However, during the 50 years that this relationship has existed, the two have sometimes managed to work as a team. But, most of the time, they have been pulling in different directions. This has been more true in the recent past when both the politician and the bureaucrat have gone public about their problems with each other. First the politician.

Over the years, the politician has changed. He is no more driven by the missionary zeal to shape the world or society into a better entity. To describe it mildly, politics is now a profession, and a very unstable one at that. An average politician knows that being in power means "just 15 minutes of fame" in which he has to provide a life-time’s stock for himself, both politically and otherwise. He has , therefore, become aggressive and impatient and rightly or wrongly believes that "accountability" rests more with him than with the "faceless" bureaucracy. He resents a bureaucracy which does not quickly respond to his whims and fancies or which puts the rules before it while reading the diktats of the political masters. He wants his writ to run unhindered and over the head of the bureaucrat, if need be, or better still, it is honoured by him as an accomplice.

The Indian bureaucrat, on the other hand, is the product of two different set of influences: the British steel frame tradition and the Indian democratic welfare system. Moreover, the role of the bureaucrat here is as varied as the country itself. It is also a widely held belief that the bureaucracy’s role is not only dominant in the implementation of public policies but is pervasive too in respect of policy formulation.

The important grey areas between the politician and the bureaucrat are policy making, arbitration of interests, the treatment of individual and localised claims and the balance between political accountability and administrative discretion.

It seems axiomatic that the role of bureaucrats cannot be intelligently analysed without relating to its political context. A study conducted in 1990 has pointed out that the Indian bureaucrat has been involved in politics and political activity in a number of ways. Bureaucrats were found to be not neutral in politics and they exercised more powers in reality than the law permitted. Many times, ministers were found wanting in controlling their departmental heads. A similar study of the relationship between politicians and administrators at the district level has stated, ‘that the conventional notion of a clear-cut and clean division of functions between administrative and political leaders does not obtain in practice. Further, the classical doctrine of neutrality of the civil service has broken down."

Keeping the above findings in view and the role of a steel frame which the bureaucrats are supposed to play, the politicians have the following grievances against the bureaucrats:

1. The bureaucrats are hardly accountable to anyone. They have total job security, unlike the politicians who have to secure the mandate of the people every few years.

2. The bureaucrats have become highly politicised and lobby heavily for good postings.

3. In terms of averages, they are as corrupt but behave in a superior manner.

4. They are totally cut off from the common man who they are supposed to serve.

5. The politicians are the voice of the people. They not only have to make policy but also oversee its implementation, something which the bureaucracy resents.

6. The bureaucracy is the biggest trade union, you cannot touch it.

The bureaucrats, on the other hand, list the following grievances against the politicians:

1. The bureaucrats’ time is spent shifting from one job to the other. They are never given the time to even come to grips with the agenda of the department concerned, let alone deliver the results.

2. Transfers are used as punishment.

3. An honest officer is inconvenient to the current breed of politicians.

4. The politicians use bureaucrats whenever it serves their purpose and then discard them.

5. Political parties want a bureaucracy committed to them.

6. Legislators hardly bother about policy-making. They are only interested in the lucrative part of governance — postings, appointments, business dealings et al.

According to a serving commissioner- level officer, the biggest problem in the politician — bureaucrat relationship is that the areas of power are not clearly defined. "Politicians pass orders which are not legal and want us to act on them. No minister wants to take responsibility for the wrong-doings in his ministry. Did anyone resign because of the mustard oil adulteration deaths,’ he asks.

"Governments," he says," specially in states, want aligned officers. The politicians have developed instruments of personnel management. These are: appointments, transfers and making the life of an officer difficult in small ways. Where an average tenure of an SHO is two months, how can you expect the law and order situation to be under control?"

He is also critical of his ilk, calling them status quoist. "The ones at the top do not provide any leadership as they are so busy providing for themselves."

A seasoned Akali politician Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, Minister of Finance with many years of experience in and out of power reflects, "
A minister is answerable to the legislature. Politicians have many majbooris. If you see, a politician leads a tougher life, he is unsure of his future because even if you work, chances are you may not come back. We are judged all the time, we have no time of our own. The people have so many expectations. With the resource crunch on us and no jobs to give, we are in a no- win situation. As an MLA, you are worse off. Officers see things from a narrow perspective and do not understand our compulsions. The relationship is important, it should be better defined, roles clarified."

According to Capt. Kanwaljit Singh," To an extent, bureaucrats are right. The issue of transfers has assumed a far larger dimension than it should. We should formulate a transfer policy and stick to it. But they cannot escape the blame. They have been totally politicised. The way some of them curry favours is so abhorrent. Their commitment is only to themselves."

He adds, "This concept of an all- India service in which the accountability is to the Centre is wrong. The authority should vest in the states. There is a misconception that the Central government is a reservoir of all wisdom. We have to decentralise power. "

The Finance Minister, however, personally feels that it lies with the politicians to win the trust and confidence of officers through their conduct.

Jivitesh Mani, an I.A.S. officer with the Government of India, agrees that bureaucrats have to look inward and take a number of corrective measures. "We cannot but take the blame for the system’s deterioration. There are only 20 important posts. Why and who has made the IAS cadre so unwieldy that we fight amongst ourselves for those posts ? It is, of course, the bureaucrat. The politician should learn to manage bureaucrats better."

An officer with 10 years of standing blames the bureaucrats more than the politicians for the present mess. "I have seen senior officers demeaning themselves for a post. The higher they go, the worse they become. Even those nearing retirement present a pathetic sight as they lobby for a six- month extension. They bend and bend. It is we who have totally finished ourselves. Today, I might respect a politician, but not a bureaucrat because he plays worse politics. Tell me, which senior in which state is standing up for the juniors? Obviously, when we degrade ourselves everyone will take advantage of us."

Karan Singh Dalal, the Agriculture Minister in Haryana, is the quintessential politician of our times, wanting to get things done, impatient with the rule book. He feels "generalisations are not possible as things differ from officer to officer. Some guide us well, most others have their own hidden agenda and they try to put us in a soup. We are blamed for opening the Pandora’s Box of transfers but in most cases we are righting the wrong done by officers who play favourites amongst their subordinates."

"Frankly, I feel out country is not ready for democracy. If we have to improve the country, we should not have elections for the next 20 or 30 years. We have reduced our democracy to one of concessions. We need a danda."

Another politician,Pawan Bansal, feels, "Bureaucrats, especially the police, are highly politicised and arbitrary.

"I feel politicians are blamed unnecessarily. Take the example of slums. We are criticised that we do not allow the demolition of slums. But, who in the first place let the slums come up? The estate office is in nexus with slum lords and lets unauthorised colonies come up on government land. Then, ten years later they go on a demolition binge, so that they can mint more money. Chandigarh is an example of how autocratic and rude officers can be, and how many wrongs they can perpetuate.

An officer known for his forthrightness disagrees with the criticism. "Politicians blame us for the ills besetting the country but do they realise we provide the continuity to an otherwise chaotic state? There are still a number of honest officers. Are they provided a conducive atmosphere to work in?

The biggest irritant is when they think we are their personal servants. We are civil servants, we have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. At times when you don’t do as they say, politicians can become really vicious-- suspension, state enquiries, CBI enquiries are initiated against honest officers to make them pliable. How many honest SSPs are posted in districts or tolerated?"

According to a serving bureaucrat, "Powers have been vested in the politicians and short-sighted political executive tends to corner more power. This scenario has led to no-work culture. Soon a stage will come when the CM will have to directly order on inspector to go and inspect the sight of a crime because he will not listen to us."

Another perspective was provided by Raghubir Singh, a retired IAS officer who was part of the administration for 35 years and is now an active politician,"I do not agree with those who say that the ICS was the steel frame. If they had to face today’s pressures they would have crumbled. At the time of Independence, the IAS was idealistic. Over the years because of lack of leadership by senior officers, the bureaucrats have turned their juniors towards politicians and lost their moorings. I have seen how institutions have been destroyed more by senior bureaucrats than by politicians.

There are two sets of officers. One, who think politicians are all wrong, the other who compromise and bend. The struggle is for power. Today, corruption is a non-issue. A politician looses if he does not nurture his constituency and not because he is corrupt. So, why should he back an honest officer?"

According to Singh, the bureaucrat has to listen to the peoples’ representative. However, this does not mean that he becomes an accomplice in wrong-doings. The politician, on his part, has to realise the limitations of an official bound by an oath to the Constitution. This is the Lakshmanrekha which should never be crossed.