.
The Dirty Nexus between Bureaucrats and Politicians in India: An Unholy Alliance That Corrodes Governance
Introduction
Because India is the most populous democracy, it relies on elected representatives to design policies and a neutral bureaucracy to apply them. Created for managing the state with no corruption, this model has eventually become a much greater concern. Both politicians and civil servants now share a hazy relationship shaped by self-interest, casual loyalty and widespread corruption. Not a useful agreement, but a powerful nexus focused on personal benefits rather than helping the public, has appeared.
https://www.profitableratecpm.com/ehup75nz4?key=379f7225ff2ed2dfde70a7135efad0b0
The Constitutional Ideal vs. Ground Reality
The Constitution has a vision for the Indian bureaucracy to function in a neutral, competent and accountable manner, putting the public and rule of law above everything else. In Articles 309 to 311, civil servants are protected so that there is no interruption in operations and so that they remain independent during changes of government. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel said the nation needed a strong “steel frame” to support and unite its new administrative system. According to Patel, if civil servants are influenced by politics, governance could quickly become impossible. Instead of damage from enemy armies, it is erosion from actions by Washington lawmakers that has put the steel frame at risk over the decades. Despite indicating impartiality by the constitution, today’s situation shows that politicians, coercion and compromises are common in bureaucracy. It is common for bureaucrats to take the party’s side, involve themselves in electoral cheating or purposely overlook wrongdoing—in the name of not breaking rules about their job. Across India, important decisions about employing, transferring and promoting officials are rarely guided by ability or necessity for the public.
They are mainly used to give or take away political favours. The Supreme Court has tried to resolve issues, as it did in the 2013 case of T.S.R. Subramanian v. In a 1967 judgement known as Union of India, the court ruled that civil servants must have fixed tenure because the new Civil Services Boards would shield them from political pressure But putting policies into practise isn’t going far enough. A number of states do not follow these guidelines and most bureaucrats—worried about consequences or hoping for future gains—usually do not act on them either. Because of this, there is a troubling difference between what the law says and how things are actually done.
While government officials say they want good governance, the actions taken undermine it. Bureaucrats are told to work for partisan goals instead of courageously sharing their views with leaders. Often, they must focus on party appearances first, execute orders without legal legitimacy and oppose others in the party or society at the leadership’s command. The result of not following the rules is visible—policy plans start to change unpredictably, corruption increases and citizens lose their trust. Ordinary citizens notice that the government machinery is neither just nor responsive but rather resembles the ruling party itself. Since the government has to win trust in diverse and democratic India in order to keep things united and stable such infractions can create serious complications. In many cases, the guarantees in the constitution made for bureaucratic independence now look like empty symbols rather than real protections. Earning people’s trust back after the scandal requires changes in the law and in how people in power and bureaucracy think. If the constitution’s original vision is not put into action, India will likely move towards government built around the bureaucracy which makes it easy to preserve power rather than serve the public.
The Power of Postings: Transfers as a Tool of Control
A noticeable aspect of this unhealthy relationship is that people use transfers and postings to target specific diplomats. Bureaucrats in India’s Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh states may be transferred twice or more during one year.
Frequent removals are usually done for politics rather than to support experience or quality in work. Integrity and strong work ethic are usually punished by giving these officials insignificant jobs. Equally, ministers who follow party commands—sometimes sacrificing their ethics—are put in charge of wealthy departments such as mining, excise and public works. Some places experience an active transfer posting industry, where bribes decide who will get each role and how long they will serve.
Ashok Khemka is an IAS officer in Haryana who came into the news after calling off a questionable land deal that involved a big political family. His reward? More than 45 times he has moved from one club to another. His storey highlights how being honest and brave is punished, while acting like a toady is praised in the system.
Scams, Kickbacks, and Cronyism
For a long time, India’s bureaucratic system has been troubled by scams, kickbacks and cronyism which not only take away funds but also damage people’s faith in democracy. Corrupt bureaucrats and self-serving politicians have a dangerous relationship, where loyalty means winning corrupt deals, dirty preferential treatment and getting away with unlawful actions.
This situation changes public office from a helpful duty into a rich source of income. Individuals in influential roles handling land, infrastructure, mining, procurement and licencing are regularly drawn into schemes that take money from taxpayers and move it to private or party accounts. As a result, officials who assist political agendas—legal or otherwise—are frequently permitted, even praised, to change rules, ignore infractions or alter data for protection and a slice of the rewards. Many scam cases, for example, 2G spectrum, the allocation of coal blocks, Common Games scandal and phoney real estate, saw politicians being joined by IAS, IRS and IPS officials important in letting such wrongdoings go on. This type of wrongdoing didn’t happen just because a few were greedy; it was because nobody was watching and no one was held responsible. Contractors and corporate allies often hide kickback payments in companies or firms owned by relatives, so finding and punishing those involved becomes very hard.
Institutions aren’t only concerned with sanctioning officials; they often transfer officers who are loyal to higher positions. Someone who follows regulations could end up appointed where it matters least, while those willing to bend the rules move forward swiftly and end up in income-producing fields like public works or mining. As a result, the reward system leads to corruption becoming much more common than uncommon. In addition, this problem results from cronyism which permits a closed group to direct important decisions—shaping tenders, tweaking official rules or sharing secret information for their own interests. Many times, bureaucrats help move things forward between politicians and those in industry, acting as intermediaries with a high level of accuracy. Retired government workers who stayed quiet while in office are often thanked with positions in companies, as advisers or on panels, fully reinforcing their earlier dishonesty.
Internal audits, CAG reports and parliamentary committees are frequently stopped, ignored or made to look suspicious when they examine the country’s executive branch. Raising concerns about these connexions often leads to journalists and whistle blowers being fired, facing charges or dealt with threats. Here, the harm caused by scams and kickbacks covers more than just money; it reaches the whole organisation. Belief in those in power falls apart, honest officers lose interest and people doubt the value of democracy. Besides catching the corrupt, the main challenge is to remove the systems that allow corruption to become common. Making sure audits are quick and open to inspection, placing trustworthy watchdogs in charge and updating how the public uses government platforms are useful, but they are only effective with a determined government. Therefore, the bureaucracy will see continued risks from playing favourites and unappeased collusion.
Bureaucrats as Political Instruments
A democratic government uses the bureaucracy as a fair and professional agency to keep the administration uninterrupted and true to its purpose no matter who is in charge. These days, the Indian bureaucracy often supports the narrow interests of the government, rather than carrying out the values set by the constitution. The roots of politicizing bureaucrats are deep, as in colonial India, when the ICS was first formed with the goal of governing from the British point of view. After independence, the ICS was renamed the IAS, but its structure did not change, so the system continued to be centralised, with authorities at each level. Over time, its vulnerability to political influence increased. At present, being a bureaucrat often means facing transfers, postings and promotions that rely more on loyalty to the government than on achievements. Police officers who obey the government are given attractive roles and good jobs after retirement, but those who disobey are kept out of important work or bullied for years.
Ashok Khemka, who works in the Indian Administrative Service in Haryana, is typical of this problem—he was reassigned more than 50 times after uncovering major land scandals. Equally, Durga Shakti Nagpal’s suspension in Uttar Pradesh came after she clashed with the sand mafia under political pressure. This happens because civil officials are often kept from acting according to their legal responsibilities. ACR, the management of cadres and vigilance inquiries are regularly used to intimidate staff within the government. Unfortunately, boards in charge of government hiring and the courts have sometimes not fully ensured bureaucratic neutrality, either because of weaknesses in regulations or their own connexion to politics. Consequently, administration loses autonomy and public policies are skewed, as politicians choose courses of action that help their storey of the day, instead of what is most effective. Since sorely anticipating repercussions, bureaucrats usually stick with influential political bosses, setting in motion a pattern of destructive flattery. It results in many challenges: it causes the breakdown of lawfulness, leads to crooked practises and damages the belief in responsible governance by the public.
.jpeg)
When bureaucrats are recruited to go after those with different opinions, undermine leaders the government dislikes or steer welfare programmes during elections, democracy suffers. Panel suggestions for fixed terms and independent civil service boards have passed the Supreme Court, yet implementation has generally been slow and hesitant by states. For progress to happen, the country also needs leaders committed to respecting the independence of institutions and public administration. At this point, India’s highly regarded civil service, nicknamed the steel frame of good governance, may become a mere shell, formed by politics rather than by right behaviour or ability.
https://www.profitableratecpm.com/dnn2ihpxmf?key=3650631fea186f9e482ec854ee81cb45Whistle blowers Are Silenced
Because corruption is often linked to power in some systems, whistle blowers among bureaucrats are very important for keeping everything in the open. In India, however, these individuals are commonly intimidated, blocked professionally or even put at risk of great harm. If bureaucrats expose scams, challenge unlawful orders or oppose political pressure, rather than rally support, they usually find themselves transferred, disciplined and publicly attacked. The administration, instead of being a safeguard, commonly uses influence rules, searches or legal claims to target and penalise those who disagree. Sending public servants away to other countries is reflected best in the storey of Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer. He served as the Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS and discovered many instances of corruption by powerful individuals, but was removed from his job soon after. Even though he was honoured with the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2015, he continues to be kept on the edge of legislative matters.
Satyendra Dubey, a project director at the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), was killed in 2003 for exposing wrongdoing in the Golden Quadrilateral project. Dubey contacted the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), but his name was revealed and that’s what led to his death. His death caused a great deal of anger and later, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was written. Still, the Act is mostly powerless since there are not many rules, its enforcement is poor and there are too many ways for whistle blowers to be identified or ignored. Even if they suffer no physical injuries, whistle blowers can experience mental harassment, do not get promoted and are excluded from their jobs. Senior bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma has frequently been targeted in court cases and by larger institutions because of his role in uncovering environmental and corporate problems. Silencing whistle blowers is only possible because integrity is not valued and may even be seen by some as dangerous to powerful groups. Whistle blowers disturb the link between government groups, politicians and big business—and so, must be restrained to keep things the same at the top.
Unfortunately, people have not found the judiciary or oversight bodies like the CVC or Lokpal to give them fast or reliable relief. In a large number of these instances, inquiries last for a long time, important evidence is hidden and whistleblowers are rarely protected. If a worker can get in trouble for doing what is right, it scares others who might have something to add. It’s clear that not telling the truth helps protect you, because admitting the truth puts you at risk of punishment. To achieve clean governance, the practise of silencing whistleblowers has to end. Laws should be strong, personnel must never be influenced and the public must recognise and respect those who serve. The elimination of every whistleblower who stands up for justice not only hurts that person but also harms the goal of accountable democracy. Here, silence is synonymous with truth being ignored—and the system seems very good at enforcing this ignorance.
The Judiciary and CBI: Pawns or Protectors?
Agencies in charge of law enforcement, for example the CBI, have sometimes been handled for political reasons. Back in 2000, the Supreme Court said the CBI had become like a "caged parrot" because its independence was gone. It is common for those in charge of the CBI to be selected for being loyal to the ruling party and probes into politicians are often put off, made weaker or abandoned altogether.
Although the judicial branch is more set apart, it has still suffered in some ways. Officials charged with scams are often able to put off justice for years or even forever by claiming they broke no laws.
Public Pay, Private Profit: The Economic Cost
This collaboration has brought actual financial losses. Because of corruption, there are delays in building infrastructure, greater costs for projects and huge amounts of money taken from vital public programmes.
The World Bank believes that corruption costs India more than 4% of its GDP annually. This task is mainly made possible when bureaucrats and politicians join forces. The rules are changed to favour certain interests, permits for construction are awarded to friends and following the law is a way to get rich. Losing public funds to corruption usually affects growth and increases the unequal treatment of rural and marginalised areas.
Media Complicity: Silence Bought and Sold
Media which ought to cheque and expose this nexus, now appears to be dominated by it. Journalists often get information for their storeys from secret leaks in government offices, although some build friendly relationships with politicians.
Media outlets with business clout gain from the government’s support. So, you might find that the press does not discuss bureaucratic responsibility widely. Many scams are reported, though the people responsible are not always found. Information is shaped to defend the powerful, so people become only partly aware and start to mistrust the media.
Civil Society Resistance: A Ray of Hope
Despite the darkness, a few things offer encouragement and hope. Protests from civil society, activists and even regular citizens are ongoing. Because of the RTI Act, citizens can now request more transparency, but activists working on this issue are frequently threatened. Because of public interest litigation, there have been independent investigations into key cases of fraud.
Even though people’s demands for better government through India Against Corruption in 2011 have not been fully addressed, the topic of governance became a mainstream concern. Thanks to pressure from people, the Lokpal was established, yet its success is unclear..
What Needs to Change?
Real change requires updating how our society is organised. As advised by the Supreme Court in 2013, bureaucrats should serve fixed terms to stop political influence. People should be able to see and monitor the digital transfer and posting process.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2014 must be applied completely and made stronger. These agencies have to be free to run their operations independently, without political oversight. Retired officials in the bureaucracy should wait at least five years before being allowed to join a political party or move into jobs previously regulated by government. Using RTI, citizen audits and monitoring on social media can prevent corruption.
Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
The main issue is who will monitor those who monitor us? The relationship between bureaucrats and politicians in India is more than just corruption—it seriously harms democracy, upsets the economy and damages public trust. Making progress starts with recognising what is wrong together, then staying persistent with reform efforts.
Governance in India should be reclaimed from the hands of those who make public service their own private interest. Before that, the dishonest will keep gaining advantages, those who do the right thing will suffer and the system will fail the people it was built for.
No comments:
Post a Comment