BOOK REVIEW

The Changing Face of Bureaucracy by Sanjoy Bagchi is a must-read book for anyone who
wishes to know all about the IAS and who doesnt in India? This excellently brought out
book by Rupa, with comfortable font size and spacing even for the armchair reader, crams its
492 pages with facts, tables, a detailed index, an exhaustive bibliography, a detailed historical
account of the growth of the service from the days of the East India Company and even
earlier from the days of the Moghuls, and insights into the opinions of top officials
themselves, all glossed with a fine patina of educated analysis by the committed civil servant
author. Indeed a fitting companion by an insider to The Men Who Ruled India by Philip
Woodruff [in reality Philip Mason of U.P.], but written without the refraction of rose-tinted
glasses worn by the Englishman.
Not that the author does not doff his cap reverentially at the predecessors of his service, the
ICS, despite his acknowledgment that they were imperial agents with a dominant foreign
component. The ICS, he notes, followed a set of norms that emphasized honesty,
independence of mind and capacity for decision-making, qualities which the analysis of the
book shows to be gravely eroded in the present. The ICS adopted the role of the remote,
harsh, and punitive father towards Indian subordinates, because the British feared the Indians
might act contrary to the interests of the bureaucracy, in other words, contrary to British
interests. It may be important for the reader to recollect that if the British ICS did limit
corruption to a great extent, the bane of middle-class India today, it was only to secure their
own interests and power all the tighter. The elite ruling clique, the ICS, separated by race,
language, interest, and power from those over whom they enjoyed power, held in their hands,
as the book notes, not only real executive power, but a substantial part of the legislature and
judiciary. It should never be forgotten that the Collector, the tortoise on whose back stood
the elephant of the Government of India, to re-quote Ramsay Macdonald, was there to
ensure the Kings revenues and keep the Kings peace, as many a young recruit was
reminded. If they performed these primary tasks, and kept a Kiplingese distance from those
they ruled over, they could as an elite club follow their predilections without much
supervision, whether it was a study of Hinduism or Indian birds, whether it was big-game
hunting or promoting education.
If the ICS gained universal respect, it was because the Indians of the period were relieved that
the savageries of the turbulent past had ended. Individually, quite a few have gone down in
song and legend for their likeable eccentricities. But they were not the philosopher kings they
imagined themselves to be. That Platonic ideal was not achieved by the Chinese Mandarins,
and it is an impossible will-of-the wisp goal for any starry-eyed IAS officer. This hierarchal
service finds its origins in the rights to collect land revenue which the British squeezed out
of the Moghul Emperor in 1765, after their victory at Plassey. Hence the office of Collector
brought together executive and magisterial functions, and kept general control over all the
governmental functions in the district, including over the police. As District Magistrate, the
Collector was head of criminal law administration. Almost till the end of British rule, under
special Section 30 powers he could even award the death penalty, and during earlier times, he
could take charge of any military units in his district if necessity demanded. Even during the

Quit India movement of 1942, the police hesitated to resort to firing without his express
permission, whereas these days, as the author conscientiously points out, the police feel free
to take such extreme measures, while the DM and other members of the magistracy only
ratify it. It is worthwhile pointing out that the government of Andhra Pradesh has the
dubious distinction of being the first, during the 1970s, to appoint a police officer as Home
Secretary, and thus do away with the pretence of civilian control over the police.
Indeed, the main burden of the book is to detail how from high standards of conscientious
service the IAS has gradually degenerated, through political interference, as well as through
internal decay of morals. The author locates the beginning of the downward slide in the dark
days of Indira Gandhis Internal Emergency, dramatically entitled Darkness at Noon, with
her loyalist Haksar advocating the services should be politically committed to the ideology
and orientations of the political party which is in power as the government. IAS officers
formed alliances with politicians, each aiding and abetting in getting the maximum out of the
spoils system. Of course when others came to power, they also made matters worse. Bagchi
notes that it was Charan Singh who stuffed the service with officers of his own biradari,
reducing M.P. [the authors state of service] into a colonial adjunct of U.P.
The author notes that our politicians are very different from those in Westminster, giving the
highest priority to the interest not of the nation but of his party and within the party to the
interests of himself, his family, his clan, his caste, his constituency. Obviously too true about
many of Indias politicians, but it must be pointed out that he is far too generous about the
Brits, whose capacity for skullduggery won them not only an Empire, but lasting influence
over colonized minds, as Fanon and Edward Said have written in extensive detail. Bagchi is
pitiless about blameworthy officers, indicting them of personal ambition, casteism,
provincialism, and careerism. He finds many acquisitive of perks, usually arrogant or
petty-minded and guilty of sycophancy. He regretfully concludes that the IAS is not a
meritocratic entity, it is not a lean and compact organization, and that the officers attach
themselves to sub-goals of caste, communal and political alignments. And what types of
pressure did the politicians bring to break the morale of the service? Frequent transfers are
mentioned in several places, as well as the fear of humiliation. So, the British did not
bequeath a steel-frame to India but one made of rushes!
The author is stout in defence of his service, though magisterial in pointing out all the defects
that have adhered to it barnacle-fashion. Along with the other gurus, from the early days of
Sir Gopalswami Ayyangar and Sir V.T. Krishnamachari, to the later committees chaired by
Kothari and Alagh, who have ruminated on how to fine-tune the service, the author would
like to suggest three action points before it is too late: political neutrality, accountability,
and systemic changes for qualitative improvement. But it is an open question whether these
measures, or any measures, can rescue the service from all the ills it is heir to, and help it
[re]gain the Platonic heights of intellectual elitism, which the author does not find
reprehensible as he does social elitism. Even the experiences of ideologically controlled
communist societies, Bolshevik Russia and Maos China, have shown that a power
distinction between mental and manual work is the opening wedge that rapidly divides
societies into classes and castes. Hence Maos call to scholars during the Cultural Revolution
to go to the countryside, and Dalit resentment of Brahmins. Soon after Independence, there
was a Gandhian attempt at involving high officials in Sramdhan, but it soon petered out.
Perhaps the re-institution of some such work, such as cleaning out dry latrines wherever the
practice is clandestinely tolerated, may do more to stiffen the backbone of the service than
any other measure.

Bagchi agonizes over the idea that the service may be wound up, and dismisses all attacks on
the need for an elite generalist corps in a democratic country, though he does admit ruefully
that the IAS has not proved to be superior in probity compared to other services. An
implausible belief in such superiority is part of the British myth which lies like a miasma over
the former colonies, like similar belief in English gentlemanliness, sportsmanship, justice,
and fair play. It is this myth that created a great empire, but an economically resurgent
country, one that also carries a large burden of caste, class, gender, and regional prejudice,
needs to do away with romance and ask itself what possible use there can be in having two
powerful rungs of governance, one of politicians and another of entrenched elite bureaucrats,
sometimes working in tandem and sometimes in opposition, at all times for the welfare of
their own classes, and always to the disadvantaged of the masses they rule over. The question
is not merely about justice, it is more about survival of the nation itself. Unless there is
effective democratic empowerment at the grassroots, the economy will remain crippled,
violent dissidence will increase, chauvinism and fundamentalism will find resurgence, and
effective sovereignty could easily slip into alien imperial hands.
India can justifiably be proud that it has retained a greater semblance of democracy than most
other former colonies, and many Western nations as well. And certainly the IAS can see itself
as the pier of the bridge over which India passed from colonial rule to Independence. But
the licence-raj, run through the elite nexus between the politicians and the IAS, crippled the
economy for several decades, when we might have done just as well as China, and what is
more, kept 80% of the people at levels no better than servitude. Despite the 73rd and the 74th
amendments to the Constitution the panchayati raj bodies remain without power, money, or
support, and this itself speaks of the very unhealthy concentration of power and money at the
very top, with the connivance of the bureaucracy. Bagchi regretfully quotes Lord Actons
dictum in two places in this large book: All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. And yet he feels there can be no substitute for the IAS.
If the IAS set up a large number of public enterprises, this is no great claim. Most have been
run unprofitably, except in the energy sector. Autocracy not only badly restricted economic
growth, but the autocratic command exerted by the generalist IAS over all fields infantilized
scientists, engineers, doctors, conservators, agronomists, and rendered them impotent in their
own fields. The IAS must take their share of blame for the destruction of educational and
public health standards, and for leaving an 800-million strong farming community on the
verge of suicide. The Armed Forces also have their own stories to tell about the weight of the
crippling IAS hand. The author quotes Sir Edward Blunt on the district officer: He may
divide the work, but he cannot divide the responsibility. Very true, and this rule holds for the
whole service, praise or blame.
Since, the IAS failed in the task [self]apportioned to them, and were partly responsible for the
locust years after Independence, it is quite justified to suggest that in the future public
services should be headed by technical experts competent in their own areas of expertise, and
accountable to Ministers and other parliamentarians, the elected generalists of a democracy.
The belief that an elite bureaucratic body could play the role of guardians[a phrase used by
Woodruff], is just plain silly. Only the people can be guardians, and their institutions from the
bottom upwards must have legitimacy, power, and resources. This is a political issue, and is
at the very root of the meaning of independence.

The best part of the book is Bagchis lyrical account of the work of the district officer. This
reviewer looks forward to another book from this gifted and knowledgeable writer, focused
on the work of the IAS in the district, perhaps drawing from the rich lore of his own state, for
apart from being a charming read it might contain anecdotes and instructive insights into how
change was brought about at the local level, by human inspiration and action, without much
resource or technology, but of lasting benefit for the people.
Vithal Rajan
Hyderabad