Affluence and splendour of the Raj
By Raghuvendra Tanwar

IN his usual but uniquely uncommon manner Mahatma Gandhi had warned: "Democracy cannot be run if you leave your thinking to be done by those who live in palaces, whether they be the British or our own countrymen" (June 3,1947, Prayer Meeting). Gandhi also often expressed disgust, anguish and pain for the manner in which British pomp, pageantry and protocol were being accepted by those on whom the responsibility to rule India had fallen:"The imposing array of bodyguards and liveried servants moving about in palatial buildings of provincial governors and ministers..... when the people are starving for want of food and employment."

Again on July 28,1947, he wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru, advising him on the urgent need for austerity and simplicity. In this letter, he urged Nehru to convince the Viceroy to vacate the Viceregal Palace (Rashtrapati Bhavan) and shift to a more humble building. Soon thereafter Gandhi got the impression that his suggestion had been well received by Nehru and the Viceroy (this of course was not quite the case) and wrote to the Viceroy: "May I say how deeply I have appreciated your wish to go to an unpretentious house as the chosen Governor-General of the millions of half famished villages of the nation". As we know Gandhiji’s suggestion does not seem to have received serious attention. The last Viceroy did not shift from RashtrapatiBhavan, in fact Nehru, himself after Gandhiji, was no more, chose for his own residence New Delhi’s second most elegant and grand building, the residence of the former British Commander-in-Chief in India.

Beginning from the top, the affluence, splendour and complex protocol associated with the rulers of British India was complacently accepted as pre-requisites for free India’s new dignitaries. To perceive of the problem as just a legacy of the British would be sweeping generalisation. The number of British troops in India at any given time, for example, ranged between 70,000 in the 19th century to 40,000 in the 1920’s, but the number of civilian administrators from the lowest to the highest never ever exceeded 4000. For a country the size of India, this was a small number. In this sense, therefore, the responsibility for implanting on a impoverished people, struggling with the experiment of democracy, a system of government which by its nature was exploiting and arrogant, must rest on the Indians who initially inherited the mantle to rule. As early as July 17,1947, Gandhi had warned Nehru: "We are going in for British extravagance, which the country cannot afford."

Just about a month before his death (May 27,1964), Nehru too when asked what he regretted most, observed:"Failure to reform the bureaucracy and free it from its colonial mould". Similar views were expressed by succeeding Prime Ministers, particularly Lal Bahadur Shastri. Indeed, no where does India’s national leadership appear to have failed more obviously than in resolving the dilemmas that an exploited Third World country experienced while freeing itself from over two centuries of colonial rule. Ironically the very system that personified in its opposition the struggle for freedom was adopted as a medium to pursue social and economic change in free India. As 50 years have now proved, the colonial system of administration inherited both as compulsive legacy and perhaps also by choice has failed miserably.

In any case "the colonial bureaucracy with its law and order approach, its commitment to social status quo were hardly an instrument for social and economic transformation." (Mark Tully, From Raj to Rajiv). This was a view maintained by most leaders during the fight for freedom. Nehru, too, had vowed to free India not only from the British but also from the mediums of colonial rule. Yet when the time came they all appeared helpless either by choice or by circumstances.

Many reasons have been given for why India was unable to develop a system of administration sympathetic, humble and suitable to its needs and its grassroot democracy. Noted historian, Prof. Ravindra Kumar says, Nehru and his associates could not but help adopting the colonial bureaucratic system because unlike, say as in Russia andChina, where complete socio-economic transformation took place in India, the Congress did not have the political cadres to implement socio-economic change.

To understand the problem in a broader perspective, the nature of British rule and its so-called ‘steel frame’ needs to be assessed. "The Indies are discovered", runs a petition addressed to King Henry V (1511), "and vast treasure brought from thence every day. Let us, therefore, bend our endeavours thither wards and if the Spaniards and Portuguese suffer us not to join them, there will be yet region enough for all to enjoy", (R.P. Masani, Britain in India). While the focus on India’s wealth remained the essence of British approach to the sub-continent, the British in due course developed in India a classical model of colonial administration.The principal objective being the enforcement of law and order, collection of revenue, maintenance of socio-economic status quo.

The British empire as we also know was not the result of chance or fate but of military power, a committed and highly effective administrative mechanism, duly supported by corrupt, intriguing and weak princely rulers. To rule became easier also because the worst form of feudal culture had eaten into the roots of Indian society over centuries of insensitive self seeking top heavy rule.

The British remained ever alert to the complications involved in ruling over a distant land, an alien people, an alien culture with different faiths. As a result, the two outstanding elements of the administration they created were elitism and loyalty to the masters (British interests). Added to this basic approach was a system of protocol that was designed to instil fear among the ruled. "The tours of the District Collector, his holding of courts in different parts of the district, and the pomp and show associated with it and the great distance at which the common man was kept created a situation where the masses developed fear of the administration." (C.P. Bhambri, Administration in a Changing Society).

To give an idea of the meticulous detail overriden with arrogance given to protocol and the effort to differentiate between the ruler and the ruled an example would be in place. In October 1872 the Viceroy had meeting with various princes of the region at Ambala. Protocol details for the Viceroy’s receiving the Maharaja of Jind were: "His Highness will be met as he alights from his sowar by one of the Viceroys ADC’s, at the door of the tent by the Under Secretary, with Foreign Department, at the edge of the carpet by the Foreign Secretary, who will conduct him to the Viceroy. The Viceroy will receive him standing... After a short conversation, the Raja’s attendants will be introduced. At the close of the meeting itter and pan will be served to the Raja by the Viceroy and to the attendants by the Under Secretary... A salute of eleven guns will be fired on arrival and departure of the Raja. A guard of honour will be drawn up at the entrance of the tent and will present arms as his Highness passes".

The Indian Civil Service that ruled colonial India comprised undoubtedly of exceptionally bright minds as far as Indian recruits were concerned. A difficult entry examination, tough and intensive training produced remarkable administrators, some of whom, for example B.K. Nehru, L.K. Jha, S. Ranganathan, and many others worked with distinction even in free India. "I am going to rely on the 411 of you to help us in the tasks ahead", (Sardar Patel cited by L.K. Jha, Mr Red Tape). However, more generally speaking the ICS was trained and recruited in colonial India to protect British interests. When interests of the common man clashed with the state there was little scope of impartiality.

The ICS was also covertly trained to instil a feeling of fear. There was no scope of reciprocal goodwill, the state was far too supreme. Arrogance was bred into the service. L.K. Jha cited interesting examples of how the old time ICS disapproved of humility in their cadre. In 1958, the ICS was honoured by the installation of a memorial ‘tablet’ (stone) by the Queen in the Westminster Abbey (premier and prestigious church). The words for the collective tribute read: "Let them not be forgotten for they served India well." Below this was a biblical quotation which had however, omitted the words "They walked humbly among the people". Subsequently, the church authorities wanted to complete the quotation. However, the ICS association strongly opposed the move and even represented to the Queen that the line "walked humbly among the people", should not be included. The Queen ultimately consulted Lord Atlee and ordered that in view of the ICS members’ objection the biblical quotation need not be completed. Such was the elevated stance with which the ICS had ruled India. As long as India was ruled by the British, there was nothing one could do about it, but the irony is this spirit and character was transfused into those who were entrusted to administer ‘free’ India after 1947.

To maintain an elevated identity, symbols of authority were created and introduced as codified administrative measures as a legacy of the ICS by more particularly the IAS. Guards of honour, saluting, flags with different colours, extensive protocol etc became parts of routine administration. Contrary to the norms of administration adopted by the British in their own country, in India, administration had been made a high flying symbolic task. "Among the four operational principles on which rests Britian’s Civil Service today, the first and most important is anonymity (of the civil servant)". (A.H. Birch, The British System of Governance). No civil servant of any stature in Britain, USA, Canada, France, Australia, Japan, Germany for example is provided the privilege of projecting one’s status by symbols of identity.

The tradition of anonymity adopted for the civil service by the British in their own country follows from the convention that the minister and the minister alone is responsible for the work of his department. The minister accounts for all credit and discredit. Rarely are civil servants mentioned in the media. But more importantly the principle of impartiality is duly linked to that of anonymity. The more a civil servant looses his anonymity, the more partial he is likely to be. Such is the tradition which the British have developed for themselves. Public display of authority is unknown in western democracies. But for their colonies the rules were reversed by European rulers. It was the misfortune of free India that its early rulers failed to appreciate the fundamental difference of the administrative spirit required to rule a colony on the one hand, and a infant democracy on the other.

The emphasis of distinguishing the ruler from the ruled is rooted in medieval and later colonial times. Today such symbolising of authority is seen to prevail in developing countries and former colonies alone. The developed have long since discarded the approach. Most developed countries have restricted such protocol procedures only for their executive and constitutional heads of government . But in India in line with its colonial past every district, every subdivision has its own ‘little head of state’. The frivolities associated with visits of VVIP’s are going to ridiculous levels to say the least. Vehicles of ‘public servants’ now carry not only the occupant but announce his status, demand right way on the road, courtesy ‘flashing lights’. Some have even created their own flags. In most developed countries only ambulances, police patrol vehicles and fire engines are known to claim a right of way. A senior journalist friend pointed out how some bureaucrats had even installed red and green lights outside their offices.

Fortunately there still remain civil servants who have not linked their professional competence to the frivolities of protocol and administrative arrogance. Dr P.C. Alexander, reputedly a fine officer and now Governor of Maharashtra, says:"Humility is an essential ingredient of character. It is the arrogance with which power is exercised by some officers that is causing the greatest resentment in the public against the service. A good civil servant may yield power, but should remain untouched by it." (Perils of Democracy).

The Greeks were the first to talk of democracy. For them it meant people’s power. They had a fascinating inclination of linking politics to ethics, wisdom and virtue. "That man will guard the interests of the state best who most fully believes that the interests of the state are identical with his own. The ultimate objective is the same, man is to be made to realise that he is first and foremost a servant of the community" (Plato, Republic).

Socrates believed, "Government in itself is not and (should not be) a paying thing and that the best governors are those who do not work for pay at all or even for reputation and status, but simply because if they did not govern somebody else would do it worse... the reward of good governance lay not in material advantages."