By Lt Gen Gautam Banerjee
09 Sep , 2015
“Sadly, the society is not usually ruled by great men, but small ones whom circumstances have brought into positions of power”.
…irrespective of the kind of regime that might govern a state, the ruling class has no other option but to install a bureaucratic system and depend on it to rule according to the promises it makes and the mandate it enjoys.
The Honourable ‘Babu’
There was a time when the term ‘babu’ was reserved only for the most revered beacons of the society. More colloquially, it was also a term of endearment, with loving wives, admirers and lovers addressing their ‘lords’ as such, and parents not tiring of naming their progeny as ‘Babu Lal’, ‘Babu Sona’, ‘Babu Saheb’ etc. Even in officious situations, it was the ‘Babu Ji’ to whom his retinue would defer. But alas, today that pristine sheen seems to have been tarnished by conjoined assault of insinuations, epithets and accusations from every quarter that is spearheaded by an impatient, over-zealous and judgemental media – notwithstanding the range of benefits that it receives from its favourite quarry – the ubiquitous ‘babu’.
Burden of Bureaucracy
There are three fundamental pillars on which that idea of a ‘state’ is built upon. These are: one, a geographically defined area; two, governance of the peoples in habitation therein; and three, the ability to protect its sovereignty. These are the fundamental ingredients ordained of a state which its rulers are mandated to nurture, strengthen and protect at all times. It is thus that monarchy sanctifies state laws and rules through invocation of ‘heaven’s mandate’, oligarchy does that by imposition of group diktats, dictatorship takes recourse to threat and punishment, while it is the majority ‘will’ that manifests in democracy. Further, past experiences of statesmanship enjoin the ruling establishment to apply its mandate in a systemic and consistent manner for its own benefit, and promulgate its intent through shaping of policy articulations over time. Next, in order to implement such policy articulations, systems, establishments and agencies have to be created, organised and deployed according to laws, rules of business and fiscal principles, which in turn have to be drafted with due wisdom and sanctified constitutionally by those who are competent to do so. Finally, as the trustee of peoples’ assets, every usage and expense by the state have to be planned, accounted for and audited with impassionate stricture. Obviously, at the delivery end of governance where the buck stops, there have to be the managers and executives of due training, experience and sense of purpose who could translate the state’s obligations into implementable realities.
In democracy, the burden on the bureaucracy is even more complex when it has to balance the ruling party’s political agenda with systemic prudence and propriety, and operate in the backdrop of the election cycle.
Therefore, irrespective of the kind of regime that might govern a state, the ruling class has no other option but to install a bureaucratic system and depend on it to rule according to the promises it makes and the mandate it enjoys. On its own part, the bureaucratic system has to function within the sanctified rules of business that overarches every aspect of governance – routine administration, planning, funding, execution, audit and renewal. More crucially, the system itself has to be first designed and rules of business formulated in the first place, and then allowed to shape up through regular course-corrections. Thus there have to be bureaucrats to operate the complex system of governance while continuously nurturing its changing facets through precedence’s, renewals and restructure. Indeed, it is due to the bureaucracy that the society functions in some order – supply chain, industry, transportation, works, law and order, the entire gamut of societal activities in fact – even if that order remains far from perfection. Obviously, bureaucrats have to be selected on account of their innate potential, trained in system operating skills and then decreed, under the ruler’s direction, to apply their matured mind, acumen and experience to the furtherance of the state’s responsibilities.
Indeed, implementation of the ruler’s agenda and so boost their ‘credit points’ is no simple matter, for the goals set are to be secured with what resources are at hand, on a time bound manner and without landing the rulers in serious societal, political or legal trouble. Performance of such a complex assignment requires the bureaucrats to devote a life-time of commitment to working with nitty-gritty’s and systemic nuances, a charter which is beyond the ruling class’s culture or competence to muster. In democracy, the burden on the bureaucracy is even more complex when it has to balance the ruling party’s political agenda with systemic prudence and propriety, and operate in the backdrop of the election cycle.
Bureaucrat’s loyalty is to the system from which he draws his authority, and within that stipulation he is a guide and facilitator of the ruler’s ideas and agenda…
Bureaucratic Ethos
Bureaucracy has been indispensible in administration from the time the institution of state took shape. Some two thousand years back the Chinese Empire started selecting their ‘Mandarin’ class through competitive examinations, while other empires and republics picked up competent men of proven wit and wisdom, irrespective of their background, to shoulder the handiwork associated with ruling their realm. The bureaucracy, in return, has invariably been as efficient and balanced in their conduct as it could ever be under the given circumstances.
Mostly unseen and unheard but ubiquitous ever, bureaucracies have thus been running the system of governance from times immemorial: the ‘mandarins’ of the Chinese Empire, ‘amatyas’ of the Maurya and Gupta Empires, ‘prefects’ of the Roman Empire, ‘amirs’ of the Ottoman Empire, ‘mansabdars’ of the Mogul Empire, ‘civil services’ of the British Empire, and so on, for example. Indeed, these bureaucracies, by their wisdom, foresight and skills, held the systemic apparatus together to govern in line with the ruler’s policies, many times preventing, even chastising, frivolous rulers from undermining state institutions, occasionally even bringing themselves to grief in the process. Conversely, weak, corrupt or disloyal bureaucracy has ever been the prominent cause of a state’s decline and eventual collapse – mandarins of China’s Tang and Qing Dynasties, Messers Syed brothers of the Moguls, Talleyrand of Napoleonic reign and Macnaghten of the British East India Company are some examples of such aberrations.
The central role of bureaucracy in running governments has, by hoary tradition, given rise to its exclusive and universal ethics. In China, where formally constituted and recorded bureaucracy appeared first, that ethos is substantiated in its pristine form by the Confucian principles of propriety in decision making, rule of law, benevolence in service, harmony in management, strict system of reward and punishment, and self-effacement. Bureaucrats the world over, exceptions apart, grow into such ethos till it is ingrained into their collective nature. Thus crystallises the bureaucrat’s convictions that:-
…the desired leadership qualities in military and civilian services were practically the same…
One, he is ordained to be a superior and impartial custodian of systemic order in planning and executing all aspects of state administration;
Two, he is a trustee of public exchequer which needs his protective wisdom to be saved from mismanagement or misappropriation;
Three, his loyalty is to the system from which he draws his authority, and within that stipulation he is a guide and facilitator of the ruler’s ideas and agenda; and,
Lastly, as the final repository of wisdom and selfless curator of systemic order, he must strive not only to maintain his protective grip on the state, but to continuously tighten it – for the good of the state, the nation and its people.
The notions are somewhat similar, if exaggerated in subtle humour, as depicted in the BBC serial, ‘Yes, Minister’. Any matter that does not pass the bureaucrat’s wise muster is to be suspected for its intent and purpose, for he is the bulwark against all those sinister aspects which lurk to impinge upon state administration. In short, a bureaucrat sees himself as but a selfless missionary who is dedicated to the welfare of the state and its people, he represents the state; indeed, he ‘is the state’! Institutional intuition have taught a good bureaucrat that in any endorsement made in his ink, he must never let control go out of his hands; some strands of control must invariably be retained. The good motivation for that tradition is that being susceptible to human failings, all men are liable to misuse the authority delegated to them without oversight. Even if bureaucrats do not absolve themselves from such failings, they rely on their ethos and self-conscience to be the least likely to default deliberately – as one can see, that reliance is mostly correct. The latent conceit in never letting any matter go out of their control is that if let free, the delegated fellows would never have to submit again and again to bureaucratic benediction – bureaucrats shiver at the thought of being so marginalised!
…in many cases their conduct has not been above board, is due to political dilution of the bureaucracy and inducement of greed among them; bureaucracy by itself cannot be blamed for these ills.
Thankfully, there is much truth in the excellence of bureaucratic ethos. The closest example of celebrated bureaucracy is the Indian Civil Service (ICS), for it presents a classical example of an ideal bureaucracy. Its members, specially selected, trained, groomed and most importantly, trusted and empowered, stood up to hardships and deprivations of service in lands remote and violent to deliver just administration across the entire India efficiently, fairly and strictly, with little else but courage and native constabulary at their disposal. They were lucky in one respect; in times gone by, the desired leadership qualities in military and civilian services were practically the same, and when reinforced with military officers on deputation to the Political/Frontier Service, civil servants of British India rose to nurture the Empire in a manner that can only be considered as above-the-ordinary. Indeed, when shorn of compulsive cynicism, even today, most of our daily lives are facilitated by the labour of the members of mainstream bureaucracy, namely, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS).
There are numerous examples of young civil servants sticking to the hoary ethos of service by waging lone battles against ruthless mafia, armed desperados, unscrupulous politicians and sometimes even corrupt seniors. In doing so they have been exposing themselves to great dangers of abduction, murder, abrupt removal and even harassment. That in many cases their conduct has not been above board, is due to political dilution of the bureaucracy and inducement of greed among them; bureaucracy by itself cannot be blamed for these ills.
Bargain of Politician-Bureaucrat Solidarity
So how might the politicians, who occupy power through bureaucracy-conducted elections and bail them out from their election manifestoes through the same mechanism, not defer to bureaucracy’s ‘recommendations’, and not leave them free to exercise their superior administrative culture in managing the governing apparatus, particularly when such recommendations bring laurels to themselves. Thus over the years of governance under the reign of electable politicians of modest acquaintance with their charter, certain norms of business have crystallised within the independent India’s bureaucracy.
…bureaucracy is the base on which the ruling party enjoys its merry-go-round. Thus even the most powerful rulers have been ensnared by the bureaucratic spell, the present Government being no exception.
For example, no matter what the past affiliation be, priority is to be accorded to the agenda of the political superior, followed by that of the members of the party in power, while the interests of those from the opposition parties may be promoted when that is manageable. Another norm dictates that and when a political promise turns un-implementable, the good bureaucrat must devise ways to offer face-saving distractions or a smooth escape. Of necessity, to do all these without having to embarrass the political leaders, it becomes necessary for the bureaucrats to be accorded superior authority, and inter alia higher status – higher remunerations and exclusive opportunities follow as a matter of course. Yet, to escape being marked for their back-stage machinations and causing damage to their masters’ self-esteem, bureaucratic tradition enjoins the display of simple habits, quiet solidarity with the master’s agenda and recuse from self-interests. That demeanour allows them to keep alive their bargain with the politicians.
Bureaucrats, in their unshakable conviction, consider safe management of the state as a holy purpose ordained upon their class, so much so that this conviction has grown into a cult that identifies the state’s interests with their own monopoly over authority. That sense of purpose keeps the bureaucracy upright, competent, service-oriented and sincere to a fault, the sole exception being when it sees threats to that monopoly. Of course, under the current dispensation, the construct of the bureaucracy is no more so homogenous, what with revision of standards, politicisation and overwhelming greed amongst many of them. That justifies the logical conclusion that the mainstream bureaucracy – not the plethora of pretending cadres which have mushroomed in the state apparatus – remains as a steel-frame for the state to function in the right manner. By implication, in democracy, bureaucracy is the base on which the ruling party enjoys its merry-go-round. Thus even the most powerful rulers have been ensnared by the bureaucratic spell, the present Government being no exception.
…in a unique arrangement not found elsewhere, the Defence Ministry in India is run by bureaucrats who have little more than just passing acquaintance with matters military.
Managing the Military Institution
There has been a tradition of mutual dislike between the bureaucrats and top military brass; notably however, the younger soldiery remains admired. The notion tutored into our political class is that the military hierarchy is made up of ever demanding perfectionists who do not ‘understand’ the ‘art of compromise’, ‘political compulsions’ or practical constraints of ‘pandering’ to their demands, and come to the terms only when kept in firm leash. Therefore, when it comes to higher management of national defence, they consider it most necessary to exercise bureaucratic control over the military brass. The extremity of destructiveness and irreversibility of the extreme consequences of the military’s ‘call’ are thus viewed through the prism of administrative and vote-garnering expediencies rather than from the excruciating hazards of war-waging. Further, as a norm more or less, India’s bureaucracy seeks military ‘enlightenment’ through extensive reading – Samuel Huntington’s “Soldier and the State” and reports of the British Ministry of Defence being the favourites – without giving itself the benefit of real and practical insight of that most exalted institution of the state. Resultantly, in a unique arrangement not found elsewhere, the Defence Ministry in India is run by bureaucrats who have little more than just passing acquaintance with matters military.
Having thus misguided itself through amateurish interpretation of such precedence’s and examples which might attract its fancy, our bureaucracy feels compelled to keep the military brass ‘in their place’ lest they imbibe over-ambitious ideas. This compelling purpose is sought to be secured, not by inclusion of the military hierarchy to the better management of the military institution as it is done in advanced countries, but by barring them from that process and instead keeping them engaged in whining and grovelling for ‘approvals’ of the most mundane kinds, of what they are already entitled to. Nothing excites the Indian bureaucrats more than triggering intra-service disagreements and finding smart, brave and competent soldiers humouring them to get past their expertise in prevent matters from progressing. This is the way, as they understand in all their truncated wisdom, to follow the principle of ‘civilian supremacy’! Ironically, by their display of sentimental rhetoric, crass nepotism, myopic convictions and unholy compromises, the military hierarchy lands up vindicating that notion.
…it is not very rare that within the military hierarchy one comes across cases of misuse of superior authority to promote the interests of regimental as well as individually devoted cronies…
Futile Slandering
Past few years have seen the people, press and military fraternity becoming rather vocal in lambasting the defence ministry bureaucracy; all the ills afflicting the military institution are sought to be ascribed to their ‘collective machinations’ to repudiate the noble, military dedicated state-soldier covenant. To much extent, there is justification in that charge. Actually however, the bureaucracy does nothing, literally so, besides letting the military hierarchy, by its frivolity, put its one foot in its own mouth and the other foot into that of the sister arms’ or services’. Conversely, there is no mention of the inexplicable silence, if not acquiescence, of the military brass in letting injustices being briskly meted out to the military fraternity over the past decades. We do not seem to ask ourselves as to while the soldier’s status, emoluments and combat capabilities were being undermined over time by ignorant, possibly inimical, politicians and bureaucrats, what had been preventing the military brass from intervening. How could they, from their exalted perch, either fail to notice the impending subversion or submit to wrong-doings; why did we had to wait for two decades for a Major to take up the cudgels at judicial courts and another decade for some of the retired veterans to shame the Government in giving their due?
We may, if we must, exonerate those venerated military leaders of post-independence era who, being inexperienced in South Block manoeuvres, had been outsmarted into irrelevance by the hard-nosed ICS and romantically naive politicians’ combine. But it should not be a slander if we aver that they too had failed to bust the falsehood of anti-military machinations as propagated by that combine to banish the great Indian military institution – like the lie that it was the British Indian Army, not the Indian civil servants and the police, which had perpetuated the British rule, and that peace, progress and panchsheel were possible without the participation of the military institution in such endeavours. As for the later lot of military leadership, while these worthies had been engaged in holding the external enemies at bay, they too seem to have remained oblivious to the ‘backstabbing’ – if what happened to the soldiers’ status was truly so – from internal saboteurs. And now, we wish to cover our stupidity by blaming bureaucrats!
…it is time for the military leadership to forcefully espouse the state’s moral responsibility of nurturing, rather than undermining, the soldiery.
In any case, to be candid, there is no gain saying that barring exceptions, all those who denigrate the bureaucracy from outside would do no better, possibly even worse, if inducted into it. Indeed, it is not very rare that within the military hierarchy one comes across cases of misuse of superior authority to promote the interests of regimental as well as individually devoted cronies, biased sanction of funds, works and facilities and self-grant of grossly unscrupulous privileges, instances when bureaucratic misdeeds pale in comparison. Conversely, hands of bureaucracy have been at almost every matter in which the military institution’s purpose has been met – supplies, medical, education, and so on. Indeed, bureaucracy does not hinder us from unflinching commitment to training, professional acumen, preferring meritorious demands and observance of traditional military probity. It would therefore be wise to look within before crying over bureaucratic ‘villainy’. After all, there are many key issues which may be accomplished from within – like de-link of regimental spirit from professional decision making, building up war rather than VIP culture, judicious committal of finances, wholesome modernisation of fighting formations rather than largesse to particular arms, and standing upright against pressures to compromise with military ethos.
Understanding the System
The hoary and ever-noble state-soldier covenant leaves the burden of protection of the soldiers’ welfare at the hands of the state, thus leaving the soldier ready to plunge into such extraordinary situations into which no one else may venture. But given the dispensation prevailing, the post-independence Government of India could not initiate itself into honouring that culture; even when the native bureaucrats inherited the departments of soldiers’ welfare, they could not appreciate its true import. It took six decades for the Indian military fraternity to discover this glaring truth! Now that the charade has been unveiled, may be it is time for the military leadership to forcefully espouse the state’s moral responsibility of nurturing, rather than undermining, the soldiery.
No doubt, politicians and bureaucrats, aided by military beneficiaries of the existing system, would not let go easily of their comfort of status quo, and so it must be for the professionally committed military leadership to lead that revamp.
The sole purpose of military personnel is to fight enemies, not to manipulate bureaucratic norms or systemic processes. Obviously therefore, they cannot be expected to match bureaucratic wit on files, notes, business rules and regulations which even life-long bureaucrats find puzzling. Yet we cannot expect that all our demands be met without obstructive scrutiny from all angles. The answer to salvation from bureaucratic shackles therefore lies in military hierarchy’s deeper understanding of the governing and decision-making process and clever adoption of professional stance that leaves no scope for contest, particularly from within the fraternity, for the bureaucrats to assume decisive roles that they are not competent to perform. Towards this end, judicious revamp of the military staff structure in which civilian and long-tenure military officials have stake, is overdue. No doubt, politicians and bureaucrats, aided by military beneficiaries of the existing system, would not let go easily of their comfort of status quo, and so it must be for the professionally committed military leadership to lead that revamp. Cursing the system and lamenting political or bureaucratic indifference would not take us anywhere but to irrelevance. Looking within from that perspective, one cannot escape the uncanny feeling that the ailment lies within; even the Veterans’ associations have failed to join hands to the common purpose! Indeed, there is much to improve in our internal culture before the bureaucracy is called to question.
Whatever be the case, it is futile to contest the bureaucracy; even well meaning top bureaucrats have failed in that attempt – K Subramanian, for example. The state cannot do without them, nor can the people do so – least of all the military institution. The best way to tackle bureaucracy, as Field Marshal ‘Bill’ Slim had opined, is therefore to know more, make propositions unassailable, be firm in articulation and retains stoic fortitude in the face of bureaucratic machinations.
“Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status” – Laurence Peter.
© Copyright 2015 Indian Defence Review
No comments:
Post a Comment