giving rise to bureaucratic ineptitude and nonchalance.

Landmark reforms are essential, beginning with the Civil Services Examination and training curriculum. Civil service training institutions should be evaluated along lines similar to NAAC and NIRF to ensure quality benchmarks. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times notes that the Singapore Civil Service is among the most efficient and uncorrupt in the world, valuing discipline, meritocracy, and Confucian principles. Its system allows individuals from modest backgrounds to rise to leadership, maintain a corruption-free bureaucracy, and sustain public trust in government institutions.

It is time for India to move away from a system dominated by a few bureaucrats ensconced in high-horsepower positions. "Above all, I would advise you to maintain to the utmost the impartiality and incorruptibility of administration. A civil servant cannot afford to and must not, take part in politics. Nor must he involve himself in communal wrangles," said Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the architect of modern Indian civil services.

The author is former Director General of National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics